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."

Comments

Changed the view of the US?

[garcia]

Radio Interview from 9/11/2001.

While I disagree with just about everything he has to say he did mention (paraphrase) "now that the Cold War is over and now they want to wipe me out because I am useless." He's probably right. The USSR was using their hand picked superstars (athletes mostly) to make their country seem superior. Bobby Fischer certainly made the US look much better than usual in that regard, but he has the view that he single-handedly changed the view of the United States from a baseball and football (US) country to one of intellectuals... This I just don't agree with. Maybe for that brief moment in time (1972). It's certainly not considered that now (or in 2001).

Re:Changed the view of the US?

[TopShelf]

Maybe for that brief moment in time (1972). It's certainly not considered that now (or in 2001).

Oh, just give that Jeopardy guy a chance. By the time he tops $10 million, the country will be teeming with Brainiac wannabes...

Re:Changed the view of the US?

[Anonymous Coward]

What are you talking about? we certainly are a country of intellectuals now. we don't let jingoism and "big lie" techniques distract us from the important issues of the day, we have a thoughtful, well-reasoning president who knows being intelligent means you have to adapt to the situation, even change your views, and not stubbornly believe something despite all facts saying otherwise, we are reading books other than the bible, we believe in evolution and not creationism, and we understand that upper class tax cuts may provide a temporary "high" but will only lead to misery later on.

Oh wait that was just in my dreams

Re:Changed the view of the US?

[mumblestheclown]

What you say may or may not be true, but it bears noting that baseball and american football are two of the most intellectual sports around. In fact, off the top of my head i'm having a hard time coming up wih any examples of more intellectual major team sports (and mind you, I have been a rather serious futbol player for quite a number of years now - the beautiful game is more about skill, athleticism, and spur-of-the-moment creativity than intellect).

In fact, the only continental team sport that comes close in terms of intellectual elegance i think is cycling (a la the tour de france - forget about team pursuit and other such stupidities), and even then the issue is somewhat muddled because you have different teams vying for different goals (different jerseys, stage victories, long stage leads to maximize sponsor exposure, etc).

You may or may not think that baseball is boring, and you may be of the mistaken impression that american football is a game where people don't get hurt seriously because they wear pads, but to call these sports the opposite of intellectual may not be the best example. both involve deep strategy in addition to atheleticism, skill, an undersanding of stochastic processes, etc.

Re:Changed the view of the US?

[QEDog]

but the fact that one's a good chess player doesn't put him in the same class as others like Richard Feinman.

I think you meant Feynman

Re:Changed the view of the US?

[AsbestosRush]

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?

Re:Changed the view of the US?

[maduro55]

You're either very young or been living in a cave. Flamebait!

Re:Changed the view of the US?

[Otter]

Well I had never heard of him before this.

At the time, though, he was very widely known. Not quite "Miracle On Ice" level, maybe, although Fischer may in fact have higher name recognition than Mike Eruzione or Ken Morrow. Certainly they made a movie about Fischer first.

It's amazing how poor people's memory can be, but the image of the Soviet Union as a nuclear-armed Bulgaria was created purely in hindsight. Fischer was before my time, but I'm old enough to remember be lectured about how we lazy, stupid American kids were doomed in the face of Soviet schoolchildren studying hours of astrophysics every day before heading off to physical training that exceeded what NFL players did back then. I was a bit startled when Russian children started arriving in our school. (Mostly Jewish emigres whose parents had served time.) I was "This is what they keep scaring us over?"

Re:Changed the view of the US?

[Richthofen80]

It's certainly not considered that now (or in 2001).
By Whom?

The United States won the biggest brainiac contest in 1969 when we beat the entire world to the Moon. (although there was only one contender) The United States invented the motorized aircraft, the polio vaccinne, the internet, the light bulb, the movie camera. They discovered how to harness the atom bomb. We have a lot of intellectual achievement under our belt. 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.

I know what you're really saying; the rest of the world thinks we are loud, crass, and uncivil. They think so because we come with more common sense and know-how, and we call things like they are. Most Americans refuse to buy into the socialist dreams of the intellectuals of Europe. In Europe both the popular opinion and the opinion of the 'intellectuals' is one of self-sacrifice, egalitarianism, and anti-capitalism. In the US it is only our intellectuals. Our 'common folk' still believe in hard work and the self-made man, its why we've got a majority of the intellectual achievements of the last two centuries under our belts.

Re:Changed the view of the US?

[Eisenstein]

What is "futbol"?

Re:Changed the view of the US?

[aePrime]

Pardon while I feed the trol...

Sure, people like money! But let's say Bill Gates gets a tax cut (or some other wealthy businessman). Does this mean the Microsoft will hire more people? Not likely. MS has billions in cash, they can hire whoever they like. Bill's a smart guy - MS hires people when they need people, not when they have more cash. This can be applied to any large wealthy company.

Will Bill spend more money? Well, rich people don't get rich by spending money. He's got a lot to spend, if he wants. I doubt this will encourage him to spend more.

Giving money to the lower class, however, is a better idea. I'm not rich. I tend to spend all I make, because, well, I have to. If I kept more of my money, I'd probably spend that too. Poor people spend more of their money than rich people do, because rich people don't have to spend large percentages of their money.

I'm no economist; this is just the say I see things.

Re:Changed the view of the US?

[reidbold]

Every sport involves deep strategy. Just because you are not familiar with these strategies doesn not mean the don't exist.

Saying that 'merican football and baseball are somehow head and shoulders above everyone else is simply ignorant.

Of all the sports I'm familiar with, I honestly can't think of one where being smart, quick thinking, and strategical isn't an asset.

Maybe ultimate frisbee? All that requires is getting in the open. And even that requires some planning.

Re:Changed the view of the US?

[lpp]

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.

Re:Changed the view of the US?

[ViolentGreen]

That I do. I don't know much about Mr. Feynman except for his reputation.

Re:Changed the view of the US?

[Anonymous Coward]

Nope, [the rich] usually just toss [their money] in the bank. Trickle down does not really exist.

Because banks certainly don't loan the money out to any businesses, entepreneurs, or anything like that. They only make money by charging service fees and peddling mortgages.

Are you seriously this fucking uneducated?

Re:Changed the view of the US?

[clintp]

I'd argue that Hockey might exceed both of those as a sport requiring a lot of smarts to be played well. In a smoothly flowing game (as opposed to a grinding, gnashing type of game) it's all the position play and team coordination of football but at high speed with no breaks at all in the action.

Sure there's brutes that get by on nothing but strength or skill, but they never really go anywhere in the NHL. Strength alone gets you nothing but penalties. Many of the feared NHL goons are really smart guys. Skill alone isn't of much use if you can't play in a coordinated offense.

And the hot-swapping of players while play is in motion adds a whole other dimension to the game that isn't done anywhere else in sports (except maybe in auto racing, and that's not really a "sport").

Re:Changed the view of the US?

[lowe0]

Soccer, champ.

Re:Changed the view of the US?

[TrentTheWiseA]

You might think about Nascar racing as an intellectual sport, if you get past the redneck stereotypes. Calculating pit times, average speeds, fuel consumption, drafting to save fuel, remaining laps, average lap speed, etc, etc, etc,..

It's amazing how much skullwork goes into planning and managing a driver in a race.

Re:Changed the view of the US?

[Anonymous Coward]

Truly amazing how in the textbooks used in American schools, the Space Race is forgotten, and the stress is upon the Moon Race.

Or perhaps not, given that the race to put a man on the moon was very nearly the only space landmark the US actually beat the Soviets to.

Re:Changed the view of the US?

[Anonymous Coward]

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."

Re:Changed the view of the US?

[Anonymous Coward]

All of those achievements were made by people from other countries, including European intellectuals like Wherner von Braun, who spent his childhood dreaming of the stars...
Were would he be if his Dad was a loud obnoxious football-watching overweight moron who beats his 'nerd' son?

Re:Changed the view of the US?

[Anonymous Coward]

The parent gets +2 Funny? +2 FUNNY for the same never ending "bush is st00pid" mantra these tools like to go on and on about? Is this the only joke you idiots actually comprehend?

Wait, sorry.. I forgot I was on slashdot. Where people can say anything they want. Well, as long as they aren't a) deeped WASP, b) religious, or c) economically sound.

Re:Changed the view of the US?

[torpor]

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 ...

Re:Changed the view of the US?

[RevAaron]

No joke. One of the reasons the wealthy are wealthy is that they know how to save. How to put their money somewhere it gains interest, be it the bank or the market.

Re:Changed the view of the US?

[amliebsch]

Of all the sports I'm familiar with, I honestly can't think of one where being smart, quick thinking, and strategical isn't an asset. How about bowling? Seems like the only real asset is skill.

Re:Changed the view of the US?

[lseltzer]

>>Wherner von Braun, who spent his childhood dreaming of the stars...

And his young adulthood building rockets for Hitler to drop on London. To quote Tom Lehrer:

• Oh don't say that he's hypocritical
  Say rather that he's "apolitical"
  "Once rockets go up who cares where they come down
  That's not my department" says Werner Von Braun

Re:Changed the view of the US?

[amliebsch]

it amazes me today that americans -still- know nothing about propaganda

Fancy that, Americans care more about reality than appearances.

Re:Changed the view of the US?

[mumblestheclown]

Just because you are not familiar with these strategies doesn not mean the don't exist.

oh stop it. i've played more team sports - from cricket thru rugby league through association croquet through american football (with pads) through beach volleyball through even a bit of aussie rules than you know exist (hmm.. i guess i just called croquet a sport - that actually classifies as perhaps *the* most intellectual sport, if you count it as a sport).

Your argument is "because all sports involve some degree of strategic thinking, therefore all sports involve the same degree of strategic thinking." this is equivalent to "because linux has gimp, it is equivalent to (other platform) with photoshop."

which is to say, an intellectually dishonest argument.

Re:Changed the view of the US?

[Lumpy]

Huh? you obviousally never played a round of Australian Rules Football.

That is the most civilized and intelectual game ever invented.

Most of the players can identify almost all human internal organs and bones just by looking at them lying there on the playing field.

Re:Changed the view of the US?

[Amarok.Org]

I know what you're really saying; the rest of the world thinks we are loud, crass, and uncivil. They think so because we come with more common sense and know-how, and we call things like they are.

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.

Re:Changed the view of the US?

[cbelt3]

Sort of, but, well, Blah. It's not that the "United States" grows intelligent people any more or less than any other country on this planet. Same base gene pool, kids. It's more that this country offers / offered the necessary freedoms and opportunities to let the hard working folks with dreams dream and achieve great things. Now that we're becoming more like other countries with more lawyers than scientists and philosphers, it's tougher to achieve dreams. Especially when everyone is suing you. Of course, that happened a lot back then (think Tesla)

Re:Changed the view of the US?

[Qzukk]

And the money goes out in the form of business loans, home loans, car loans, personal loans, lines of credit and so forth.

This creates debt, not more money.

Eventually all of this money plus some has to be returned.

So to review: $500 tax credit for working class Joe: $500. $500 loan from some bank at 1% total interest: -$5. Which does Joe want?

Re:Changed the view of the US?

[Malc]

I guess you don't watch Formula 1.

Re:Changed the view of the US?

[RobinH]

The United States invented the motorized aircraft, the polio vaccinne, the internet, the light bulb, the movie camera.

So how come an American didn't invent the telephone, or the radio, or discover insulin? The list of things not invented by Americans is far more extensive than the list of things invented in the U.S., whether they were invented by an American or not. The fact that you don't know what those items are does not mean they don't exist, or that you don't enjoy the fruits of non-American genius.

By the way, the U.S. is known for its industrial prowess, not a distinct technological advantage, other than in military technology (which is because it dumps so much of its GDP into military research). Certainly it's inhabitants are no more insightful than those from any other place I've travelled (about 13 countries, which is a small sample, but far more countries than most Americans have been to).

But I suppose if you've been told over and over again every day while you grow up that you're the best, then you'd end up with one hell of an ego, wouldn't you?

Check this out, brainiac: The History and Geography of Inventions.

Re:Changed the view of the US?

[Viking Coder]

You obviously know nothing of the rules of Jeapordy!

The defending champion can only use their current-day winnings to wager. It's not like the other two contestants have "$0" and Ken has "$1,006,384" at the beginning of the show. They all start at zero, at the beginning of each show.

Re:Changed the view of the US?

[reidbold]

Yeah, that fits.

Re:Changed the view of the US?

[Richthofen80]

So how come an American didn't invent the telephone,
Alexander Graham Bell?
Speaking of anti-intellectual... jeez.

Re:Changed the view of the US?

[hraefn]

I beg to differ.

Auto racing is most definitely a sport. It requires lightning-quick reflexes, endurance, and smarts.

It also requires the most cojones.

ESPN.com did a nice article that reflects this.

Re:Changed the view of the US?

[Rethcir]

Mod parent up. Supernerds with no concept of sports at all aside from them pre-empting Futurama (I know - that was me a few years ago) tend to not know about the mental aspect of sports at all. Math-oriented people interested in learning about the more intellectual aspects of sports are highly encouraged to read Moneyball, which documents a bunch of guys' efforts to disect baseball into more useful set of statistics. You might also wanna read up on such Football coaches as Belichick, Madden and Ditka, or rent the film Miracle. (I gained a strong appreciation for sports from my ex-roommate, who was pretty much a walking sports encyclopedia, and yet had a 3.59 cum GPA majoring in Computer Science with a minor in Electrical Engineering).

Re:Changed the view of the US?

[Aerog]

I can see your point about football, mostly on the QB's part, IMHO. You need to figure out your own strategy and anticipate the other team's and there's the opportunity to revise on every play. It's a continuously-changing strategy in a way. However, this is more on the QB's part. For the rest of the players, I'd think it's more about taking your part of the chosen strategy and improvising on it. For them, it's somewhat the same as futbol (however the spelling, fuessball, etc.) in terms of intellectualism.

Baseball, however, I'd be more inclined to disagree on. It's more of a game of chance (where will the ball go) and responding to that chance in the best possible way. It has strategy involved, but it's not strategy in the same way as american football. It's more stretegy like cricket, which I might be inclined to suggest is slightly more strategic in that you can get players batting for an hour or more just to keep the game running in order to give the opposing team less of a chance at bat. That and figuring out the score of a cricket game can be an intellectual process in itself (unless you're really familiar with the sport).

No, I don't think I can pick a "most intellectual" sport, just because they all require strategies of a different kind and different goals. In some ways, it's like comparing apples to oranges. I agree, though, that american football is more intellectual than it's given credit for.

Re:Changed the view of the US?

[Richthofen80]

I agree. Baseball is one of the most mathematical sports around. It is mired in statistics, and choices based on past performances. Stats drive baseball for a lot of coaches.

Re:Changed the view of the US?

[neonduckshoe]

That's an excellent example. Bill gates is fairly representative of most tax payer after all... ACK..AHEM... ERR...

Re:Changed the view of the US?

[Tassach]

One of the reasons the wealthy are wealthy is that they know how to save

Yeah, it's easy to save 10% of your income when you're making $250K/yr, can afford to hire a top-notch tax advisor and can afford to put thousands of dollars into tax shelters. It's a bit more difficult to save 10% of your income when you're making $25K/yr and you have kids to support. The guy making $250K can save $25K a year effortlessly, with zero impact on his family's standard of living. The guy making $25K can save $2.5K a year but doing so will seriously hurt his family's standard of living.

Re:Changed the view of the US?

[sbma44]

Actually Utimate, when played at a high level, involves a lot of strategy. There are a number of different defenses and offenses. Interestingly, the entire defensive team needs to react in unison when the disc changes hands on the offensive side -- the person doing the guarding tries to force the thrower to one side or the other (to either a conventional backhand throw or a 'flick', depending on that thrower's individual strength). Everyone else needs to adjust the defense they're playing to anticipate the disc arriving from that direction. It's quite a trick.

Certainly it's not as complicated as American football, but I'd say it could give basketball a run for its money (in terms of complexity) once fully developed.

But I only played college ultimate for one semester six years ago -- I'm sure there's a lot more to it than I picked up, and that the strategy has advanced since then. In fact, the reason I stopped playing (besides not being physically competitive with the amazing athletes that succeed at the sport) was that there was too much strategy -- I had learned Ultimate in basic pickup games, with lots of quick cuts and flashy plays. Played at a high level, the sport was too disciplined and complex for me to find it much fun.

Re:Changed the view of the US?

[IncohereD]

Unless Bill puts his money underneath his mattress, or buries it in the back yard, then the money is out in the economic system.

I'd agree with you, and am a big fan of that notion, but the problem is that Microsoft keeps the large majority of their reserves as cash. Which just fucks everything up. They need to start investing/spending.

Re:Changed the view of the US?

[imroy]

Ok, IANAE (I am not an economist), but from what I understand the "trickle down effect" just doesn't work the way people want it to. Firstly, The rich are already spending a lot of money. Giving them even more isn't going to make as big an impact as doing the same to a poorer person. Secondly, the rich still only make up a small percentage of the world's/US's population. So giving a tax cut to the poor instead of the rich will affect many more people. And lastly, the money spent by a rich person doesn't really trickle down to the needy. 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). The money goes to some company, and executive pay is almost universally improportionate to the worker's pay. So it's basically the rich paying the rich, with very little actually trickling down.

If Bush Jr really wanted to encourage the economy, a tax cut for the poor would have made a much better and longer lasting impact to many more people. People could pay off debts, get a better education, spend more time with the kids, start a small business, etc. He could have given people living on or near the povety line the opportunity to pick themselves up off the floor and make something of themselves. That would really help the economy. But instead he just gave the rich more of what they already have too much of.

Re:Changed the view of the US?

[aananth_s]

They discovered how to harness the atom bomb

And how many german scientists worked on it ;)

Re:Changed the view of the US?

[clary]

Tax cuts are a "temporary high" because they must be met by either lower government spending in the future, undoing 1., or higher interests rates and higher interest payments to non-US residents, undoing 2.

Discussion of tax cuts always seem to ignore a crucial factor: the tax rate before the cut. From what information I have been able to gather in my feeble, non-economist research, the tax rate cuts of Reaganomics were followed by an increase in tax revenue. (Reagan spent that and more, but that is another story.)

Anyway, look at it this way. What will be the total revenue if the tax rate were 0 percent? Zero. What will be the total revenue if the tax rate were 100 percent? I can guarantee you that tax revenue from my lazy ass would also be zero in that case. If you are trying to maximize revenue, then there is a sweet spot someplace in between. (Whether maximizing revenue should be the goal is also another discussion.)

A serious discussion of taxes must consider what should be the absolute tax rate. Republicans want to lower tax rates? Make them tell you what is their ideal tax rate for each income level. Democrats say tax cuts are irresponsible? Make them tell you what rates for each income level would be appropriate.

Re:Changed the view of the US?

[haystd]

This creates debt, not more money.
Not necessarily, debt can be used wisely. For example, a mortgage can be a very good thing as long as a person intelligently shops for a home and a good mortgage and doesn't buy beyond their means, plus most people can deduct a portion of the interest (on homes) in the US. The same is true of college loans, it provides the resources to go to college for many and the interest may be deductible.

Re:Changed the view of the US?

[Igmuth]

Einstien and Oppenhiemer designed bombs to drop on Japan. Are they really any different?

Re:Changed the view of the US?

[Anonymous Coward]

I was a bit startled when Russian children started arriving in our school. (Mostly Jewish emigres whose parents had served time.) I was "This is what they keep scaring us over?"

Depends on where they were coming from. A friend from Kiev area says everyone in his school district went through summer military training, learning to throw grenades, fire guns, etc, and that this was common throughout the area. When i mentioned this to a girl from Azerbaijan, she just rolled her eyes and said, "We never did anything like that - those Ukranians took everything way too seriously".

Re:Changed the view of the US?

[Analogy Man]

A few years ago the likes of Lay and Fastow were poster boys for rewarding innovation and the private sector/market forces controlling everything rather than "Big Government".

Now that CA has been bankrupt by the leeches in TX and the leeches in TX have been sucked dry in turn by greedy bastards...

To cut my rant short...Government needs to do what no market force free enterprise will. And that in my opinion is a good thing.

Re:Changed the view of the US?

[Brian_Ellenberger]

But let's say Bill Gates gets a tax cut (or some other wealthy businessman). Does this mean the Microsoft will hire more people? Not likely. MS has billions in cash, they can hire whoever they like. Bill's a smart guy - MS hires people when they need people, not when they have more cash. This can be applied to any large wealthy company.

Two points:

A) If you have extra cash you can afford to invest in new projects which requires hiring new people. If you are short on cash then your more careful about new projects. If you have a very large amount of cash you can afford to blow it on risky R&D.

B) More importantly, in my opinion, is the fact that the more money the government controls the more powerful it becomes---and a government which is too powerful is something to be feared. IMHO, most of the posters on Slashdot lack a healthy fear of the government. The government is the ultimate monopoly---one that can arbitrarily increase its income, has a large standing army, and can come in at any time and take away your freedom.

The more money and power the government has, the more people rely on it, the more it will control our lives. Once the government gets too large and people become too reliant then not even democracy will help since those in power can simply use that reliance to defeat anyone who wishes to change things.

Brian Ellenberger

Re:Changed the view of the US?

[dogbowl]

While I can't deny *everything* you've said, the traits you mentioned above certainly are not unique to Amercians.

Try watching Japanese tourists sometime, or British kids somewhere on the continent to watch a soccer match.

Citizens of every country think they're superior. (and apparently you think so of yourself too)

Re:Changed the view of the US?

[Deathlizard]

In the case of Bill Gates, most of his wealth is tied to the stock market, where he heavily invests. That's why he lost a ton of his wealth when the stock market blew up in 2000.

If he did get some sort of tax cut, it is safe to say that most of it would be invested. Since it's being invested, whatever company he invests in, and not necessiarly Microsoft mind you, would get a benefit and they would be creating the jobs.

It drives me nuts that people actually believe that the rich are all like "Scrooge Mc'Duck" and have a huge 5 story safe where they put all the money in. That may be true for some rich eccentrics, but most wealthy entrepreneurs tend to invest a majority of their wealth in the stock market for the long term.

Re:Changed the view of the US?

[RobinH]

He's Scottish, and worked on his inventions all over the place. Claiming the telephone was invented by an American is quite a stretch.

Re:Changed the view of the US?

[Cymage]

Here is a person that doesn't want to keep more $$$ in their pocket.

Buffett slams dividend tax cut

One of world's richest calls plan 'voodoo economics,' says it puts burden on low-income families.

Quotes: "The 3 percent overall federal tax rate I would pay -- if a Berkshire dividend were to be tax free -- seems a bit light," Buffett wrote.

"Putting $1,000 in the pockets of 310,000 families with urgent needs is going to provide far more stimulus to the economy than putting the same $310 million in my pockets," Buffett added.

CNN

Re:Changed the view of the US?

[bluprint]

Actually, there is a multiplier (something like 2 - 2.5 if memory serves) by which economists say wealth is created for every dollar deposited into the bank as savings.

Re:Changed the view of the US?

[torpor]

Bah! Propaganda is not about either of those, either!

Re:Changed the view of the US?

[Anonymous Coward]

I don't give my money to the government, they take it. The greatest powers that the common person has is the right to vote and the ability to spend their money wherever they choose. Government doesn't really listen to the common people except once every four or so years but it listens to business all the time. Businesses, however, MUST pander to the consumer in order to survive. If people stopped buying gas from Exxon, Exxon would be in trouble very quickly, if the government cracked down on them it may take a decade or more to work out -- Valdez anyone? Business must ask me for my money -- they cannot take it. Government can take it. Once I lose that power they no longer have to come to me for my money. Then, I am at the mercy of the state.

Re:Changed the view of the US?

[Rei]

Ah, so high upper class tax brackets are a hindrance on the economy? Gee, you should have told that to the governments of the US during the 1940s, 1950s, and 1960s, when the top US tax bracket hovered between 70-85%, and which (surely by pure coincidence) was our nation's greatest boom time. Then, our top tax bracket starts falling, all the way to below 30% under Reagan (while western Europe's top brackets rise), and (surely by coincidence) Europe's economy gains on the US's by leaps and bounds.

Surely it was a fluke, since you're so insistant that high top tax brackets will ruin the economy.

Re:Changed the view of the US?

[rusty0101]

And the toss it in the bank to earn interest.

You haven't looked at the amount of interest your money at the bank is earning, and compared it to the interest you are paying on loans lately have you?

There is a significant difference in the rates involved. Some of that difference goes to pay the bank employees. Very little of it goes to paying interest to the customers saving at that bank. Current interest rates for "regular savings" at the bank I deal with are 0.10%, or annually 1 dollar for every thousand dollars you save.

If you can open an Indexed account, the rate iscurrently 0.50%, or $5 for every $1000 saved per year.

APR on a variable rate line of credit for 10,000 over 10 years is 5.990% (and can go up or possibly down)

That means that for every 1000 dollars you 'save' that the bank loans out, they get between $54.90 and $58.90 every year, and you get between $1 and $5 that year. The ratio is worse if they only give out fixed rate loans, as those are going out at 8.440% now, changing the money they get to be between $79.40 and $83.40 a year, vs. your $1 to $5.

Granted there are other options for saving money at the bank. CD's for example, if you can drop 25,000 for between 60 and 144 months, can get you as high as 3.15% (maybe higher at other locations, or with other banks)

All numbers above from Wells Fargo, for Minnesota.

-Rusty

Re:Changed the view of the US?

[JohnnyCannuk]

Hey pin head, he may have lived in Salem Mass and filed with the US patent office, but he was a Canadian Citizen (originally from Scotland) and spent most of his life in Nova Scotia and Ontario.

So before you go spouting off about being anti-intellectual, try doing a Google search...

Re:Changed the view of the US?

[MeanSolutions]

> Well I had never heard of him before this.

I suspect that people with no interest in Chess would not have heard of him, but that does not mean he was not a good Chess player in his day.

> Chess requires an enormous amount of stragegy and intellect

Indeed, but Go requires more.

Re:Changed the view of the US?

[swv3752]

The flip side is that it costs $x to eat. It costs $y to pay for a domicile. It costs $z for clothing. There are bare minimum costs just to survive. It costs a bit more to actually live. Tax the lowest classes too much and you will eventually get public unrest, riots, and revolts.

Re:Changed the view of the US?

[Anonymous Coward]

Poor people don't pay taxes. I make 36,000USD and have 3 kids. At the end of the year, I get everything I paid and more back.

Small Businesses deserve the biggest tax breaks, IMO.

I also believe that the goal of every single politician should be to DECREASE the programs that it offers over time. I'm sick and tired of people becoming so dependant on the government. It only encourages lazieness. Both on the part of the person taking the handouts, and on the part of the people who should be helping their fellow man. Instead, people just say "Go to the welfare office dude... free money!"

sheeesh

Re:Changed the view of the US?

[abigor]

You certainly live up to your name.

Re:Changed the view of the US?

[Anonymous Coward]

its amazing, all these foreign born people keep coming to the US? But We're so Loud, and Crass, and Anti-intellectual.

He states his residence as Salem. He might not have been an American Citizen, but he moved here and became a de-facto american. The 'brain drain' is nothing new. the brightest minds know america. they come here because we, at least still somewhat, honor achievement and talent and greatness.

Re:Changed the view of the US?

[radish]

Formula 1 racing is a team sport, and is probably the most technical in the world. From the car designers, software engineers and mechanics through to the team strategists who plan how much fuel to load and when, with what tyres and how to respond to the actions of the other teams. And that's without even considering the drivers....

IMHO, that qualifies as intellectual.

Re:Changed the view of the US?

[Art_XIV]

A few years ago I spent several months working with a developer who was from Russia. Being a bit of a xenophile, I regularly questioned him regarding Russian life, politics, culture, etc, and was even able to explain a few curiosities of American culture to him.

One day during lunch we found out that we had both been in the Army (not the same Army) at the same time, back when there was still a Cold War. I began to chuckle over the propoganda that the Army endeavored to instill in myself and my fellow soldiers. 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!

Sergei began to laugh, too, and said 'That's the same sort of thing that they used to tell us about you Americans.'

Re:Changed the view of the US?

[Slime-dogg]

The government doesn't count as a consumer. In fact, when the government takes and spends money in the economy, it becomes a competitor with the rest of the businesses. This has a de-stabilizing effect, because the amount of money that government can throw into the economy is so much greater than most other businesses. We don't want government participating in a free market, otherwise we'll end up with a situation like we had in the 70's... mass inflation. The government has the duty of regulating interest rates, tax rates, and the minimum amount of money a bank can keep (this has the biggest effect).

It's better to use trickle-down to distribute the money, since it is the economy that regulates where the money goes, not the government. It does work, it just takes a while. Economic policies (unless they are dramatic monetary policies) do take a number of years before the effect becomes apparent. Look at the growth we had in the 90's, to which Clinton applied a poor policy that helped in the short run (blowing the bubble), but killed us in the early 2000's (pop!).

Re:Changed the view of the US?

[Anonymous Coward]

The poor are already paying almost nothing. Somewhere around 10-15% for families making less then $40,000... Of course $40,000 is quite a bit to be considered poverty. I think the idea is that lowering a lower or middle class person's tax rate a few percent isn't going to make a huge difference in their bottom line, at lease not enough for them to go out and build a new factory. A more affluent person may actually be able to make an impact on the efficiency of the economy.

Re:Changed the view of the US?

[PCBman!]

Well, that's actually rather misleading seeing as you need to buy deep into your means to pay enough interest to actually get a nice portion of your money back. If you buy a house you can REALLY afford, that's not likely to happen so much.

Same is true with student loans, the interest on enough loans to go to an affordable state school generally isn't enough to give you a sizeable deduction.

Also, your interest paid in a year drops as your principle is paid, meaning you get smaller and smaller deductions. The fact that they're only deductions means that you can only get a fraction of your money back, as well.

To me, it just sounds like they try to give a break to people who go farthest into debt.

Re:Changed the view of the US?

[Chris L. Mason]

>I don't know of a single person who doesn't want to keep more $$$ in their pocket.

How about Warren Buffet and Bill Gates Senior? They both think they, as some of the richest men in the world, should be paying *more* taxes, not less. This is in order to better help society, and to not create a new aristocracy (by passing all their money onto their children.)

Re:Changed the view of the US?

[Garabito]

Why poor people remain poor?

Because they don't invest.

And why don't they invest?

Because they don't save.

And why don't they save?

Because they are poor!

Re:Changed the view of the US?

[H8X55]

or
3. Investing into already mature companies (IBM, Dell, etc.)
4. Investing in real estate which then drives land prices and local tarriffs up, making it harder for first time buyers.
5. Buying luxury items. Is a 5% increase in yacht sales enough to prompt boatbuilders to hire and train new American employees? Is Mercedes going to have a job fair because they're selling a few hundred more units per month?

Re:Changed the view of the US?

[phayes]

As a dual national having lived in a number of contries & met them while on vacation, I'd extend your comments somewhat. When on vacation in faraway lands EVERYBODY tends to be louder/ruder/less discreet than they are at home. exceptions to this rule are more the exception than the norm whatever the nationality.

Re:Changed the view of the US?

[Slime-dogg]

Whoah. Bush is fun to make fun of. It doesn't actually reflect the effectiveness of his governance, nor does his propensity to attract jokes reflect the rebound that our economy has had... He's just easy to make fun of. Nearly every president is.

I'd say that more people have a problem with Ashcroft than Bush, even though John is the result of George's decision-making process. I'd say that Bush has really only made a couple of mistakes:

1. Telling us that there were WMD in Iraq, and that's why we should attack. He should have just told us outright that Suddam was dangerous to everyone, exposed his and France's cheating ways, and then gone after him. Of course, this would be after the whole Afghanistan thing is done. Military action, though politically dangerous, is usually beneficial to the economy, nationalism, and unification of citizens.
2. Putting the power-hungry Ashcroft into his position. The department of homeland defence is sort of redundant, since we're supposed to have a fully functional NSA and FBI. I think Bush was just goaded into creating the new department, but I didn't hear any bitching in opposition at the time.

Everything else... his big ears, his horrible handling of the English language, his slips of the tongue, his appearance of looking stupid, his daughters... they really don't have anything to do with his actual performance as a president.

Re:Changed the view of the US?

[whorfin]

It's in cash, in a series of banks somewhere. Although Microsoft isn't spending it themselves, it is creating the capital backing that allows others to borrow and spend.

IANAB, but since asset reserves on loans are tpyically in the single digit percentages, their $40bil in cash is could actually be $500bil in loans. (the banks don't loan out the actual deposits, they use them as 'buffer' and borrow from the fed to loan to customers)

Re:Changed the view of the US?

[cheeseSource]

Just the opposite actually. Your position is the classroom ideal but not so realistic. The long term reality is that the banks will pay a high intrest on the amount that is being held and they will recieve a higher amount of interest on anything they lend out. The people at the bottom pay more than they receive so the money still ends up with the wealthy. There are of course exceptions as with anything but that is the ultimate result and hence why the system sucks.

Re:Changed the view of the US?

[MindStalker]

Firstly, The rich are already spending a lot of money.
Actually I think it helps the small buisness the most, which trickle down to the poor quite easily. My father used to own a small shop, his cost per employee were twice that of wages, meaning if he paid his employees 8 dollars an hour, we would be spending 8 more dollars and hour on taxes and workers comp insurance.

Either way the point is, that he wanted to pay his employees more than 8 dollars an hour and would have if he could have afforded to, but it simply wasn't possible considering how much was going out in taxes.

Either way I agree that the McDonalds of the world arn't going to pay more than minimum wage unless they have to, but many buisness would if they could. Also you still have the trickle down on what the very rich spend, which as you said doesn't all go locally. But if you consider how much money gets waisted in administrating welfare and whatnot, I don't think the difference is very much. Also lower taxes on making goods encourages buisnesses to produce more goods, therefor increasing GNP, and there is a very high statistical correlation to GNP/population and overall standard of living.

Re:Changed the view of the US?

[danheskett]

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.

Re:Changed the view of the US?

[Anonymous Coward]

Be creative and/or change your priorities. I'm guessing that gaining wealth is less important to you than any aspect of your current quality of life. Nothing is wrong with that. It's your choice. But don't think that a lot of rich people didn't sacrifice quality if life for a time to get where they are. Many who made their money through business are workaholics who ruined marriages and families with their priorities. For any given rich person, there is often a very good reason not to envy them. A good rule of thumb is this: if you aren't happy now, you probably wouldn't be happy if you were rich, either.

Re:Changed the view of the US?

[boarder]

First, read this:
http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=114715& cid=971 6190

Next, think about this:
In the past 20 years, average CEO salaries have gone up 2000% (that's 20 times). How much has minimum wage gone up? Well, back then it was around $4/hour, now it is around $5/hour. Are CEOs 20x better than they were in 1984? Are low income workers not subject to the same laws of inflation as the rest of the country?

A CEO lays off 100 workers to save $2 million per year of a company's money... that CEO then gets paid $2 million per year and gets a golden parachute if he leaves. That sounds like intelligent spending for a company.

Poor people NEED the tax cuts. Rich people do not.

Re:Changed the view of the US?

[gorbachev]

"No joke. One of the reasons the wealthy are wealthy is that they know how to save"

That's just not correct. You will absolutely not, ever, become wealthy by saving.

The reason why the wealthy are wealthy is either, because:

1) they inherited a LOT of money. It's very hard to become poor when a mere 2% on interest would fund your expenses

2) they invested their money wisely. Investing is in no way the same as saving. A lot of the folks became very wealthy by investing in the Next Big Thing, whether it was railroads, automobiles, computers, real estate or the stock market.

3) they founded a business that succeeded

Then there are a few of the weird ones, who are so cheap with their money that they somehow manage to gather a fortune by the time they die. There are stories of old goobers dieing with millions stashed away on a savings or checking account, cause they never bought a thing in their lives and lived in a shack. I don't quite see the purpose of such life, though. Money is to be spent, I say.

Re:Changed the view of the US?

[Anonymous Coward]

Bullshit. Almost everybody spends everything they earn. It's about discipline. I was saving a larger percentage of my income when I was making under $30K then I am now making about $50K. You have a nice theory, but it doesn't hold up to humans. People want to spend what they have.

Re:Changed the view of the US?

[MindStalker]

but the problem is that Microsoft keeps the large majority of their reserves as cash.

Where have you heard this? Either way as long as they atleast keep it in a bank, its getting spread around as investments. I seriously don't believe microsoft has more than a few million in actual cash. There just isn't enough printed money to make that very feasible without really hurting the rest of the economy.

Re:Changed the view of the US?

[eam]

>It's quite easy to spot the Americans, generally.

How do you know? It may be easy to spot the "loud, crass, and uncivil" Americans, but that certainly doesn't mean you've identified every American from your theoretical bench. For all you know there could be 50 reasonable American people for every American Ass you see. You just wouldn't notice them because the Asses stand out more.

I could say French people generally are asses just because I could identify an Ass I met as French. However, that doesn't mean that there weren't other French people I didn't know as well, or other French people who didn't draw enough attention to themselves or cause enough trouble to burn into my memory.

Plenty of people from every place in the world are Asses. It is important to keep in mind that human nature being what it is, the asses tend to make more of an impression than the reasonable people.

As long as people judge an entire group of people based on the behavior of the asses within the group, respect won't change anything. Because people don't remember the respect, they remember the rudeness.

Re:Changed the view of the US?

[jcsehak]

The guy making $250K can save $25K a year effortlessly, with zero impact on his family's standard of living.

Says you. Just last week I had to take a commercial flight to my villa in the Bahamas instead of my private jet, because gas prices were just too high and I'm trying to save 10% of my income. Let me tell you, these hard times are affecting everyone.

Re:Changed the view of the US?

[GoofyBoy]

Actually you both have it wrong.

A bank can loan out a certain percentage of its deposits. It used to be less than 100%, but recently its been greater than that. Its so much, that really the deposits have nothing to do with how much a bank can lend out.

An example: A bank can go the the government and ask for X dollars. The government can print as much money as it wants since it doesn't need gold or anything to back it up except its word that it will honor it. (It doesn't even need to print anything, just create numbers in an account).

An example: Bank A has X dollars in a deposit and lend out say 0.8 x X dollars. Bank B has Y dollars and say can lend 0.8 x Y dollars. Bank A lends to Bank B, now Bank B possesses Y + (0.8 x X) dollars and can lend out 0.8 x (Y + (0.8 x X)) dollars. Bank B lends it to Bank A. Now Bank A can lend out (0.8 x (Y + (0.8 x X))) + 0.8 X dollars.

With these two examples (and not talking about forigen investors/lenders) it is left to the kind reader to show that it how much US citzens deposit into saving/chequing accounts at banks have very little to do with how much a bank can/is willing to lend out to businesses.

Re:Changed the view of the US?

[delcielo]

I certainly want to keep more money in my pocket.

The thing about upper-class tax cuts providing stimulus to the economy, thereby procucing tax gains in the long run is something I don't really believe but at the same time won't totally discredit. My arguments against it, however are as follow:

1. You need a LOT of stimulus. If you give up $100 in tax revenue, you need to increase the spending/earning of the economy enough that more than $100 is earned back. If I spend the $100 on goods, the tax income from that will be substantially less than $100. SO, what needs to happen is the $100 needs to inspire others to spend enough that their taxes will increase enough to cover what's left of the government's loss of the original $100. That seems like an awfully big gamble to me. Furthermore, it seems to be one that is very difficult to prove or quantify after the fact, given the complexity of the economy. Tax-cut stimulus packages thus strike me more as hopeful psychology than practical work.

Additionally, the guy with the $1million home won't be out buying more fruit from the local vendor, or a new carb for his Chevy because you gave him a few thousand more dollars this year. He wasn't pinching pennies to begin with, so an extra $10k this year won't significantly change his purchasing habits. Even if it did, he's just as likely to buy foreign goods which do less to help our economy. He's more likely to invest that money, and while that itself can provide some benefits for the economy, it's speculative. Furthermore, the tax cuts aren't usually enough to sustain substantial increases in his payroll. Upper class consumers recognize better than anybody that such a tax cut is a temporary idea to jump-start the economy and that they won't, or shouldn't last.

2. This has more to do with how we've applied this in the past than the actual premise of "trickle-down" economics; but as our legislative body has shown no ability to restrain themselves when it comes to spending, any gains by these tax cut packages are chewed up immediately. You can't run what is essentially a loss-leader type of operation indefinitely. A tax cut to stimulate the economy is a temporary solution at best. You cannot get around the fact that if you spend more than you take in, you lose. We MUST reduce spending to reap any benefits the tax cuts might produce. Eliminate our deficit, pay down our debt, and then give me a REAL tax cut. You don't have to be an economist to see that. In one of the most brazen displays of arrogance I think I've ever heard of, Dick Cheney responded to Paul O'Neill's warning of continued tax cuts racking up debt and deficits by saying "Reagan proved that deficits don't matter." If you're not worried about the solvency and integrity of your government, I suppose that's true. I am, however.

Re:Changed the view of the US?

[li99sh79]

I can see your point about football, mostly on the QB's part, IMHO. You need to figure out your own strategy and anticipate the other team's and there's the opportunity to revise on every play. It's a continuously-changing strategy in a way. However, this is more on the QB's part. For the rest of the players, I'd think it's more about taking your part of the chosen strategy and improvising on it. For them, it's somewhat the same as futbol (however the spelling, fuessball, etc.) in terms of intellectualism.

Enh, not really. Sure, the QB needs to be able to read and react quickly based on what the defense is throwing at him, but so do the rest of the players on the offense, especially the O-Line. The guys on the line have to recognize the scheme the defense is using and adapt their approach to match. Last season SI ran a piece on college O-linemen and pointed out how many had GPA's greater than 3.

The thing with football is that it's a series of distinct plays. That gives both teams time to strategize more than most other sports. Plus football places tremendous importance on breaking down game film and studying your opponent. A star football player is going to spend as much time in the "classroom" as he will in the weightroom.

-sam

Re:Changed the view of the US?

[bwy]

and just watch. It's quite easy to spot the Americans, generally. They're loud, crass, and uncivil.

Well you'd never notice the majority of Americans if they happen to be quiet, then? Come on, the area I live in in Jax, Florida has a lot of people moving in from eastern Europe... I notice them a lot at the gym in particular. Some of them are rude and obnoxious. So what? Since we all look the same, it would be wrong to assume that the only eastern Europeans in the gym are the ones being noisy. For all I know they're only 1%.

I've noticed that people, wherever you are in the world, are more critical when someone is acting in a way they don't like- IF they are foreign. In America people will get pissed and say something like "learn to speak English." In France, they'll say "Stupid Americans."

Re:Changed the view of the US?

[frank_adrian314159]

Since it's being invested, whatever company he invests in, and not necessiarly Microsoft mind you, would get a benefit and they would be creating the jobs.

But where will these jobs be, Sahib?

Re:Changed the view of the US?

[Rainier Wolfecastle]

Joseph Stiglitz (Nobel laureate in Economics) argues this very point in his new book ( The Roaring Nineties: Seeds of Destruction ) and comes to the conclusion that the idea you mentioned doesn't work.

The book is an interesting read (at least so far), though his style is rather bland.

Re:Changed the view of the US?

[peragrin]

one of two points

Dynapad [swiki.net]

Doesn't work link and project is dead

or

The US goverment is filtering Access.

Both are possible today.

Re:Changed the view of the US?

[Leroy Brown]

Sounds like you need a new bank.

Check out:
http://www.yoyoyo.net/mnbanks.jpg

Re:Changed the view of the US?

[pla]

but to call these sports the opposite of intellectual may not be the best example.

I agree with you, but probably not quite in the way you intended...

Football involves quite a lot of careful planning and implementation of a strategy. Almost a sort of chess with human pieces.

However, that analogy goes further, on which point I suspect our views part ways. The coaches "play" the game, while the team members act as nothing more than pawns. They have different strengths and weaknesses, which will vary day-to-day, but overall they just go out and follow orders issued by the coaches.

Now, as for baseball... I don't know if I'd grant that one as intellectual. You have a deep but *very* narrow decision tree, due to the small number of discrete states the game can occupy at the start of a "move". At any point, you have a known easily-modelled state, and although a "good" coach can apply a number of modifiers to that state based on the same day-to-day variations in performance that I mentioned above, they still have a very limited range of options available to pick from.

So yes, some sports involve quite a lot of intellectual activity. Just don't make the mistake of attributing that to what we normally call the "players".

Re:Changed the view of the US?

[mykingdomforahorse]

I quite disagree. People who are genuinely poor buy food, clothing, and housing, and often do not have enough money to have all 3. Disregarding health care, education,etc. The true sources of "spending money poorly" lie in the rich...expensive cars, big rims, ice statues of Michelangelo's David that urinate vodka, etc etc. What do those really do to drive the economy, and how does that money "trickle down?"

Re:Changed the view of the US?

[Amarok.Org]

Citizens of every country think they're superior. (and apparently you think so of yourself too)

How do you figure? I'm advocating respect for one's own country (by not presenting a poor image to others) and respect for other cultures and people - if by that you mean superior in that most people don't do that... I'll go along with you.

Re:Changed the view of the US?

[tnmc]

> 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...

Re:Changed the view of the US?

[Otter]

Having posted earlier, I had started thinking along the same lines. When I was a kid, the rightists insisted were facing mortal threat from a merciless, implacable, all-powerful enemy. The leftists insisted it was all a big understanding, they were a superior, peace-loving society acting only in response to our American evil, and that the whole thing was a scam by our moron president and theocratic attorney general to implement a police state.

And those Russian kids told us about a wretched, oppressive society whose primary victims were its own people but which had copied enough Western technology to still be quite dangerous. They, of course, turned out to be entirely correct.

This all sounds oddly familiar. But I still remember going to bed without being certain that the world would still be there the next day, which is why I can't work up the frenzy over today's issues that other people have.

Anyway, that's my Big Thought for Friday. Bring on today's SCO ragefest!

Re:Changed the view of the US?

[bigpat]

"I'd agree with you, and am a big fan of that notion, but the problem is that Microsoft keeps the large majority of their reserves as cash. Which just fucks everything up. They need to start investing/spending."

Cash "equivalents" probably, which include investments in other publicly traded companies. But regardless that cash is definately not just sitting around. It is being used to finance millions of americans spending.

The real problem is that with the concentration of wealth, even the middle class are going into increasing amounts of debt. So, while they aren't leading a lower material standard of living than they otherwise would, they are increasingly becoming indebted to the rich. This sets up an environment where the rich, mostly through corporations and government, exercise undo control over people's lives. This cycle of control has been seen many times before in history and will increasingly become a form of feudalism and slavery.

Re:Changed the view of the US?

[Lynxara]

I've always observed British and Japanese tourists to be very polite in America, often much moreso than the Americans. I have had problems with other European and South American tourists being very rude, however.

This is not to say that I think all non-Brit Europeans and South Americans are rude, of course... I think it may just depend on where the tourists are and why. And, generally, Americans seem to take foreign vacations because doing so is a mark of status, not because they actually care much about wherever they're visiting.

Re:Changed the view of the US?

[Anonymous Coward]

It's this short sightedness and lack of the understanding of economics that leads these bashers of corporate and wealthy America. If you can't understand that the only reason jobs exist is because one of those evil rich CEO's created and developed a business that required human capital, you are living in an imaginary world.

Job's don't simply exist arbitrarily, and jobs aren't created by the lower class. Lower class consumers can spend to increase demand for products and services which eventually will create a demand for human capital, but that's just a part of the big equation. Those who became wealthy by running a business and produced the ideas and implemented them are the ones who are absolutely necessary for jobs to exist.

What makes me sick is these people who demonize the rich as evil, greedy, and only looking out for themselves. Those in the lower classes are every bit as greedy as those in the upper classes. Denouncing the rich simply because they've got more is ridiculous. Everyone wants as much money as they can acquire, most everyone at least, whether they are rich or poor. Discrediting the accomplished is simply stupid and counterproductive. Why in the world are we discrediting the successful out of jealousy?

Life's not fair. In the system of capitalism there are winners and losers. Some of you may have ideas of a different system that would ideally be more fair to the poor. But the important thing to realize is that the ideal system is irrelevant if it does not produced the desired intended results when it's put in place.

This whole idea of taking more money from the rich, giving it to the government and redistributing it somehow to the rest of us has been tried before. Although in some people's eyes this ideally should work to better all of us, the absolute fact is that this has been tried before and continues to go on in the world and the consequences are not what were expected.

If you can't see that capitalism and the freedom of individuals to operate in the ways that you all condemn is what made this country the most free and wealthy nation in history, I don't know what to tell you. You are simply refusing to acknowledge factual evidence and reality.

Re:Changed the view of the US?

[CAIMLAS]

how about golf? Or is that not considered a sport?

or how about fishing? That's a fun one, where everyone thinks it takes special talents to pick the right lure.

Re:Changed the view of the US?

[prisoner-of-enigma]

I'm one of the Americans who, while travelling abroad, is as sensitive as I can be to the host country I'm in, and I resent being lumped into a generalized "ugly American" category simply because of the land of my birth. When I was in Germany, I took the time to learn enough German that I could be reasonably functional in my daily travels. I didn't demand everyone speak English to me (although most did, voluntarily, when it became obvious my German wasn't up to the "conversational" level). I did the best I could and asked for no special favors.

It was amazing how accomodating the German's were (this was pre-9/11, though) when they realized I was attempting to meet them half way. I took offense at other Americans who were loud, offensive, and constantly griping about "why aren't the signs written in English so everybody can read them?"

Now, to play devil's advocate for a moment, most Europeans have no concept of what it's like to live in a country as large as the U.S. where English is spoken everywhere. In Europe, a few hours travel in any direction will land you in a completely different country. Unless you live near the Canadian or Mexican border, such things do not happen in the U.S. Most Americans have as little concept of such dense multiculturalism as Europeans have of U.S. geographical and cultural dispersion and uniformity.

But in reality, both sides of this "ugly American" thing are in the wrong. Americans, in general, need to be more observant of foreign cultures. Whether you admire it or not, it's worth learning about at the very least, if for no other reason than it's different. Other nations, on the other hand, need to not pre-judge traveling Americans, treating them with contempt and disdain on sight. After all, aren't the liberal idealogues always griping about how unfair it is when people are stereotyped?

Re:Changed the view of the US?

[carlos_benj]

No. They keep it in a big vault and Bill dives into it every afternoon, emulating his childhood hero Scrooge McDuck....

Re:Changed the view of the US?

[DarkSarin]

Which is one of the worst things that the gov't can do. Unfortunately your last paragraph describes the goals of the democratic party fairly well.

As I see it, the goal of the dems is to increase reliance on the gov't. This is bad. I cannot, in good conscience, vote for an individual whose stated goal is to make me more dependent on the gov't.

I agree with Mr. A. Coward (sibling post), who states that this is something that Bush does and it is annoying. That said, however much you think GWB is a proponent on BIG government, he is not nearly as pro BG as Mr. Kerry & Mr. Edwards. That doesn't mean that he (GW) is my first pick as president, but he isn't as pro-BG as the dems.

I suggest that everyone do something different this year and vote 3rd party. I plan to.

Re:Changed the view of the US?

[Qzukk]

I was talking about increasing the money in people's hands in the long term. Eventually Joe has to pay back the $500+interest, at which point he's poorer than he started out.

Rarely do you see personal loans that increase the receiver's long term wealth. Most larger loans are car loans or house mortgages, in which the person gains a car or a house worth $x, while paying $x+(x*interest) for it. In some cases, the house might appreciate in value, but typically over a longer term than the life of the mortgage.

And then there's "bad debt" where the person is unable to repay the loan, and the bank loses its money, and the person doesn't have the money (and probably loses anything else of value) leaving both the person and the bank worse off. Plenty of business-starting loans end up this way.

Re:Changed the view of the US?

[MindStalker]

I don't know I've meet some cheap ass millionairs. Who are smart enough not to buy the $2.00 drink at the resturant and get water instead. While if you suggest to a poor person that they could save a lot of their money that way, they tend to think that saving $2.00 would be a waste of their time.

Re:Changed the view of the US?

[blaberski]

Their is a problem with your theory. You think that the boat maker does not want to expand, and their shareholders don't want to sell anymore boats. In which case the boat builder will be bankrupt in a year anyway.

Much more likely, the boatmaker will take that money, and either expand his operations, or hire more people, in orer to sell more boats. Maybee by making them faster, or moving much of the manufacturing in house he can get the cost down, and sell even more boats, and the circle goes round and round and round.

If you had taken basic econimics you would know this. Its sad that Government schools don't teach basic economics these days.

Re:Changed the view of the US?

[Alzheimers]

Yeah, I know what you mean. It's not like the guy had a movie named after him or anything.

Re:Changed the view of the US?

[Politburo]

And poor people tend to spend their money poorly, like lottery tickets,

Do you know where lotto money goes? In New Jersey, it is split 36/56 between a mostly educational fund and the prize pool (The other 8% is overhead). Some of the money is spent by other government services, but only education or health services can be funded through the lottery. The NJ Lottery sent almost $400 million dollars to New Jersey's public universities and colleges in FY03. Is that really a bad way to spend money?

Re:Changed the view of the US?

[SlashDread]

"And poor people tend to spend their money poorly, like lottery tickets"

Oh, you mean poor people dont spend their money on usefull items?
Like 1000 yard sailboats, 60 hummers, and completely automated houses?

And. What else is a bank, but a saver matress?

"/Dread"

Re:Changed the view of the US?

[plague3106]

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.

You're assuming that because the bank has the money to loan, that people will come to borrow it.

Actually has anyone ever been told by a bank they can't borrow money because the bank doesn't have enough to loan? I'm willing to bet people are turned down for other reasons, I don't recall ever hearing 'the bank doesn't have the money to loan you.'

Re:Changed the view of the US?

[TXH-88]

Muslim != Terrorist s/muslim/terrorist

Re:Changed the view of the US?

[default luser]

I am sick and tired of people touting Reaganomics as having single-handedly raised tax revenues.

You all readily admit that Reagan increased government spending like a rocket, and you always ignore the effects of doing that!

What, do you think that government money just goes into some hole in the ground? That money goes to government and contract AMERICAN workers, and when the government has more money to spend, that means MORE new employees taking home paychecks, as well as a hefty boost in existing pay.

What happens when you pump money you don't have into a system (deficit government spending)? Your tax revenue is VERY LIKELY to increase.

This is not to say lowering taxes doesn't produce some percentage return of your "lost" tax revenue, but to believe that just lowering taxes can produce the returns Reagan saw is an ignorant and inexcusable belief. There are a lot of things besides taxes that limit the rate at which we create wealth in this country.

Finally, I'd like to add that Reagan came along at the right place, at the right time, and this is the SOLE reason we ever saw such a "miraculous" recovery as Reagan gave us. The economy was so incredibly responsive to an influx of cash because previous administrations (Ford & Carter) had managed to deflate the economy to below typical levels. You don't see us having anywhere near the same economic recovery with Bush's simultaneous tax cuts and increased spending (even though his percent spending increase is actually HIGHER), but that's because we havn't been stupid enough to heavily depress the economy since Carter's term. This is not a "Republican" thing, it is a fiscal lesson we learned from having to endure the 1970s.

Re:Changed the view of the US?

[plague3106]

Look at the growth we had in the 90's, to which Clinton applied a poor policy that helped in the short run (blowing the bubble), but killed us in the early 2000's (pop!).

I've always found this fasinating. When a democrat is in office, the next term (if republican) feels the effects of his poor decisions b/c it takes time for changes to take effect, but when Bush gives tax cuts to the wealthy, the economy reacts immedately.

So shouldn't any current improvements in the economy be actually due to clinton, b/c it takes time?

Re:Changed the view of the US?

[ThousandStars]

Exactly. Some of the replies make comments about how easy it is to save 10% on 250K; that is true. But it's also easy to save 10% on almost any amount above $20,000 a year. However, what separates the wealthy is their ability to save relative to their income.

If you read The Millionaire Next Door, you'll see guys who study wealth have discovered that most millionaires look remarkably like everyone else. They may act like everyone else too, except that they consume much less than they earn.

Savings and investments are the "secrets" to wealth (which many people confuse with income -- these two concepts are not the same).

Of course, the secret to the "secrets" is that there is nothing glamorous or sexy about them. One can become a millionaire through hard work, thrift, and patience, even on a modest income. Facts like that get less play than "BRITNEY MAKEOVER REVEALED" and such.

Re:Changed the view of the US?

[Ciel]

Money held in banks is being used at the very least to make loans. Banks are hardly economically comparable to saver matresses by any reasonably assessment.

Re:Changed the view of the US?

[lseltzer]

My God, do you actually not know the difference?

(And Einstein never designed any bombs.)

Re:Changed the view of the US?

[thephotoman]

My mom loves Ken! However, I'm seeing strains of the old "21". I don't know what to think.

Re:Changed the view of the US?

[Politburo]

I'm too lazy to link it now, but it came up after Reagan's death last month. Many people think that Reagan cut taxes. He did. However, many of the cuts were either reversed or simply offset through increases in other ways. For example, when you change the thresholds for exemptions and other tax code minutea, you can have the effect of making more people pay taxes. Reagan called this "Tax Reform" whenever he spoke about it in public. This isn't raising taxes, per se, but merely making the tax affect more people. It is an effective tax raise on a personal level, but politicians can point to the tax rate and say "Nope, didn't go up!" As we've seen from the election and possible re-election of Bush, people in this country are easily fooled.

I got unlazy, and here is one column that discusses this (among Reagan's many other non-conservative actions).

Re:Changed the view of the US?

[ryanjensen]

There are better things to do with booze and hookers than burn them ...

Re:Changed the view of the US?

[Zardoz44]

This has gone way off-topic, but I'll bite.

The bank manager doesn't roll around in the vaults of money, laughing at the stupid peasants. Money in a bank account is invested by the bank. It's not static. I'm not even close to being an expert in finance, but when they say Microsoft has billions in cash, they don't have a warehouse full of dollar-sign bags. They money is being indirectly invested by the bank, they just can't invest it long-term in case MS needs immediate access.

Besides all that, what right does anyone have to tell you what you can do with your money. If I want to stuff my mattress with my hard-earned money, you have no right to stop me. Mind your own business. The economy can handle itself, for good or bad.

Re:Changed the view of the US?

[DavidBrown]

Mr. Buffett, of course, is permitted to give away his $310 million if he wants to.

I'll pass on my check, but I do have a single parent co-worker who could use the money. I've given her $350 this year, so perhaps Mr. Buffett could send her a check for $650, and give the remaining $350 to someone else.

I'll respect Mr. Buffett's point of view on this issue when he puts his money where his mouth is. If he feels he doesn't deserve the tax break, he can take care of it himself while waiting for the government to revoke the tax cuts.

Re:Changed the view of the US?

[Unca' Scrooge]

It drives me nuts that people actually believe that the rich are all like "Scrooge Mc'Duck" and have a huge 5 story safe where they put all the money in.

Youngster, I didn't just keep my money in a big bin; I skipped the investment route and put it right back into the environment; i.e. buried underground, stuck into trees, sunk under a big lake, or hidden in bales of cabbage.

And by doing so I offered incentives to low-income workers (i.e. the Beagle Boys), who kept trying to redistribute my wealth among the poor (themselves)...

Bah! When Bill Gates gets five cubic acres of money, *then* I'll be impressed (but only if his ball of string is longer than mine!)

Re:Changed the view of the US?

[jcleland]

I have no idea when it's on in the Boston market
Jeopardy is on at the same time, even if you are in a restaurant.

Man, I'm really sorry, I just couldn't help myself...

Re:Changed the view of the US?

[Doctor Cat]

"now that the Cold War is over and now they want to wipe me out because I am useless."

I would paraphrase this a bit. Rather than "want to wipe me out" I'd say something like "Back in the cold war they were more willing to go way out of their way to put up with my incredible amounts of bullshit, but now they have no reason to do so. Therefore if I break laws now I am treated the same as any other lawbreaker would be, and by the way I didn't actually break any major laws back then as I did in 1992 anyway."

I think at the top levels of the US government the attitude would be more like apathy than caring whether Fisher is "wiped out" or not. If Dubya Bush were asked about it I imagine he'd say something like "Bobby who?"

Re:Changed the view of the US?

[aero6dof]

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).

That seems about right (or a little low), because it seems that the top 50% also control 97.2% of the wealth. (link) A Google researcher goes into it a little more. Following the news I've also continusouly heard about the continuing growth of the gap between the most wealthy and least, but I'm not sure if its real or just a statistical effect.

Re:Changed the view of the US?

[arose]

Yes, give him tax cuts, so he can invest more. Then he will get even more money, at this point we give him larger tax cuts...

Re:Changed the view of the US?

[IncohereD]

It's in cash, in a series of banks somewhere. Although Microsoft isn't spending it themselves, it is creating the capital backing that allows others to borrow and spend.

But (as many others have pointed out), wouldn't it be much better if they actually bought things from people, or (better still) paid people that money? Thereby transferring actual wealth to these people, rather than leading them into interest slavery?

I, for one, don't want to be on the debt end of the stick when Microsoft finally collapses and starts to call in all those billions in liquid assets. I don't see how you can say that would be anything but a bad scene for the economy.

Re:Changed the view of the US?

[kahei]

know what you're really saying; the rest of the world thinks we are loud, crass, and uncivil. They think so because we come with more common sense and know-how, and we call things like they are.

Could it be that they see you as loud, crass, and uncivil because you say things like the above?

Re:Changed the view of the US?

[Anonymous Coward]

remind me again, what are we hearing about the people in iraq and terrorists from other areas... it seems ... familar.

Re:Changed the view of the US?

[hackstraw]

Actually, I work with a former Soviet citizen, and both of us grew up during the "Cold War". She said that they did not share our fear of nuclear war. Their press and media did not share the same attitude that we had where "At any minute, one of those crazy Commie Russians is gonna push the button and poof the world will be over".

I grew up with this fear. Movies like Red Dawn and The Day After scared the shit out of me.

Back then the Olympics were almost like a war. It was us against them. The highlight was the 1980 US/USSR hockey match for the gold medal.

Then, one day, poof... No more USSR.

Now the government has invented a better enemy. One without borders. One without a clear identity. Gasp, Terrorists.

Now we have a war on terrrorism. WTF? As if there is anything that anyone can do to prevent a bombing. How difficult is it to simply walk across the US/Mexico border or even easier the US/Canada border?

Re:Changed the view of the US?

[Daniel Dvorkin]

The United States invented the motorized aircraft, the polio vaccinne, the internet, the light bulb, the movie camera.

Maybe, yes, yes, no, and maybe, in that order.

Re:Changed the view of the US?

[jridley]

I don't know of a single person who doesn't want to keep more $$$ in their pocket.

I want to keep my money instead of paying taxes because I don't like many of the things the government spends money on. If I could earmark money, say, to education, NASA, diplomatic efforts to improve world relations, research into nuclear energy and green energy, etc, and keep them away from maintaining nuclear weapons, supporting totalitarian regimes, etc, then I'd be happy to give them back their $600 and more.

At the time that they sent out the checks, I grumbled that I wish they wouldn't do it. Yes, I took the money, and put it against my Visa balance, but I'd rather they'd kept it, because it's just going to lead to more trouble down the way.

I was very happy when the US government finally balanced the budget, and grow increasingly dismayed when Bush thinks of new ways to destroy the budget with each passing day.

Re:Changed the view of the US?

[Politburo]

Government doesn't really listen to the common people except once every four or so years but it listens to business all the time.

You know why? The cynical answer is money. And that is a part of it. However, do you know what businesses do when laws and regulations are promulgated that they don't agree with? They complain. Loudly. The percentage of businesses that are politically active is far greater than the percentage of people that are politically active. Did you see what happened the last time people complained loudly? IMO, the last occurence of that was with the "Do Not Call" list. Who won that argument, business or the people? The people did, because, for some reason, being called by a telemarketer was the worst thing that has happened to some people and they made sure that it won't happen again (or maybe it was just something our horribly divided electorate could agree on! ("I'm a uniter, not a divider" George W. Bush, 2000)).

Don't like a law? Write your local officials. They do listen, and they do have the power to change things. And if they don't listen? Vote for someone else.

Re:Changed the view of the US?

[Anonymous Coward]

No, because had they did, the earth would be shrouded in a thick layer of nuclear fallout and we wouldn't be posting on slashdot. We were lucky to just fight proxy wars in Vietnam and Afghanistan (and all those coups everyone orchestrated).

Re:Changed the view of the US?

[rossz]

it amazes me today that americans -still- know nothing about propaganda,

How wrong you are. The current grand master of propoganda is Michael Moore, an American (unfortunately). He could teach a class called, "Propoganda 101, The Big Lie Through Creative Editing".

Re:Changed the view of the US?

[tabrnaker]

Who in the world tosses money into the bank to earn interest??? Talk about losing money, that's what poor people do. Rich people invest in something that gives them a greater return than cost of living increases/inflation.

Re:Changed the view of the US?

[Chasuk]

Yes, Bobby Fischer is nuts, but this worries me:

Bobby Fischer, wanted since 1992 for playing a tournament in Yugoslavia despite U.N. sanctions,

IMHO, the US government has no authority to forbid anyone from visiting anywhere that he or she wishes.

The Ninth Amendment:

"The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people."

The Constitution granted powers to the government, and if it is not specifically enumerated, the government cannot exercise it, as far as I understand the way the US is supposed to work.

Under which enumerated power does the US government feel that it can interfere with my travel plans?

Canadians and Norwegians and British, etc., can visit Cuba, but I can't? And I'm from the putative land of the free and home of the brave? Hmm?

Re:Changed the view of the US?

[ediron2]

Feed the troll? I'd say you're closer to being one.

Documentation: Warren Buffet. Every one of his annual reports lately rails on about how messed up the tax system is. In his latest Berkshire report, he wrote 'if there really is class warfare, ours is definitely winning'. http://www.investorprofit.com/article23.html

Example 2: Bill Gates' father & Warren Buffet & several other wealthy individuals signed a letter opposing the tax cuts a couple years ago. This seems to show that many wealthy individuals of conscience are embarassed by the tax cuts. http://www.usatoday.com/money/industries/technolog y/2003-01-12-gates_x.htm

Example 3: Bill Clinton's standard stump speech: he (very ironically) goes into nauseating detail on all the perks he's getting courtesy of GWB's tax cuts. They're of the vein: 'I made $10 million last year, and GWB gave me a tax cut. I got $40,000 extra back. How'd you do?' He opposes every one of them, feels the president is turning our country's economy into a giant lawn dart, and gives fairly detailed economic arguments against the disingenuous case for tax cuts made by GWB. He also says he agreed with some of the measures, and that he agreed with the idea of a brief tax cut to 'jog' the economy. But permanent tax breaks are wrong for several reasons. Now, guessing that you're conservative (and likely to demonize Clinton and anything he says) I'd suggest that, if you're interested in hearing arguments against your beliefs, you won't be afraid to read his argument. http://www.townhall.com/news/politics/200306/POL20 030625d.shtml

Now, as to documenting:
http://salt.claretianpubs.org/sjnews /2003/03/sjn03 03b.html
http://maxspeak.org/gm/archives/00000882 .html
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/business/2735269 .stm

I've tossed 3 perspectives, including a blog archive that'll give you
extra depth and argument. You'll hopefully find some interesting reading somewhere in all that.

As for your stuff, you failed to prove your countercase. You disagreed with the temporary high argument, but I don't see any 1: evidence, or 2:even a counter argument. Yes, people like to keep money. Duh. No, that isn't an issue. Yes, rich people buy stuff. However, it's almost impossible to spend a billion dollars as a consumer. Investing in a business (we'll assume you meant that) is how money returns to the economy, but a conservative investment is less likely to create the churn and innovation that an aggressive investment makes.

Pop quiz: who's going to innovate more: someone who wants a boring 6% ROI, or someone who's trying to double their money? Now, if you're facing a high, steady tax pressure, does that increase your willingness to invest in riskier stuff, rather than idly watch your net worth decline?

Frankly, the wealthiest people today are often newly-rich. The grandkids of the wealthiest people two generations ago are falling *slowly* behind because they're not as effective with their money. How slowly? Let's just say that they lose more to generational splitting (2+ kids sharing an inheritance) than to taxes or inflation.

Whether it's lack of the extraordinary talent of their ancestors, lack of drive, or whatever... who cares! That stagnation in family wealth is all the evidence I need that a stiff Estate Tax and a ramped investment tax rate are needed to ensure that getting insanely rich isn't enough to guarantee *literally* generations of slackers hoarding money. And to be honest, Bill & Melinda Gates' plans to not pass billions on to their kids is a laudable example of how things *should* work.

See, my motivation to raise Cap Gains taxes and Estate Taxes has nothing to do with taxing the wealthy to pay for the poor. I don't agree with the 90% tax rate of the US's early 19th century (Babe Ruth's famous for paying this). But I do think that 10-20% higher than median rates is fair. As someone whose

Re:Changed the view of the US?

[tabrnaker]

I thought the US spent it's money going to war?

Re:Changed the view of the US?

[be951]

Now the government has invented a better enemy. One without borders. One without a clear identity. Gasp, Terrorists.

Yeah, next thing you know, the government will be telling us those fake terrorists want to bomb U.S. bases, ships and buildings, hijack planes (or maybe a ship), maybe even fly a plane into a building. Those nutty government propagandists!

Seriously, are you one of those conspiracy nuts who think everything is part of the government (or some ultra-powerful "shadow government") master plan to keep us all in line or whatever?

Re:Changed the view of the US?

[Politburo]

There's a problem with your theory. You think that there is an unmet demand for boats and that expansion is economically viable. In many markets, this is simply not the case. If the boatmaker can make a profit at the current production and staffing levels, how would he go bankrupt if he did not expand? The "always grow" school of economic thought is illogical. Demand has bounds.

Re:Changed the view of the US?

[danheskett]

Following the news I've also continusouly heard about the continuing growth of the gap between the most wealthy and least, but I'm not sure if its real or just a statistical effect.
I am not so concerneda about the gap. Having wealth leads to more wealth - that's the nature of investment and interest. And as people have wealth and retain it, it will inevitably grow. I am fine with that.

The disparity would be concerning if the rest of the stake holders lost ground, but that is not happening based on the information you provided. The wealth of the "average" and median American continues to grow. It is growing more quickly for the wealthy thanks to compounding returns.

I think the income tax right now is almost just right.

Re:Changed the view of the US?

[Anonymous Coward]

Most of the poor people I've known (which is a lot, because I came from a rural environment with little in terms of economic prosperity) spent their money on tobacco products, $1 scratch-off lottery tickets, beer, buying things they couldn't afford (TVs, furniture, computers, ...) through Rent-A-Center, playing Bingo, and buying crap off of QVC. They bought food with food stamps. When that ran out they sat in line for two hours once a week at the local food shelf. They'd steal clothing from the donation bins of the local thrift shop or Salvation Army. They would get housing paid for by welfare (and often would locate from public housing setting to another as they would get evicted).
So I don't know how many poor people you've known, or if they tend to be different in your neck of the woods, but what you've described sounds nothing like what I've known.

Re:Changed the view of the US?

[Piquan]

I don't entirely agree with the following article, but I do feel it's relevant to this discussion.

Understanding Taxes - An Excellent Analogy
January 13, 2003

by Unknown

This is a VERY simple way to understand the tax laws. Read on - it does make you think!!

Let's put tax cuts in terms everyone can understand. Suppose that every day, ten men go out for dinner. The bill for all ten comes to $100. If they paid their bill the way we pay our taxes, it would go something like this:

The first four men -- the poorest -- would pay nothing; the fifth would pay $1, the sixth would pay $3, the seventh $7, the eighth $12, the ninth $18, and the tenth man -- the richest -- would pay $59.

That's what they decided to do. The ten men ate dinner in the restaurant every day and seemed quite happy with the arrangement -- until one day, the owner threw them a curve (in tax language a tax cut).

"Since you are all such good customers," he said, "I'm going to reduce the cost of your daily meal by $20." So now dinner for the ten only cost $80.00.

The group still wanted to pay their bill the way we pay our taxes. So the first four men were unaffected. They would still eat for free. But what about the other six -- the paying customers? How could they divvy up the $20 windfall so that everyone would get his "fair share?"

The six men realized that $20 divided by six is $3.33. But if they subtracted that from everybody's share, Then the fifth man and the sixth man would end up being PAID to eat their meal. So the restaurant owner suggested that it would be fair to reduce each man's bill by roughly the same amount, and he proceeded to work out the amounts each should pay. And so the fifth man paid nothing, the sixth pitched in $2, the seventh paid $5, the eighth paid $9, the ninth paid $12, leaving the tenth man with a bill of $52 instead of his earlier $59.

Each of the six was better off than before. And the first four continued to eat for free. But once outside the restaurant, the men began to compare their savings. "I only got a dollar out of the $20," declared the sixth man, but he, (pointing to the tenth) got $7!". "Yeah, that's right," exclaimed the fifth man, "I only saved a dollar, too, ........It's unfair that he got seven times more than me!". That's true!" shouted the seventh man, why should he get $7 back when I got only $2?" The wealthy get all the breaks!". Wait a minute," yelled the first four men in unison, "We didn't get anything at all. The system exploits the poor!"

The nine men surrounded the tenth and beat him up. The next night he didn't show up for dinner, so the nine sat down and ate without him. But when it came time to pay the bill, they discovered, a little late what was very important. They were FIFTY-TWO DOLLARS short of paying the bill!

Imagine that!

And that, boys and girls, journalists and college instructors, is how the tax system works. The people who pay the highest taxes get the most benefit from a tax reduction. Tax them too much, attack them for being wealthy, and they just may not show up at the table anymore. Where would that leave the rest?

Unfortunately, most taxing authorities anywhere cannot seem to grasp this rather straight-forward logic!

Re:Changed the view of the US?

[Amarok.Org]

and I resent being lumped into a generalized "ugly American" category simply because of the land of my birth.

Welcome to Stereotypes 101.

I won't get into the whole stereotypes debate here, but the fact is that stereotypes generally exist for a reason - some quantity of the target population (generally the most visible) FITS it. When travelling, people such as yourself who make an effort to adapt themselves to their environment don't really get noticed... so there's not much of a stereotype there. The people who DO get noticed are who the stereotype are based on. That's how it works.

Resent it all you want, it's how the world works. You can wish it wasn't that way, but this is reality.

Re:Changed the view of the US?

[radishthegreat]

Do you think it's right for two people to pay $33,000 a year in payroll taxes on an income of $85,000? And then pay all the other taxes that everyone else pays?

Careful. A lot of people really do think that is right. Two people? You shouldn't need more than $30k. That's still over the federal "poverty line."

That's the part I find really amazing. The Cold War is over, and the U.S. has embraced the U.S.S.R. ideology in all but name...

Back to work. Millions of welfare recipients are depending on me!

Re:Changed the view of the US?

[zipwow]

I think Mr. Buffett has already made these arrangements.

"His charitable organization, the Buffett Foundation, currently has $25.3 million in assets, and these holdings are expected to swell to $36 billion when Buffett and his wife die and their shares in Berkshire Hathaway go to the Buffett Foundation, which will make it the richest charitable foundation in the world."

A Snopes Article

How, exactly, will you be showing your respect for Mr. Buffett's point of view now?

-Zipwow

Re:Changed the view of the US?

[Eccles]

I don't know of a single person who doesn't want to keep more $$$ in their pocket.

I could call a bank and get $50,000 cash today from a home equity line of credit. Given that we have a $500 billion deficit this year, that's exactly what cutting taxes does.

Oh, except there is a difference. The people who pay taxes now are borrowing money, but it's the people who will pay taxes in the future who will pay for that borrowing. Just as current taxpayers are now paying for the heavy borrowing of the last 25 years. What's the stat? Something like the income taxes paid by everyone west of the Mississippi goes for debt servicing from the last 25 years of borrowing, if I remember rightly.

"This planet has - or rather had - a problem, which was this: most of the people living on it were unhappy for pretty much of the time. Many solutions were suggested for this problem, but most of these were largely concerned with the movements of small green pieces of paper, which is odd because on the whole it wasn't the small green pieces of paper that were unhappy."

Re:Changed the view of the US?

[larkost]

While you are very right on some points, the US is still the current world leader in research. That is not to say that Americans are smarter than the rest of the world, or that all (or even the majority) of discoveries are made here. Now, a lot of the brain power behind that research is foreign born, and often hold non-US passports.

I am friends with three researchers here in the US, all three of whom are German nationals. All three of them work in biology, and each of their labs are at least 50% non-American. I am not what the actual percentages, but they all feel that their labs are fairly normal for their fields.

All three of them have told me that it is virtually a requirement to work abroad to get good jobs in German science labs, and that the number one place to go is the USA, because the environment is better for it here.

Re:Changed the view of the US?

[tmalone]

Whereas the government will just sit on the money and not spend it? Do you realize how much you sound like the 18th centurery crack pot Malthus?

"Even when they have an opportunity of saving, the seldom exercise it, but all that is beyond their present necessities goes, generally speaking, to the ale-house. The pool laws of England may therefore be said to diminish both the power and the will to save among the common people, and thus to weaken one of the strongest incentives to sobriety and industry, and consequently to happiness."

Re:Changed the view of the US?

[x0n]

Where did you read that horseshit about europeans? Sorry, americans don't read; where did you hear that on television?

And moving away from ignorant generalizing, and on to clarifying some of your boastful points about the great United States:

Edison did not invent the lightbulb; he invented the first _commerically successful_ light bulb. The first electric light bulb was invented almost eighty years earlier by a British scientist, Sir Humphrey Davy. You can use your other "american invention" to verify this, the internet. Additionally, the Nobel prize winning groundwork on Nuclear Fission was done by Enrico Fermi, an Italian.

Yes, plenty of groundbreaking work has been done by Americans, we're all very grateful. But don't be so quick to boast. You sound just like the ignorant stereotype that most Europeans like to mock; maybe you're doing that deliberately to try to provoke, who knows, but I'm not going to bite.

As for the last paragraph, I'm just going to ignore it. I've better things to do today, like, eh, burn some more McDonalds outlets to the ground. BURN RONALD, BURN.

- Oisin

Re:Changed the view of the US?

[shyster]

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.

And poor folks don't spend money? And the governmet doesn't spend money? Hell, the gov't spends more money than it's got (as do most poor people)....how can that be bad for the economy?

If you give money to the poor, the rich, or the gov't it all gets spent and invested. It's just a matter of which part of the cycle it starts in. By giving it to the rich, you short circuit the cycle whereby poor folks or the gov't spend it and it ends up with the rich anyway. Who in turn invest it or spend it, and some portion of it falls back down to the poor folks getting paid to work or the gov't in taxes. And the cycle goes on.

Of course, with the Fed Reserve requiring, IIRC, 10% of any deposits in a bank to be held in reserve, anyone with a bank account has removed 10% of its value from the economic cycle. Since upper class people have larger bank accounts than poor, tax cuts to the rich remove 10% of the cut from the cycle sooner than an equivalent tax cut to the poor would.

Re:Changed the view of the US?

[Peter Cooper]

What do those really do to drive the economy, and how does that money "trickle down?"

Understand that the economy connects all of us in an infinite number of ways. The money spent on expensive cars goes to the car company, goes to wages, gets spent on day care, goes to the teachers, goes on groceries, goes to Wal*Mart's CEO, goes to the guy who cleaned the CEO's fish tank, goes to the fish tank guy's kid as pocket money....

As long as someone is spending their money, it's staying in the economy for all of us. If they keep it in a vault or burn it, however, then yeah.. they're an ass who's raping our economy.

Re:Changed the view of the US?

[tabrnaker]

Well, bill did create a whole bunch of new jobs in mexico and china with the xbox. Wait, that's sending money out of the US system isn't it?

Re:Changed the view of the US?

[Richthofen80]

As for the last paragraph, I'm just going to ignore it. I've better things to do today, like, eh, burn some more McDonalds outlets to the ground. BURN RONALD, BURN

I would say that if Americans greatest sin is pride and boastfulness, then that sin hardly compares to that of burning clowns.

or, if i were being serious, our sin of pride is one we wear proudly, when we know what we believe, and know it to be right, and are not filled with fear, skepticism and doubt about our own convictions. furthermore, why do you have mcdonalds? chicken nuggets. all white meat.

Re:Changed the view of the US?

[zephyr1256]

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?

Umm, I think that the number of people who would be getting back something like $1200 in your example would be far greater than the number of people getting back something like $18,750. I would also claim that having $1200 reduction in taxes for a person making $20,000 per year improves that person's standard of living more than a $18,750 reduction in taxes for a person that makes $150,000 improves that person's standard of living(I think it is reasonable to weight affect on standard of living so that your money that addresses more basic needs has more impact on effective standard of living, ie., having one car rather than no car improves your standard of living more than having 3 cars rather than 2 cars). Also notice that this greater effect is applying to more people.

Efficiency and equity are two commonly competing goals in public policy. A flat tax would be more efficient than our progressive tax, but whatever percentage it would be, it would be a bigger effective burden on people who have to budget for basic needs. Hence the flat tax would not be very equitable. On the other hand, complete equity(wealth being distributed so that everyone has the same after the government is done) is extremely inefficient, to the point that such a system is not viable. The key is to find a good balance; when people on the left argue that its not progressive enough, or that the latest tax cut was weighted too heavily to the rich, it is not because of any lack of understanding how much is paid by whom or who benefits, it is because they believe that the equity that is gained is worthwhile, and outweighs or equals the loss in efficiency. When they feel that a certain increase in taxes on the rich decreases efficiency in a way that outweighs the gain in equity, then they won't support such increases.

Re:Changed the view of the US?

[soft_guy]

There was a time when Republicans were for a balanced budget. Now you get them saying things like "deficits don't matter", cutting taxes while increasing spending and increasing the federal government's overall size.

I think their real agenda must be that they want to bankrupt the country so that we have to end social security which will prevent a lot of people from retiring and force people to invest money with big investment firms owned by Republicans.

I fear that their policies will actually result in the collapse of the US Federal Government.

The democrats used to be a party of big taxes and big government, but under Clinton looked to ME like a party of more responsible spending.

Ross Perot was right in that the national debt is a hugely important issue and needs to be addressed. I voted for him in 1992 for that reason despite knowing that he was a kook. I voted for Clinton in 1996 because it became apparent that the Democrats are more reasonable on economic issues that the Republicans.

Re:Changed the view of the US?

[ahdeoz]

Bill Gates pays income tax on $350,000 a year. But every one of his 10,000 $60,000 a year programmers, got a tax cut too. So Bill can now afford to hire an additional 250 testers (at $40,000 a year), making Windows that much more secure (saving businesses $4.3 billion dollars by avoiding 2 internet worms), give his programmers a slight raise (on top of their $1000 extra pocket money from lower taxes), which means they can now afford a higher new car payment, which means more jobs in Detriot, I mean Dresden, I mean Veracruz.) and push a fraction of a cent more dividend to his shareholders, which, by the way includes him, which, by the way, are taxed less too, starting the cycle over again.

Re:Changed the view of the US?

[jafac]

Bullshit.

Football and Baseball are so ANTI-intellectual, that fans have to INVENT intellectual aspects (like the obsessive-compulsive need for fans to compete on the rote memorization of obscure and trivial statistics - which is really just all about trying to intellectualize the gambling side of sports).

Re:Changed the view of the US?

[hbar]

Sure, people like money! But let's say Bill Gates gets a tax cut (or some other wealthy businessman). Does this mean the Microsoft will hire more people? Not likely.

Actually, there is a good chance it does. Maybe not with Microsoft (the relatively few companies with more cash than they can intelligently spend can have this kind of "problem"); with the vast majority of companies, though, when expenses go down, some or all of that extra income will go into expanding the business... which includes hiring more people.

Also please keep in mind that when people read statements like the one you made above, they may apply it to all companies, even if it is not an accurate statement for those organizations.

Will Bill spend more money? Well, rich people don't get rich by spending money.

Actually - and this surprised me when I learned it - they do. AFAICT, people who go through life spending as little as possible - personally, or through their businesses - either get rich very slowly (think 50+ years), or never get rich at all.

Most people define "rich" and "poor" in terms of spending power, or in terms of net worth (cash plus value of all that you own minus any debts or liabilities). I think it's more useful to define the words in terms of what a person spends money on. If a person spends what they can on things that will bring greater income in the future, I'd call that person rich. If another person of the same means spends that money on something which, down the road, will NOT have done anything to make them richer... well, to me that person is poorer.

I know people with low income and not much cash in the bank, who I consider much richer than some people I know who have lots of both. It's all about the direction in life that person is headed.

Re:Changed the view of the US?

[rbird76]

In my opinion (I am a liberal, so you can take this with however large a grain of salt you need), GWB has other (legitimate) flaws that have been problematic. A lot of the problem rests in the way that he (and his party) have chosen to do business.

Cheney's secrecy with energy policy, the issues with policy in the EPA that precipitated Whitmam's departure, the loss of GWB's SecTreas and R. Clarke, and the way in which the Republican Congress has approached legislation (including the Patriot Act and the drug insurance act) all point at the issue that I have with GWB; his righteousness. In the Bible (presumably part of where he gets this feeling), righteousness is a good quality, because the operating assumption is that God is absolutely good and that following what He wants is thus infallible. Government and diplomacy operate on a different ethos. Government have abused unbounded power in the past, so openness and accountability are used as ways to evaluate the "righteousness" of a government. In addition, governments are accountable to their people - rather than telling people what they should be, government is there to help people be want they want and to guard the rights of others in the process. GWB and the RP have chosen the most confrontational ways to achieve policy goals and have curtailed the openness that allows people to trust their government.

Ashcroft is disliked, but he is simply an avatar of GWB's approach. GWB wants power, not out of corruption, but because he believes that he knows what is right and wants to do it. In a democracy (or an approximation thereof), this is dangerous, particularly when his manner curtails openness. There is some inconsistency with GWB's stated or implied goals and methods (fiscal conservatism and his spending are not consistent, for example; securing freedom while curtailing its expression and criticizing such expression as anti-American is another) - without openness, one doesn't know whether the inconsistency arises from lack of forethought, honest mistakes, dishonesty or something worse.

Bush's dawdling on security policy before 9/11 was a mistake - I don't think he saw anything coming but he ignored the advice of people who knew there might be a problem and who had no motive to mislead GWB. I haven't read the last Clancy nonfiction book, but its subject criticizes GWB because he ignored the advice of the military and prior art on the potential problems with a "regime change" in Iraq; after three years of pondering, someone might have thought about the consequence of invading a country which supports terrorists (GWB) and/or has one of the largest secret police forces in the world.

In matters of policy, GWB dictates to others what they should do. Not only does this rub people the wrong when he is right, but the consequences of his policy have been mixed and inconsistent with his claims. While being sure is a useful quality in a president, being sure in the presence of contrary evidence without explanation does not lead people to trust him. This certainty has bad enough effects on its own, as above; it probably also leads to the irrelevant jibes at his speech - the mistakes make people wonder why GWB is so certain, and if they mistrust him already, amplifies that mistrust.

GWB is made fun of for some reasons that are unfair, but his manner both provides legitimate reason to question and amplifies the effect of silly mistakes.

Re:Changed the view of the US?

[smyle]

Telling us that there were WMD in Iraq, and that's why we should attack.

You're right in retrospect. The fact is that everybody "in the know" (including Bill Clinton and Joe Wilson, not exactly Bush's best buddies) thought the Iraq had WMDs, they just disagreed on timing and the necessity of going to war over it.

Re:Changed the view of the US?

[corngrower]

One of the reasons the wealthy are wealthy is that they know how to save. While it's true that not having the motivation to save will prevent one from ever becoming wealthy, having the motivation is insufficient to obtain wealth. When the amount a person is able to earn at an average job is so low that it is insufficient to pay for the persons BASIC needs (food, housing, transportaion to&from work, basic medical), that person will be unable to save any money. If the people need government subsidies to exist, something is grossly wrong with the economic system. Laws need to be enacted to force employers to pay a livable wage. Additionally, tariffs need to be enacted on imports from countries whose people live under similar destitute conditions, to prevent wage erosion and provide jobs in the home country. The money from the tarifs should go back to the exporting country to help their people obtain basic shelter, food, and basic medical.)

Re:Changed the view of the US?

[HumanTorch]

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 think the point is that unless you have a progressive tax system, the rich simply get richer and the poor get poorer. The US does not have a sufficiently aggressive scale to stop the widening of the gap.

Here is a fact to chew on: Canada's top 25% earners are approximately 25% worse off than their US counterparts, while our bottom 25% are 25% better off. Taken from 'Fire and Ice' by Michael Adams of Environics. That is the kind of society I prefer to live in even if it means we have less millionaires. And yes, Canadians consciously vote for governments that preserve this system.

Re:Changed the view of the US?

[oiuyt]

To be more accurate, the US/USSR game was in the semi-finals.

Re:Changed the view of the US?

[tim_mathews]

Formula 1 racing is a team sport, and is probably the most technical in the world.

I'd like to challenge that and say that it most certainly comes in behind around the globe sailing competitions. Probably not far behind though. From single hand races like Vendee Globe to team races such as the Volvo Ocean Race (formerly the Whitbred Race) there isn't more engineering, planning, design and testing taking place in any team sport.

The amount of skill required to eke that last tenth of a knot out of a sailboat is rarely seen in any other sport. Add to that the complex computer systems onboard the boats that calculate best routes based on current, wind, weather, wave height, boat speed, and tack all in real time you have a very complicated machine with crewed by very talented people backed with lots and lots of money and a huge supporting engineering and logistics staff. And that's when everything goes smoothly. When those sailors really shine is when a sail tears rounding a mark or a rudder breaks 1,000 miles from shore or any number of other nasty things happen. Of course that's what makes it the most fun you can have on water.

Re:Changed the view of the US?

[AuMatar]

No, the government doesn't count as a consumer- its a 3rd fator to the economy. Government spending can and does spur economic growth. In fact, theres schools of economics that claim government spending is more important than consumer spending- google for they Keyesian and neo-Keyesian schools.

Re:Changed the view of the US?

[Tackhead]

> How about Warren Buffet and Bill Gates Senior? They both think they, as some of the richest men in the world, should be paying *more* taxes, not less. This is in order to better help society, and to not create a new aristocracy (by passing all their money onto their children.)

Then why have they not written checks payable to "Bureau of the Public Debt" to reflect the difference between the taxes they are paying, and the taxes they think they should be paying? It's a free country, after all - there's even a line on the tax forms for it.

Or did you mean that Warren Buffet and Bill Gates Sr. think I should also be paying more taxes?

Hint: That's not the same thing.

Re:Changed the view of the US?

[ahdeoz]

Your not an expert in finance, but believe you me, the real experts in finance who want you to believe that your money sitting in the bank is doing some good know that it isn't doing you or the economy any good. If there wasn't enough money in the banks to meet the actual wealth being created (in the form of loans), the government would print more of it and sell it cheaper to the banks. Putting money in the bank doesn't increase circulation, it gives the banks the ability to charge interest, and leverage your own money against you if you try to compete with them.

Re:Changed the view of the US?

[cubic6]

You seem to have some trouble understanding the phrase you quoted. He didn't get in trouble for going there. He got in trouble for playing a chess match for money there, which violates UN sanctions.

Re:Changed the view of the US?

[LuxFX]

Oh, just give that Jeopardy guy a chance. By the time he tops $10 million, the country will be teeming with Brainiac wannabes...

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):

You know, if we had recruiters for Pharmaceuticals standing outside of colleges offering new graduates 10.2 million over 3 years, then cancer would have been cured 10 years ago. Why do athletes, that contribute NOTHING to society, get paid the most?

Re:Changed the view of the US?

[jgardn]

I used to work a minimum wage job back in 1994. Now I have a very hefty salary, much more than 2000%.

And a CEO won't have to lay off 100 workers to dave $2 million dollars if the tax rate is cut. He'll instead take his windfall of $X million and reinvest it in his company, which means more workers and better jobs.

Re:Changed the view of the US?

[blackula]

It's funny to watch socialists argue with such obviously sound logic.

Re:Changed the view of the US?

[ryanmfw]

The thing is, someone with $30 billion, or even $500 million, is not going to spend all of it. It might eventually be spent, but someone that is poor, or not so poor ($70K a year), is going to spend that money, and only keep a little for retirement, or college funds. The money is also not tied up in stock either, it's cash, essentially.

Re:Changed the view of the US?

[DavidBrown]

How, exactly, will you be showing your respect for Mr. Buffett's point of view now?

When he's dead. I'll respect his point of view before then as soon as he starts giving away his "undeserved" tax breaks now, rather than waiting until his death.

Re:Changed the view of the US?

[DarkSarin]

Yes, but most of his spending has been done in a way that the dems could never justify under their socialist regime--war. War is a great way to get more money and power for the gov't.

That said, spending and gov't hires aren't necessarily the same as BG...the PATRIOT act is more along those lines (Big Brother), while the dems want something slightly different (socialism).

At one point I thought socialism might be good, but then I grew up and realized that it destroys personal responsibility and therefore freedom. I am dead against that.

Re:Changed the view of the US?

[fforw]

it amazes me today that americans -still- know nothing about propaganda

Fancy that, Americans care more about reality than appearances.

huh?

The promises of propaganda may be unreal but it's real that propaganda is used in every country of the world to influence views/people.

And I tend to agree with the grandparent that the american public is still suprisingly unaware of the amount of propaganda it is subjected to.

Re:Changed the view of the US?

[Anonymous Coward]

The government didn't have to invent the threat, but they are blowing out of proportion the threat, and their ability to stop it. I think that's what he was trying to say. You may disagree, but if so, please answer these questions:

How are you going to stop someone from killing people at random, when they are willing to die to achieve that goal?

Given that you can't stop these fanatics, if the threat was as serious as we are make it out to be with our response to it (curbing our liberties, billions and billions of dollars spent, US Soldiers lives lost, loss of international goodwill and soured relations), if the threat is that serious, why don't we see more activity against Amercians on US soil? It would be easy as hell in the US to get a gun and slaughter people if you didn't care about getting caught. It would be just as easy to suicide bomb people in a public place. So why aren't we seeing that?

Not to minimize the terrorist acts that have been commited, but compare death by terrorism to other causes of death for Americans, and then explain to me how the threat isn't being responded to disproportionately. For help with the stats, look here: http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/nvsr/nvsr52/nvsr52_03 .pdf

Re:Changed the view of the US?

[ryanmfw]

Reliance on the government? Ha! Should we have private militaries so we don't have to rely on the government for defense? Private education so that the government won't be teaching our children? Private police, private firemen? Seriously, how great was the quality of living when we *did* have those things, only they were private?

If your house burned down, but you didn't have fire insurance, too bad. No public education only led to no education. Back in the Roman Empire, you'd have wars for power between people's private armies, leading to massive bloodshed. Is this what you want?

Re:Changed the view of the US?

[snolan]

Seriously, are you one of those conspiracy nuts who think everything is part of the government (or some ultra-powerful "shadow government") master plan to keep us all in line or whatever? Well, governments pretty much exist only to keep power out of the hands of the people they claim to serve.

Re:Changed the view of the US?

[danheskett]

Umm, I think that the number of people who would be getting back something like $1200 in your example would be far greater than the number of people getting back something like $18,750.
Of course. But 15 times more? That's a good question for staticians to answer, and one that's not too useful consider I just used example numbers.

I would also claim that having $1200 reduction in taxes for a person making $20,000 per year improves that person's standard of living more than a $18,750 reduction in taxes for a
That is in fact true. However, it is a hypothetical point since in real life people making 20,000 a year pay $0 in income tax, and end up getting a heft Earned Income Tax Credit in most cases.

When they feel that a certain increase in taxes on the rich decreases efficiency in a way that outweighs the gain in equity, then they won't support such increases
Thats provably false, and you know. Until Kennedy cut marginal tax rates, and then Reagan cut them again, income tax rates were confiscatory and there was no talk of equity. For example, in 1950 any income over $40,000 (a princely sum for those days, but equal to CEO pay today) you paid 50%. If you made $100,000 you paid 68%, if you made $400,000 you paid 84%.

The point of it all is that right, now taxes for the poor, lower income, and middle income are the lowest they've ever been. Check it out. If you made $4,000 in 1970 you paid 22.50% federal income tax. Inflation injusted, that is $16,500 dollars. What rate do people pay on that now? 15%, with a $4,850 standard deduction, (meaing that you only pay taxes on $12,000 of it).

Claiming that the poor, low, and middle class earners pay too much income tax is a joke.

Re:Changed the view of the US?

[dr_canak]

What you're referring to is a "Laffer Curve",

http://www.investopedia.com/terms/l/laffercurve. as p

And I would refer you to a nice essay in "The Night is Large" by Martin Garder explaining why the Laffer Curve is nonsense.

Its been awhile since I read it, but I found this:

http://www.flashq.org/math.pdf

which i beleive is one of the replies to the essay when it was first published. It is in response to some of the assertions Garder makes in that essay. Its not exactly on topic, but gives you some idea of what Gardner was discussing.

see ya,
jeff

Re:Changed the view of the US?

[debest]

The highlight was the 1980 US/USSR hockey match for the gold medal.

Not to nitpick too much, but this famous game was NOT for the gold medal, it was a semi-final match. The USA squad still had to beat Finland in the final to get the gold.

Not that we Canadians still don't believe that was just a huge cosmic fluke, and all, but.... ;-)

Re:Changed the view of the US?

[ryanmfw]

Do you think the propaganda is against terrorists or muslims? I, unfortunately, have to say that a lot of propaganda in the media does not mention muslims being terrorists, but does equate them, as, terrorist==muslim. It's sad, but, what can ya do, but read /.?

Re:Changed the view of the US?

[ryanmfw]

"Seriously, are you one of those conspiracy nuts who think everything is part of the government (or some ultra-powerful "shadow government") master plan to keep us all in line or whatever?"

Well, I don't believe in the shadow government bit, but I do believe that the government has found an opportunity, and is using it to it's full advantage. Now just decide if the government's stable* now, or desires to become more powerful.

Really though, I don't think that any 1984ish thing will happen for a long time at least. :-)

*Not stable as in, won't collapse, stable as in, doesn't need to change.

Re:Changed the view of the US?

[loraksus]

I personally like how a company just can't seem to make a profit and is $10 million in the hole each year. Of course, the CEO gets paid $5 million a year and the board easily eats up the rest of the 10 million.

I think netflix had a year like this, apparantly they lost 4.x million dollars, and their CEO's salary was 4.x million dollars (the difference was less than 10% IIRC).

Re:Changed the view of the US?

[Anonymous Coward]

In the past 20 years, average CEO salaries have gone up 2000% (that's 20 times). How much has minimum wage gone up? Well, back then it was around $4/hour, now it is around $5/hour.

Yes, that's a real problem. Basically, CEOs are stealing money from companies, since to a large extent they determine each others' salaries.

But from that promising start, your logic goes downhill. You conclude "Poor people need the tax cuts. Rich people do not". It just doesn't follow.

We need legislation that catches the corporate thieves. The law should make it possible to charge a CEO with theft if he pays himself 100 or more times the median salary in his company. He or she is a crook. Belongs in prison, not the corner office suite.

Re:Changed the view of the US?

[Tiro]

And the hot-swapping of players while play is in motion adds a whole other dimension to the game that isn't done anywhere else in sports.

Well, that's how substitutions are performed in lacrosse.

Re:Changed the view of the US?

[DM9290]

Instead of focusing on the absolute size of "government", the focus should be on the relative concentration of power within the population.
(be that via oppressive government or oppressive corporate private ownership).

If 90% of all capital is controlled by 1% of the population, is it better for the other 99% that the ruling 1% consists of private ownership, instead of "public officials"? Ultimately 1% of the people are making all the important decisions either way. The other 99% get screwed.

Big Business is as bad, or worse than Big Government. Both are bad, but at least a democratic government recognizes some basic fundamental human rights, and is typically based on some kind of system of morality. And a democratic government can be overthrown morally (without killing anyone), if the government fails to carry out the wishes of its people.

Reckless Tax cuts, and programs which benefit the already rich, do nothing but further concentrate power in the hands of a few elite "businessmen" and further disenfranchize the majority of the population. Tax cuts and programs directed to consumers more or less evenly benefit the economy just as much as tax cuts for a few large corporations. However tax cuts and programs for the poor and middle class (who basically do not accumulate any particular power or wealth) do not increase the concentration of power in the hands of a small minority of people, but diversify power, and give the population as a whole a stake in the economic process.

Hard core conservatives really seem to want to bring back the good old days of feudalism, or perhaps a better system. Feudalism without even a pretext of human morality (such as honour, justice or religion), but rather only "corporate morality".

Leaving issues such as abortion of gay marriage aside (because they have nothing to do with economics).

Democracy depends on having a powerful government.
What difference does it make if we have free elections and democracy if the government is so powerless and debt ridden it is completely incapable of affecting any change.

I have seen my fair share of government screw ups and waste. But at least in that case the harm hit all citizens more or less equally (and all citizens in part shared the blame for looking the other way instead of demanding the government to be more transparent and responsible to the public). And more often than not. Government screw ups, really are screw ups (mistakes). And in the cases where they are actually full out crimes, they were almost always associated with corporate motives, rather than a desire of the government itself to do something bad.

But the victims of corporate screw ups are generally harmed far more severely, and corporations commit the bad deed almost always as a direct result of its mandate to maximize profits by any means necessary. The victims are generally out of luck with no recourse, as the perpetrators of the crime have declared bankruptcy.

Democratic Governments accept liability for things without the necessity for proof of absolute wrong doing. I.e. in disaster relief, or relief of victims of disease outbreaks, etc.

Corporations are not obligated to assist victims of anything in any way.

GWB seems to be interested in having a small but symbolic american government, totally and completely in debt and utterly beholden to a small number of multinational corporations or oligopolies (to which the government will owe trillians upon trillians of dollars). Sure the government will be small. But the the national debt will be huge. And you can never possibly pay it off, and after you die, then its debt will shift to your children. And if you dont have kids. That is ok too. Your share of the debt will shift to every other surviving american citizen.

But even worse. GWB and republicans, seem to be willing to use military force, or the threat of mility force to force every other government in the entire world to enter into the same kind of relationship with the big business.

Is that the American Dream? Apparently it is.

Re:Changed the view of the US?

[adamruck]

I agree that tax cuts for the poor is pointless. I also agree that 85k income is not super wealthy and 33k is a bit steep for taxes.

However, I never understand justification for giving a tax cut to someone who earns more then 300k a year.

Re:Changed the view of the US?

[jratcliffe]

It never ceases to amaze me how much goodwill can be engendered by learning to say:
Please.
Thank you.
Hello.
Good-bye.
Do you speak English

in the local language. The reaction to a horribly prounounced "Bonjour, Monsieur. Parlez-vous Anglais?" is HUGELY different than the reaction to "Hello, do you speak English." Just making a minimal effort really helps - it shows the courtest that you're not _assuming_ that everyone speaks English.

Re:Changed the view of the US?

[cardshark2001]

Now we have a war on terrrorism. WTF? As if there is anything that anyone can do to prevent a bombing.

Sounds logical on the face of it, but I can think of a few things we could do.

The 19 folks that came over here and ran planes into our buildings were not just some guy with a bomb. They were state sponsored terrorists. The state that sponsored them was Saudi Arabia.

A lot of people buy the politically correct "we're all the same" bullcrap, but there is a difference. Saudi Arabian textbooks contain teachings that say we are the devil, essentially, and that even to associate with westerners is a bad thing.

It's a problem that we are propping them up with our oil purchases. God forbid anybody should have to give up their 4 wheel drive SUV that they use for their work commute though.

Yes, we can fight terrorism by fighting the money, but, especially when it comes to Saudi Arabia, don't expect that from the Bush administration.

Re:Changed the view of the US?

[MoronBob]

So then what we need to do is just raise taxes higher and higher to have a better economy? Wow that is so simple.

Re:Changed the view of the US?

[bugnuts]

If cancer was cured, the pharmaceutical companies would be out of business.

They are more likely to be standing outside colleges offering $10.2M for curing the SYMPTOMS of cancer.

And compare athletes, which you claim do nothing for society, to movies. Do you pay for movies to derive anything of value (e.g. entertainment)? Do movies contribute to society more or less than athletes?

And the original poster you quoted, he's probably a pasty-faced geek sitting on his fat, spotted behind, casting judgements on what society does and doesn't need as he fires up a browser to surf more pr0n.

Not everyone happens to agree with the view that athletes contribute nothing and entertainment is worthless. In fact, most disagree because that's something that Americans spend the most money on.

Re:Changed the view of the US?

[radish]

You're right, I didn't think of Sailing. I'm not sure you can say one is "more technical" than the other, they're very different. Budget wise, I'm pretty sure F1 is up there with the most expensive. Any sport where a mere steering wheel costs upwards of $30,000 and drivers regularly write off several cars a weekend...well you get the idea :) Even the refuelling rigs are amazing, based on designs from military jets. The fuel is pressurized and pumped into the car via a custom built (sealed) nozzle at some insane rate. Every so often they go wrong and the ensuing fireball is quite spectacular.

Having said all that, I have been fortunate enough to look around some of the big whitbread (or whatever it's called now!) yachts. Amazing machines for sure.

Let's call them equal :)

Re:Changed the view of the US?

[GooberToo]

Where is the super-mega-moderation point button. If I had it my way, I'd give you a "+10000 Insightful", score for your comment.

Too friggen true! I always seem to find that the 80/20 rule applies to so many things. Thusly, I assume it's the same here. That is, 80% of humanity is "flat out stupid".

Re:Changed the view of the US?

[GooberToo]

I've had this debate before. I don't consider entertainment to be contributing to humanity. It's fleeting at best. I can assure you that I understand the position that you've offered. I'm just not swollowing it.

Not everyone happens to agree with the view that athletes contribute nothing and entertainment is worthless.

As far as sports are concerned, several studies that I've read and/or watched documetataries on, indicate that their popularity stem from neglectful fathers, whereby, sports is the primary mode of emotional attachment to their sons. In turn, their sons grow up mindlessly attached to sports blindly attempting to regain the sole attachment that they had with their father. If anything, the success of sports seems to underline how pethetic and anti-social the average male is. In otherwords, it highlights that sports are a symptom rather than any form of positive social contribution.

Re:Changed the view of the US?

[Suidae]

They are more likely to be standing outside colleges offering $10.2M for curing the SYMPTOMS of cancer.

Ha, lots of college students are already smoking that.

Re:Changed the view of the US?

[lazyl]

Fancy that, Americans care more about reality than appearances.

Umm.. He didn't mean that Americans don't know how to create propaganda. He meant that Americans don't know how to identify propaganda.

Re:Changed the view of the US?

[Amarok.Org]

Nonsense. I've _never_ seen an American act like that, unless he was drunker than a skunk - and I've seen plenty of foreign residents behave badly.

Congratulations on avoiding even the slightest bit of reality. Is it nice in your universe?

The real problem is people like you think you're more civilized, and you somehow absorb this ridiculous view of Americans and are ashamed by it.

More civilized than what? Than morons who do stupid things like spraypaint parked cars in Singapore? Yes... indeed I find myself quite a bit more civilized if that's your comparison. I am also, as you note, ashamed of people who establish these stereotypes of Americans.

This view of the obnoxious American tourist is mostly a fiction, and to the extent it's true it's true of any other tourist from any other country, or it's just heard third hand from someone like you who has also heard it third hand.

Having travelled in Europe, the Scandanavian region, Central America, and throughout North America, I have had the opportunity to witness Americans behaving badly throughout the world first hand.

You seem quite interested in absolving Americans from any possible wrongdoing (attributing it to fiction), while simultaneously pointing the finger at "foreign residents". Sure, every country has their "asses" (as noted in other posts in this thread)... ours just tend to be most vocal and unapologetic about it.

Re:Changed the view of the US?

[schizz63]

This phenomenon that you are referring to (0 tax revenue at 0% tax rate and 0 tax revenue at 100% tax rate, with maximum revenue and some tax rate in the middle) is called a Laffer curve and was created by some guy named Arthur Laffer. Modern economists still argue which side of the crest we are currently on. People who think taxes should be cut believe we are to the right of maximum revenue and visa versa. See: http://www.investopedia.com/terms/l/laffercurve.as p

Re:Changed the view of the US?

[Suidae]

Why do athletes, that contribute NOTHING to society, get paid the most?

Now, I'm no sportsfan, but to assert that sports are worthless is absurd. One of the most important aspects of society is socialization, and sporting events and teams have a huge influence on that. There are few other events that stimulate as much social interaction as professional sports (of course amature and 'little league' stuff is important too).

Re:Changed the view of the US?

[GooberToo]

Another excellent gem! I couldn't agree more!

Re:Changed the view of the US?

[raygundan]

That's some mighty sound logic, there. That average salaries for some segments of the economy have gone up at varying rates based on type of work has little to do with how big a raise you have managed over the years.

Consider any one part of your career. How much have starting salaries at your current job changed in 20 years? Is your salary now 2000% higher than the salary of a person in the same position 20 years ago?

Re:Changed the view of the US?

[Ba3r]

Corollary: And when left unoccupied by Monday night (American or World) football games, they tend to break/harm stuff. Pröst! -nb

Re:Changed the view of the US?

[CommieOverlord]

Military action, though politically dangerous, is usually beneficial to the economy,

No. Military spending implies taking money away from existing infrastructure plans or reducing the real income of consumers (ie through tax cuts).

1) Spending on infrastructure is an investment. Spending $100billion on education theoretically will pay for itself in the long term by creating a highly skilled workforce whose impact on the economy is greater than $100B.

Spending $100B on missiles is a sunk cost. The economy will never, ever recoup that money.

Granted there is the multiplier effect, that spending $100B on missiles results in increased spending. BUT that is also true of the $100B spent on education, PLUS the long term investment from the education spending.

2) Decreasing real income by raising taxes or causing inflation because some the economy is direct towards the military, necessitates a decrease in real income.

War is only profitable if you can plunder from the vanquished.

Re:Changed the view of the US?

[ragnar]

Bravo. I am also an American and behaved likewise in a recent trip to Italy. My wife and I tended to avoid the stereotypical American traveller, but I would tend to say that they were the minority. I believe the purpose of international travel (and even regional travel in the US) is to experience another culture. It is hard to do that if one expects the comforts of home. I'm glad to encounter another who understands this.

My obligatory horror story, if you are interested, came from a woman from Boston. She explained to me that she had to send her coffee back five times until the guy understood how to make an iced cappuccino. I wanted to scream. The Italians make incredible coffee and don't put ice in anything. They dress and act like professionals and take pride in their craft. I can only imagine the insult this person conveyed.

Incidentally, I returned from my trip recently and I'm still jonesing for a decent cafe. American coffee now tastes like dishwater to me.

Re:Changed the view of the US?

[Dizzle]

If cancer was cured, the pharmaceutical companies would be out of business.

The "good" thing, in terms of interest to the big pharmaceuticals, is that you don't need to catch cancer. People don't catch cancer from other people, they catch it from other stuff such as dangerous activities (smoking and drinking come to mind) or through their genes.

Unless they're curing people's genetic tendencies to form cancerous cells, the pharmaceuticals have a reason to cure cancer. If someone were gauranteed that their cancer could be cured, don't you think they'd be willing to pay a lot more?

A cure for cancer doesn't mean that cancer goes away, just that people don't die from it.

Re:Changed the view of the US?

[Lord Kano]

Why do athletes, that contribute NOTHING to society, get paid the most?

Because there are millions of morons whom are called "fans" who will spent outrageous sums of money to make the team owners obscenely rich. If the team owner is making hundreds of millions of dollars without so much as running 1 yard or making one basket/goal then why shouldn't the people doing the "work"(and I use the term loosely) get rich too?

LK

Re:Changed the view of the US?

[N1KO]

According to Adam Smith, supply and demand. It's the same reason why useless diamond rings are more expensive than water, which is essential to live.

Re:Changed the view of the US?

[AsbestosRush]

And a democratic government can be overthrown morally (without killing anyone), if the government fails to carry out the wishes of its people.

I call BullShit on this statement. Anyone who has power will typically do anything in their power to hold onto it. The only way that this statement works is if the military is in collusion with the people.

Re:Changed the view of the US?

[Tonytheloony]

France's cheating ways
You sure don't know how to lose graciously. Are you obsessed with France? Feel inadequate?

Re:Changed the view of the US?

[TopShelf]

As far as sports are concerned, several studies that I've read... (excessive tripe deleted)

That is just about the stupidest thing I think I've ever read on Slashdot. Congratulations!!!

Seriously, people spend money on things that provide value to them, your assumptions about their motives notwithstanding. People buy tickets to games, buy sponsored products, etc. to fund sporting events because they enjoy them. You may think that holds no value, but billions of other people around the world think it does. That's why they are called "personal" preferences.

Re:Changed the view of the US?

[Zeinfeld]

]Why do athletes, that contribute NOTHING to society, get paid the most?
Now, I'm no sportsfan, but to assert that sports are worthless is absurd

Even if they were useless are they any more useless than others who get paid equally obscene amounts of money? Tiger Woods does way more work in a year than a screen actor. Michael Schmacher, the world highest paid sportsman risks his life every time he takes to the track. Without his services and the services of other great drivers like Fangio before him there would be far, far less demand for Ferraris.

Fisher is a wanted criminal because he broke US law by aiding an abbetting a state who was at the time conducting genocide. The only reason he was being paid $3.3 million was to give the Serbian govt. the appearance of legitimacy.

In the aftermath of WW II, the British hung william Joyce 'Lord Haw Haw' as a traitor for doing the same sort of thing. Fischer deserves what is comming to him.

Re:Changed the view of the US?

[aero6dof]

And as people have wealth and retain it, it will inevitably grow. I am fine with that.

Hmm. I hope you liked the era of Charles Dickens. I have no problem with the absolute numbers going up, but shifts in distribution are of some concern.

I think the income tax right now is almost just right.

I'm not sure about that, if you start looking at smaller wealth vs taxation slices above 50%, I wonder if you might find that income earners from 50-75% (the middle class) are paying more income tax than they control wealth wise.

Re:Changed the view of the US?

[Deadstick]

Searching For Bobby Fischer was about Bobby Fischer like Bananas was about bananas.

rj

Re:Changed the view of the US?

[2short]

Well, if they cure the symptoms of cancer, such as, say, death, that's good enough for me.

Re:Changed the view of the US?

[be951]

The government didn't have to invent the threat, but they are blowing out of proportion the threat, and their ability to stop it.

Most likely. But it is hard to quantify how out of proportion either may be.

I think that's what he was trying to say.

That's not the way I read it. The statement is pretty clear that terrorists are an invention of the government.

...why don't we see more activity against Amercians on US soil? It would be easy as hell in the US to get a gun and slaughter people if you didn't care about getting caught.

First, I don't agree with the notion that nothing at all can be done to stop or curb terrorist acts. That isn't precisely what you said, but it is implied in "Given that you can't stop these fanatics...." I think the answer to why we don't see more attacks is (at least in part) that, though they may be willing die, terrorists don't want to waste their own lives to take out whoever happens to be at Denny's on any given day. Naturally, it is more complex than that, but it's probably a major factor.

Re:Changed the view of the US?

[thayner]

In a lot of cases, people are poor because of bad choices. That's not a bad thing. The hypothetical guy making $25,000 a year for example has kids to support. Everything depends on the specifics and on his priorities, but it's quite arguable that his judgement in having kids was poor.

Re:Changed the view of the US?

[identity0]

I'm sorry, but Boston Market isn't a restaurant... it's the fabled "Chicken Graveyard" where old, feeble and skinny chickens go to die.

Or maybe that's the city. Who knows.

Re:Changed the view of the US?

[Anonymous Coward]

I don't watch sports-- I don't have a close relationship with my father. He doesn't watch sports either. Two of my brothers watch a lot of sports and two don't. The two that do have much closer relationships with our father than I-- and they always have.

One of my sports watching brothers is a really nice guy and kind of quiet. The other is a loud mouth racist and quite possibly the biggest fucking asshole in the world.

Some people like sports and some don't-- it has nothing to do with your desire to bugger your dad.

Keep in mind that those "studies" were probably done by psychologists or sociologists. Might as well get your palm read while you're at it-- cause those aren't real scientists.

Re:Changed the view of the US?

[Chasuk]

You seem to have some trouble understanding the phrase you quoted.

Although rudely phrased, you do have a valid point.

Mea culpa.

Re:Changed the view of the US?

[Stone316]

The only thing that strikes me about Japanese tourists is that they take alot of pictures. I find Asians to be very polite and sensitive when they are travelling. Even co-workers who i've worked with still exhibit these traits.

I don't think i've met a rude Asian yet and i've worked with quite a few.

Re:Changed the view of the US?

[mikeg22]

This investment that you speak of is usually diversified so much that only a fraction of it goes to US companies. In fact, a ton of US investment has been poured into the Chinese economy in the last couple years, straight into the pockets of powerful interests that have no reason not to exploit what amounts to slave labor...Chinese labor laws are *much* looser than US labor laws.

So most of this money isn't even being reinvested back into the US. Ok, what about the money that is reinvested? Giving a ton of cash to any given company doesn't ensure that that company is going to add to its payroll. You see, large companies aren't just happy being profitable. They have to be as profitable as possible in comparison to their competitors. This is why a company like GM will cut jobs even while making profits. So, money that the company now has by increased stock sales (the reinvestment by Bill Gates in your example) will go into whereever the company can put it in order to become more profitable. Does hiring additional people = more profit? Sometimes, sometimes not. Sometimes it is more profitable to take that money and pay off bonds with it. Sometimes it is more profitable to take the money and invest it back into the market (further dilluting it throughout the world market).

So when it comes down to it, cutting taxes on rich people, even if you assume that the money will be invested, doesn't really do much for the American worker. Its a shell game, and the Republican Party has been fooling people with it for decades.

Re:Changed the view of the US?

[Travoltus]

So explain why it is that bankruptcies are at an all time high.

Lemme guess... people aren't using debt wisely, right?

Wow, whodathunkit...

Here's a clue.. debt is being handed out like candy now. People have to go into debt now just to make ends meet. When did we see that before? Hmmmmm... I believe we saw that back when people started emigrating from England to America. I believe the term "indentured servitude" described their condition.

For the most part, debt is a sign that people are not making ends meet and that they're sinking into insolvency in a dying economy. Or, at least, that is what the bankruptcy rate is telling us.

Re:Changed the view of the US?

[GooberToo]

You need to work on your reading comprehension skills. No one said that entertainment was bad. I said that it didn't contribute to society. Worse, you're attacking me for sharing the results of some studies. That's pethetic. If you're looking for the stupidest thing on slashdot, reread your own post.

Shesh. I'm guessing the studies hit pretty close to home, to get this sort of reaction. I'm sorry you had a bad relationship with your father, but don't take it out on me.

Re:Changed the view of the US?

[smithmc]

It's a bit more difficult to save 10% of your income when you're making $25K/yr and you have kids to support.

Maybe the guy making $25K should've thought of that before he went and had kids. Kids are expensive; condoms are cheap.

Re:Changed the view of the US?

[Beardydog]

Is IQ 100 the mean or median? Maybe we're all at 99, and Marilyn vos Savant is propping us up.

Re:Changed the view of the US?

[Master of Transhuman]

When the USEFUL IQ is probably 150, where does this leave you?

Also, intelligence does not equate with either emotional maturity (how well I know!) or rationality. There are a lot of smart, completely irrational, emotionally distorted assholes in the world.

Or even on /. ...

Re:Changed the view of the US?

[Unregistered]

Because they bring in more money that the average BS researcher. It's just economics.

Re:Changed the view of the US?

[Master of Transhuman]

I don't know.

Marilyn has been writing that column for decades, I think. Since she's kept the same job for so long, is she smart or stupid?

Of course, we could assume she does other things than write that column - with her IQ, it can't be that big a job to answer a couple questions a week.

Personally I would have liked to see her go into porn movies. Now THAT would have been a smart move!

Re:Changed the view of the US?

[Master of Transhuman]

"aiding an abbetting a state who was at the time conducting genocide."

You mean like sending Rumsfeld to Iraq to shake the hand of Saddam Hussein while he was (allegedly) gassing Kurds?

Then sending him more arms to fight the Iranians - who he was also gassing?

Congratulations! You've just won the "Biggest Hypocrite in the US" award (probably not the first time, either, right?)!

Re:Changed the view of the US?

[rk]

In fairness, in the 40s, 50s and 60s the United States was about the only country left with a sizable industrial base left. Almost everybody else had either not developed one yet, or had theirs bombed to little tiny pieces during the Second World War. The US economy could do nothing else but expand, given the global demand for our products.

The correlation is actually weak to nonexistant between income tax percentages and economic health over the lifetime of the country, and even if it were not, correlation is not proof of causation.

Re:Changed the view of the US?

[Master of Transhuman]

If you get all your news from Fox News (and /.), you won't read anything else.

Read the new book from the CIA guy about how Osama is being over-simplified for propaganda purposes. All this "they hate our freedom" crap is just that.

Of course, I would never argue that any religious movement is in favor of freedom - that would be a contradiction in terms. But the primary complaints the Muslim world has against the US is directly related to specific US policy and actions. (And if they also don't like Christians and Jews, the Christians and Jews - specifically Zionists - have historically given good reasons for that dislike.)

Besides which, terrorism against the state is always justified - and Israel, the United States and the new government of Iraq are states. As long as the terrorists kill members of the state and not ordinary people - as the original definition of terrorism from the "People's Will" documents in Russia defined it- I got no problem with it.

Of course, dropping the World Trade Center was an incorrect action - since a lot of uninvolved civilians got killed. Since we don't know who initially suggested it, and we don't know who specifically carried it out - with assistance from who knows who - it would not be correct to directly blame it on Osama or "Al Qaeda" (whatever that hyped-up phrase means) - who has never claimed credit for it (I'm not sure if he ever said he approved of it, but I assume he probably did).

Since it was a bunch of Israelis who were arrested filming the collapse of the towers and high-fiving each other and laughing while they did it, I would say that some other groups need to explain their motivations vis-a-vis "Muslim terrorism" as well.

Re:Changed the view of the US?

[LuxFX]

Because they bring in more money that the average BS researcher. It's just economics.

And if the pharmaceutical researcher brought in that much money instead of the 'professional' athlete, and we flip-flopped the question, the answer would still be "just economics" -- but this time with additional benefit to humanity. Why is our economic system configured to reward something that doesn't help society? I supposed I'm just a science geek who thinks that evolution is pretty smart, rewarding that which benefits the species and all....

Re:Changed the view of the US?

[innerlimit]

Funny? It's the sad truth... Big money spending industrialists? Yeah I can certainly see lots of families eating richly when they buy their seventh handcrafted, war-diamond encrusted, illegal-ivory plated, waay to big chess board...

like in the simpsons episode where homer buys the 'unnecessary things' that's the kind of stuff that gets bought with the big bucks.

ow that and britney spears tickets of course!

Re:Changed the view of the US?

[killjoe]

"Fisher is a wanted criminal because he broke US law by aiding an abbetting a state who was at the time conducting genocide. "

Aiding and abetting? Which what shape or form?

Re:Changed the view of the US?

[Rubyflame]

but there are far more chess players

Well, a quick Google search didn't turn up any solid numbers, but I don't buy that. Maybe if you include stuff like Chinese Chess and Shogi, but those aren't really quite the same as chess.

Realize that Go was invented (and is widely played) in China, the biggest damn country in the world, whereas Chess is mostly played in western countries which have a relatively small population.

The fact that you don't know a lot of Go players doesn't say anything about worldwide demographics.

Re:Changed the view of the US?

[innerlimit]

Speaking as a European I can affirm your thoughts on 'living in a big country numbs your sensitivity to other cultures'... But it doesn't have to be as big as the US. On mainland Europe the british are also regarded as 'insensitive clods' living on an island tends to isolate them from the rest of Europe in much the same way as the US are isolated from the rest of the world.

But even small countries can have this 'flaw'. Dutch people, are regarded in France as the worst kind of tourist along with the Brits. Maybe it is also tied in with their colonial past?
Really funny listening to Engeland supporters chanting 'Rule Britannia'... while really they've become the US lapdog. No offense meant, that's just the way it looks from where I'm standing.

Well one thing remains certain, french waiters are arrogant :)

Re:Changed the view of the US?

[giantsfan89]

wrongo. saving != investing the wealthy are wealthy because they know how to spend. http://www.richdad.com

Re:Changed the view of the US?

[ahdeoz]

Reagan came along to be at the right place at the right time for the economic recovery, but Gorbachev singlehandedly dismantled communism? (Not that that's necessarily a good thing, right?) They were both products of their time, which is why they both ended up in the positions they were in. Ford and Carter sank the economy because the economy was sinking, that's why they got put in place. Brezhnev stagnated the soviet economy because it was a stagnant economy. What's cause and what's effect? It doesn't matter. The US was stagnant in the 1970s and recovered in the 1980s. The soviet economic system was unsustainable. While individuals were not responsible, they were indicative of the overall trends.

Re:Changed the view of the US?

[captnjameskirk]

Now we have a war on terrrorism. WTF? As if there is anything that anyone can do to prevent a bombing...
... he says from his comfortable monday-morning-quarterback chair. But at last count, it's been almost 3 years (WTF???) since a terrorist attack took 3,500 lives in this country. I'd call that a reasonable job of "prevention" myself.

Have you forgotten how it felt that day?
To see your homeland under fire
And her people blown away
Have you forgotten when those towers fell?
We had neighbors still inside going thru a living hell
And you say we shouldn't worry about bin Laden
Have you forgotten?

Re:Changed the view of the US?

[nautical9]

You know, if we had recruiters for Pharmaceuticals standing outside of colleges offering new graduates 10.2 million over 3 years, then cancer would have been cured 10 years ago. Why do athletes, that contribute NOTHING to society, get paid the most?

And where would that kind of money come from? Pharmaceutical companies already charge and arm and a leg for their fancy new drugs - and I imagine they're already working at capacity.

And I don't want to spend $50 a ticket to watch a team of scientists working in a stadium...

Re:Changed the view of the US?

[maxpublic]

As a stereotype

You said it right there, in total ignorance. It has nothing to do with being an American and everything to do with being a foreigner in someone else's back yard. Generally it's very easy to pick out ANY foreigner just by their mannerisms and way of speaking, even if they know the language and have no distinguishing accent. Often a lack of understanding, or a misunderstanding, between the foreigner and locals will result in the conclusion that the foreigner is 'rude'.

This has NOTHING to do with being American, although typically enough you bought right into the stereotype (or perhaps you've decided to join the Euro-trolls on their daily American-bashing parade). If you're laboring under the delusion that Americans are a special case, go to Greece in the summer and see what the locals have to say about Italian tourists. Or what folks in neighboring European states say about visiting Germans. Or what just about anyone says about the French. Etc. It has nothing to do with being American and everything to do with being a foreigner.

(Well, excepting the Japanese. I don't think a people can get any politer than the Japanese and still remain human.)

Max

Re:Changed the view of the US?

[Anonymous Coward]

Actually, the supply of diamonds is artificially controlled by the DeBeers cartel. If not for that, diamonds would be no more expensive than the carbon of which they are composed.

Re:Changed the view of the US?

[akuma(x86)]

You know, if we had recruiters for Pharmaceuticals standing outside of colleges offering new graduates 10.2 million over 3 years, then cancer would have been cured 10 years ago. Why do athletes, that contribute NOTHING to society, get paid the most?

Maybe because curing cancer is several orders of magnitude more difficult than hitting 40 home runs in a season.

The financial rewards are there -- multi-billion dollar rewards await the people that cure cancer. These rewards far exceed what any athlete could ever make.

Putting up million dollar rewards to solve problems like the Hilbert mathematics problems haven't yet yeilded any solutions.

Athletes contribute entertainment value to society and are compensated at the rate the market will bear.

Re:Changed the view of the US?

[0111 1110]

A cure for cancer doesn't mean that cancer goes away, just that people don't die from it.

I think most people would usually refer to that as a "treatment" not a cure.

A cure would clearly be financial suicide. It wouldn't put them out of business though. There are plenty of other diseases to be treated. It would just be stupid and irresponsible to shareholders to work on developing one.

A cure tends to be harder to find than just a treatment. Of course in some cases, the opposite may be true but the pharmaceutical companies would never know it. An expensive treatment to keep you alive (until you stop the taking the meds) is always more profitable.

This is not some kind of secret conspiracy. The drug companies themselves will openly admit it. They are not ashamed of being in business to make money as opposed to "helping humanity" or whatever.

AIDS(HIV) is one of the more profitable (1st world) diseases. People have to pay to play (in terms of remaining alive). If a cure or even a vaccine is ever developed, the pharma corps with the largest patent portfolios of anti-HIV drugs will not be happy.

Re:Changed the view of the US?

[DM9290]

I said 'democratic' governments can be overthrown.

I can't help it if America only just barely has democracy. It is (still) a far cry better than the alternative (being pushed for by GWB and company).

I don't remember the word for it. .. a government run by the wealthy.

ohh... I remember. "corporation."

I agree with your statement.

"Anyone who has power will typically do anything in their power to hold onto it. "

This is why it is absolutely necessary to make sure no single person, organization, or branch of government achieves excessive power.

Of course there is a very strong incentive for any group which has gained power in a democracy to supress democratic processes within society in order to retain power. This happens on an ongoing basis. And it must be resisted and opposed at every turn.

If the government is strong (and democratic), this can be done without violence. If the government is weak (or non-democratic), how else could it possibly be done?

Democracy is a threat to the accumulation of excessive power in a single group because by its very definition democracy is founded on distributed power amongst all people. A strong Democracy is the best protection against the dangers of too much power accumulated amongst too few people.

If 90% the power is controlled by 1% of the population, it makes no difference what the people actually want.

Some (or many?) republicans would argue that the government should own as little as it can possibly own, and no more. This would appear to be just enough capital to operate an underpaid but rather large police force to put dissidants, draft dodgers and the occasional actual criminal in privately owned and operated (for profit) jails.

The idea that all government is implicitly totalitarian seems to justify this. But while governments officials may be tempted to abuse their power, CEO's are expected to (as long as it benefits shareholders).

A contract can not be entered into when 1 party is under duress or threat. And when an employer tries to argue that minimum wage (for example) is immoral because it costs jobs, that employer is blind to the fact that no one would willingly work for such a low wage, except that the alternative was death from starvation or jail. The "contract" was not consentual. It is slavery.

capitalism is great. As long as the power and capital is spread around rather than highly concentrated.

I applaud Bobby Fischer for playing Chess in the former Republic of Yugoslavia.

Re:Changed the view of the US?

[zipwow]

The point of giving away his money *after* he dies is that he can give more if he grows it while he's alive. Who else would you want managing your charity's money, really?

And if you're going to rant about his extravagant lifestyle in the meantime, you'd better do your research first. He lives in Omaha, NE in a house he bought in the 50's for about 20k. He drives his own car, and mocks corporations that go in for limousines and fancy meeting rooms. He's not a spender.

-Zipwow

Re:Changed the view of the US?

[Zeinfeld]

You mean like sending Rumsfeld to Iraq to shake the hand of Saddam Hussein while he was (allegedly) gassing Kurds?

It wasn't 'alleged', it was proved.

The US became so embarrassed by the reports of Saddam's attrocities that the CIA spent a lot of time and effort peddling the claim that 'yellow rain' was in fact the result of swarms of bees shitting at the same time and that the connection made with planes was purely coincidental.

And no, I am not making the above up.

Re:Changed the view of the US?

[Anonymous Coward]

Yes, he should have said "Arabs". It's not really about religion per se. Muslim is becoming nothing more than a buzzword devoid of actual content in the West.

It's really the Middle East, a geographical region, that we are at war with, not a religion.

Re:Changed the view of the US?

[Anonymous Coward]

Taxes are used to fund the government to fund services it provides for its people. Considering poor people get the same military protection, FDA approvals, money usage, and treaty effects, I don't see why the governemnt should see any individual differently then another.

Also, CEOs are paid by the board of trustees. If people really didn't like thier saleries, they wouldn't buy thier stock and wouldn't work for them and the 'problem' would go away.

Re:Changed the view of the US?

[Galvatron]

Actually, the supply of diamonds is artificially controlled by the DeBeers cartel. If not for that, diamonds would be no more expensive than the carbon of which they are composed.

Woah, slow down there, cowboy. It's certainly true that DeBeers exerts a strong upward pressure on prices, but not THAT strong. First, DeBeers controls only 2/3rds of the world's diamonds these days, putting them on par with OPEC as far as control of a natural resource goes. That's strong enough to exert influence, but it's hardly an exclusive control.

Second, diamonds (especially large, high quality diamonds) ARE still rare. Rubies, emeralds, opals, and so forth are all still worth more than their base elements even without DeBeers restricting supply.

Re:Changed the view of the US?

[Artifakt]

"If a cure or even a vaccine is ever developed, the pharma corps with the largest patent portfolios of anti-HIV drugs will not be happy."

But their competitor with the smallest portfolio of anti HIV drugs will be estatic if they get it first. It would be responsible to their shareholders to make a bunch of research by their competitors wasted money and those competitor's patents useless. For that matter, a drug that works only a little better, but has less nausia as a side effect will make the company that develops it perky for weeks, and leave the competitor seeking one even better as tit for tat.

Re:Changed the view of the US?

[RevAaron]

Your "insight" works fine when you're talking about people who make less money. But when you're talking about people who make $250K or more, it's easy to save. There are a lot of side effects of being rich- one of which is having a much larger line of credit. The wealthy can afford to take out some sort of loan and "spend" their money, all the while their real money is gaining interest- that is, making them more money. Yes, like anyone else, they have to pay that money back, but in the end, they have more of a net gain.

Hint: Most of the wealthy in the USA are not movie stars who make 22 million dollars a pop for a movie.

Re:Changed the view of the US?

[Igmuth]

Yes, I agree. How does one aid and abbet somone by letting them pay you $3.3 million?

Re:Changed the view of the US?

[ratzmilk]

80% of Humanity is reactive and 20% are proactive. Marketing companies prey on the 80%, as do most of the 20%.

Re:Changed the view of the US?

[Artifakt]

The US economy used to rest largely on kids not being all that expensive. If those guys who are making 25,000$ a year actually follow your advice, you are probably one of the people who will regret it, or you are in a tiny minority and owe it to the rest of us to honestly admit that your position is atypical.
Social Security is a great example of this, but it's far from the only one. You can model a society where the government is constrained by increasing average age to stop social security type programs, and many neo-cons have and think it would be great. Unfortunely, a low reproductive rate means a lot more than that.
There are too many jobs that simply require lots of young people. Age the US population enough, and you can't afford a lot of "liberal" programs, but you also can't man an army, and the increasingly rare young healthy person soon realizes that nursing home attendant, or paramedic, or police officer is now a 300,000$ a year job. His salary will come from what you now have saved for your retirement if you live that long.

Re:Changed the view of the US?

[dekeji]

Second, diamonds (especially large, high quality diamonds) ARE still rare.

There are many rare minerals that cost hardly anything, so rarity doesn't make the difference.

Furthermore, many of those gemstones can be created artificially or have substitutes that are indistinguishable to the casual observer. The reason these are expensive is because they have become symbols of luxury and wealth, and that is a product of marketing.

Re:Changed the view of the US?

[RevAaron]

A couple replies-

Dynapad, the project isn't dead. I'm the one who'd know, I'm it's pappy. However, Dynapad the site at swiki.net is often dead. I rather doubt that the US gov is blocking access- swiki.net is just flaky as hell lately. Never used to be bad, but it is now.

As a consequence, I've moved it over to Utaria.net, being hosted by them for free, which is very nice of them. It is at dynapad.utaria.net.

There has not been a release for a very long time, although I've released some newer screenshots, but still old.

What's the deal? It is very hard to find time for anything when you're working 50 hours a week and going to school full-time. Hopefully, that should change this fall semester, when I forgo school for a "real" full-time job, instead of a "shit-paying, second-class employee" or "student" job. Just 40 hours a week is a vacation, hopefully a long one, during which I will make a Dynapad release.

A lot has gone into Dynapad since the last release (2 years ago? jesus). Worth at least two releases of apps and upgrades. But, being a one man project currently ran by a man with not only no time, but a bit of a trade deficit.

I'm always accepting folks to give me a hand, either willing to learn Smalltalk or know it already. I've long wanted another coder or two who'd allow me to design and manage the project, but helped out with coding. One day!

Re:Changed the view of the US?

[RevAaron]

Umm... Rich dad, indeed. I'd be a "rich dad" too if I could sucker people into paying $200 for a board game. That, and if I was a dad. But rich at least.

Re:Changed the view of the US?

[Scudsucker]

If cancer was cured, the pharmaceutical companies would be out of business.

Uh, no. Thanks to patents, the first company to come up with a cure would have more money than god. Do you think that no company would find the risk worthwhile; that they'd make gazillions of dollars and put their compeditors out of business?

Re:Changed the view of the US?

[Master of Transhuman]

Actually, according to some reports, it was not proved. There was considerable quibble over the gas used, with the CIA apparently concluding it was Iranian gas, not Iraqi gas, that did the deed.

There are some counters to that argument, but on the whole, it is not proven that Saddam gassed that village.

However, the US DID make only a half-hearted complaint about it and then sent an envoy to Saddam to tell him to ignore the complaint, that it was just for public consumption.

Re:Changed the view of the US?

[zxflash]

"they want to wipe me out because I am useless." I doubt he'll do any time... In retrospect the charges look pretty ridiculous; no matter how serious they were when committed.

Re:Changed the view of the US?

[GooberToo]

Victim of another idiot moderator. I'm attacked and defend my position. I'm modded flaimbait. Some mods are so clueless.

Re:Changed the view of the US?

[GooberToo]

They are behavioral scientist.

Re:Changed the view of the US?

[Daengbo]

And how long before that was the previous terrorist attack (by a foreign agency, not OK City) thet took lives in that country? I think that three and a half years proves nothing statistically (because it is well below the mean), and that the success of the "War on Terror" cannot be assessed the way you think that it can.

Re:Changed the view of the US?

[jonadab]

> If cancer was cured, the pharmaceutical companies would be out of business.

Hardly. Doctors didn't go out of business when smallpox was wiped out, or
when antibiotics were discovered that could cure bacterial infections, were
they? There's always another kind of illness, one that we barely noticed
before because the one we just cured was worse or more common. Cure cancer,
and something else will be the big medical problem.

Details change. The big picture stays the same.

Re:Changed the view of the US?

[uncoveror]

So the man behind the man vs machine chess hoax has been apprehended! Will he talk?

Re:Changed the view of the US?

[Amarok.Org]

Pardon me if I respond to your comments in a slighty different order than you posted them.

You said it right there, in total ignorance.

Ignorance? How so? I said it in full understanding of the fallacy of stereotypes. As I said in another post, think what you want about the injustice of stereotypes... they exist, and we have to deal with them. Shouting about how they are unfair or untrue does nothing to change them.

If you're laboring under the delusion that Americans are a special case, go to Greece in the summer and see what the locals have to say about Italian tourists. Or what folks in neighboring European states say about visiting Germans. Or what just about anyone says about the French. Etc. It has nothing to do with being American and everything to do with being a foreigner.

I have no delusions that Americans are the only group that get saddled with these stereotypes. I just don't happen to care what the Greeks think of the Italians, or the Brits think of the Germans, or any other group. My concern is for the stereotype associated with MY country. It's up to the Germans to deal with theirs, and the Italians to deal with theirs, and so on. Anyone who isn't concerned with how their country is viewed just boggles my mind.

although typically enough you bought right into the stereotype

I didn't say I bought it, I said I recognized it. As has been mentioned ad nasuem, it's only the loud and obnoxious that get noticed - they're the ones forming the stereotype. You'll note that my original post was directed at an individual who belived that this stereotype somehow came from other country's jealousy at our obvious American superiority. I countered that the stereotype came from loud and obnoxious jackasses - and not because we were so revered.

or perhaps you've decided to join the Euro-trolls on their daily American-bashing parade

What I said wasn't anti-American in the slightest. What I said was anti-moron. I'm opposed to the minority of Americans being loud and crass and giving all Americans a bad name. I love my country and I have a genuine concern with how we're viewed outside our borders. It's called dignity.

(Well, excepting the Japanese. I don't think a people can get any politer than the Japanese and still remain human.)

So after all that, you conclude with a stereotype. Stereotypes are not always negative - this here just happens to be a positive stereotype. I'll admit that yes, by in large, the Japanese tend to be polite - it's built into their culture. But your stereotype doesn't hold true for 100% of the population, nor do any stereotypes.

Re:Changed the view of the US?

[DarkSarin]

Democracy depends on having a powerful government.

I don't agree with this at all. In fact I believe that the opposite is true--democracy depends on having a gov't weak enough that those elected cannot make themselves perpetual rulers.

If, OTOH, you meant that democracy depends on a powerful constitution, then I agree 100%. This is very different. The constitution actually calls for a fairly weak government--because the founding fathers (odd nomenclature, but hey) were tired of oppressive gov't, and wanted to establish a system that would not be used to oppress the citizenry.

This essentially means that the gov't MUST be weak. It MUST be weak enough that those in power cannot force their way into private lives. The real crimes of GWB are not even remotely related to Iraq, except that it allowed this to happen. Rather, these crimes are the erosion of privacy and freedom.

I dispute, however, that any Democrat (or Republican) is really going to be much better. If the dems had seen the possibilities that war in Iraq offered in terms of control, they would have pushed for it the same way. I am not entirely convinced that GWB has anything nefarious planned, but I accept that I may be incorrect.

I further dispute that the dems are any more interested in reducing the control that they have over our lives. K&E are very much socialistic in their outlook: gov't healthcare, gov't welfare, gov't social security. The idea of the "social safety net" is innocuous enough, but the path leads to everyone leaning on the gov't for support.

I personally feel that when people see that they do not HAVE to work for a living, then they will not work (though there will always be exceptions), and eventually this will cause crime rates to increase. Why? Boredom. Bored people do stupid things. If you aren't actively using your mind, you will eventually become bored. You may seek refuge in the latest marketing hole, but eventually more damning things creep in.

Think about it in high school terms. Who are the kids who ended up in trouble? The ones who didn't have enough to do.

Enough on that line: when I say Big Government, I am only referring to the relative power of the gov't to control private lives. The same is true of corps. A "big business" is not necessarily one that employs hundreds of thousands of people, but one that controls millions (a la MS) through their products. This could, conceivably, be a one or two man show. Look at the size of some law firms, or movie companies. People-wise they are small (compared to GE, for instance), but power-wise, they are big. This is dangerous and should be avoided.

I do agree on one thing, though: Bobby Fisher did the right thing--there is no reason that the US gov't should be able to BAN someone from playing a sport or game in another country, even for money. Trade embargos are one thing, but that is taking it to a very stupid extreme. I suggest that we all write our congressbeing and ask that Bobby be released and pardoned for his "crimes".

Maybe GWB can be convinced to extend a pardon to him as his last act as president. That would be cool.

Re:Changed the view of the US?

[Zeinfeld]

Actually, according to some reports, it was not proved. There was considerable quibble over the gas used, with the CIA apparently concluding it was Iranian gas, not Iraqi gas, that did the deed.

There is currently an open question as to whether a particular General was responsible for using chemicaql weapons against civilians. The issue here being whether it can be proved in a law court.

There is no dispute as to the fact that BOTH Iraq and Iran used chemical weapons during the Iran/Iraq war.

Re:Changed the view of the US?

[wideBlueSkies]

>>the CIA spent a lot of time and effort peddling the claim that 'yellow rain' was in fact the result of swarms of bees shitting at the same time

And what color is bullshit?

wbs.

Re:Changed the view of the US?

[shadow_slicer]

The problem isn't corporatism, or "Big Government".

The problem is that our government has become overly centralized: the federal government has too much power.

If you study US History you notice that the federal government has continually usurped power from local governments. Originally the federal government had limited power and could not really interfere with the affairs of states. In fact its only real power over local government was the power to regulate interstate commerce and the extremely vague "necessary and proper" clause (US Constitution - Article I, Section 8).

From that, (and a few amendments such as income tax) the federal government has blossomed into the chimera we know today. As the federal government expanded its power, the states were slowly mushed together, and with the states no longer having any real meaning, all commerce becomes interstate commerce. And since then the federal government has yoked america with the purse strings.

How does it feel to know that a group of strangers thousands of miles away is dictating the way you live your life? The vast majority of people making decisions about you don't even represent you, and even those that do feel your interests dilluted by those of millions of others.

A strong national government is a farcical democracy -- it's just King George all over again.

How about we go back to america the way it was originally intended.

Local power means that your vote counts -- 1 in a few thousand, not one in a few billion.

Let the federal government handle national defense and foreign policy, but let the decisions that most affect our lives be made by those who most represent us.

Re:Changed the view of the US?

[mikiN]

And I don't want to spend $50 a ticket to watch a team of scientists working in a stadium

I would gladly pay ten times that amount if I can be sure that by the end of the second half one of them has come up with a cure for cancer...

Re:Changed the view of the US?

[Thomas Shaddack]

Even diamonds can be created artificially now. There are methods now for growing them from molten metal, and the perspective technology of epitaxial growth from vapors. Which makes large diamond crystals of size potentially suitable for industrial manufacture of diamond-based semiconductors (as diamond can be doped - and the resulting chips could have many interesting properties, like ability to run very hot, and resistance to radiation). The resulting diamonds are much purer than the natural ones, which is about the only difference (and I suppose that slight modification of the technology can produce cheap counterfeit diamonds with IR spectrum and other identification properties virtually identical to the natural ones, which could cause couple well-deserved heart attacks within the DeBeers group).

Re:Changed the view of the US?

[ScottGant]

I don't consider entertainment to be contributing to humanity. It's fleeting at best.

I believe that "some" movies and some forms of entertainment certainly contribute to humanity. They are an artform. And as in all forms of art some of it is pure drivel, yet some of it is quite sublime. Novels, paintings, music and yes, movies all do contribute to humanity. If a novel, painting, piece of music or movie changes the way a person sees the world, or even if it makes them think (wow, what a concept that is), then that in itself contributes to humanity.

But I totally agree with you about sports. They're paid the most, and contribute the least. Why do we hold athletes up high and make them our role models? Athletes can even comit some pretty brutal crimes and STILL people's opinions of them are good because they could run the football up the line, or hit that basket at the last second.

Re:Changed the view of the US?

[GooberToo]

Fair enough.

Re:Changed the view of the US?

[EvilSporkMan]

100 is average by definition. The test determines your "mental age", which is divided by your real age and then multiplied by 100 to get a nice round number. Practically, anywhere from 90 to 110 is average due to variances in testing and all that jazz. This is according to my World Book Encyclopedia; The Wikipedia article makes no mention of this.

Re:Changed the view of the US?

[texwtf]

On the face of it this sounds pretty reasonable. The corporations which run this country have done a good job of making this view very popular. This works well in their favor, since the vast majority of Fortune 500 companies pay less in taxes than you (a single person) pay. I'm not just talking federal income tax either. Most of them are incorporated in Delaware which doesn't require them to pay State taxes either. This seems pretty consistant, since if they can't be expected to support their country why support the specific state?

Sure, the corporation's money trickles down. Not always back to anyone here in the U.S., but it does go somewhere some time. Doesn't my money do this? My money trickles back to other people and heck back to the corporations too. Maybe I shouldn't have to pay taxes either.

Oh, and how about the really rich people who pay so much of our tax burden, like the CEOs at those companies? Don't they pay more than their share? Well, no, as it turns out. Those people tend to have a significant stake in the _ownership_ of companies - their own and others. The income they earn for this, excluding that which they shelter, is taxed at a much lower rate. Don't be surprised if you find out your local billionaire pays much less in taxes than you do on a percentage basis. At least they are still paying some, thanks to the failure of the crooks in washington to completely dissolve the dividend tax.

The really unfortunate truth of this perception about tax is that taxes are important to a strong civic base. Yes, there is some government waste. However, consider how much or your hard earned $$ goes toward health care. Wouldn't you rather have a smaller amount go to state provided health care and not worry about what happens if you are unemployed for a long period, e.g.?

Are you glad we have services such as police, schools, public parks, and libraries? Me too. I'd love to be able to afford all these things on my own. But since I can't I'm glad I'm part of a community which supports these things. Would I rather have more money in my pocket or good schools and services? I would, but I can't speak for you. And no, the money doesn't all go down a rat hole. By and large it goes back in to the community where it creates jobs, etc.

But yes, I would like money in my pocket. According to the world bank, I should be making about 140,000 for my family of 4 to receive a mean average wage according to the USA per capita. Now, as a single person you may be doing that, but the vast majority of americans are nowhere near that level. So where is the money all going? To the government in the form of taxes?

Do you really think the rich care about how many jobs they create? Uh huh, that's what I thought. Now, let's consider your local mayor. Do you think
he/she cares? Will the mayor have a job after the town is downsized, or will he be congratulated for boosting the bottom line for shareholders?

Wake up, my friends. Neither your bad cop republican oil baron nor good cop democratic billionaire are on your side. You jobs are heading to poor foreign people with no political power while you are losing the domestic economic battle.
Progressive taxes are how we keep the rich from dominating us, not the tool they use to beat us down.

Re:Changed the view of the US?

[be951]

Ah yes, conspiracy nuts love stuff like the "Northwoods documents". A couple things to note about those documents: First and foremost, There is no evidence that anything described went beyond "preliminary planning", i.e. it is apparently just the result brainstorming possible scenarios. Hopefully, I don't need to point out that none of those scenarios were ever enacted. No harm to American citizens is suggested in any scenario (one does suggest possbile wounding of Cuban refugees, though it is not stated whether these would be willing participants as suggested in other scenarios). Much is made of the reference to "casualty lists" but without including the previous line mentioning the "non-existent crew" that would be involved in that particular scenario.

See how far the US will go to lie about "terrorist incidents".

You mean "see how far the US did not go 40 years ago, right?

Are you suggesting that the U.S. government was involved in 9/11, the Cole bombing, the prior attack on the WTC, the Achille Lauro or other hijackings, or any other terrorist incident? Would that be a 'yes' to the "shadow government" portion of the question as well?

You have no fucking clue what you're talking about.

Being rude doesn't really do anything for your argument. In my observation, it tends to put people off, and the shrug you off as another strident nutcase. If you want to enlighten people, try offering information without acting superior.

Re:Changed the view of the US?

[DM9290]

I said:
Democracy depends on having a powerful government.

You said:
I don't agree with this at all. In fact I believe that the opposite is true--democracy depends on having a gov't weak enough that those elected cannot make themselves perpetual rulers.

my reply:
If government is so weak that it is not able to enforce democratic decisions arrived at democratically, then the "term" democracy is rather pointless. We (you and I) can create a new government any time. We can have free elections, and implement the most democratic system devised by science. However, it wont matter because our new government will have no power to actually enforce those decisions upon its constituents.

That is what I meant by saying democracy depends on a strong government. If the "people" vote to criminalize poluting the atmosphere, but the government responsible for enforcing that democratic decision lacks the funds/manpower/authority to enforce that decision. We can not say that democracy exists. It may serve the polluters very well that government is weak. But it really doesn't accomplish the goals of democracy if government can't accomplish the "will of the people".

As for your point that "democracy depends on having a gov't weak enough that those elected cannot make themselves perpetual rulers."

Your point is well made. And exactly how "weak" is that? What happens when some private interest other than the government accomplished the necessary strength to make itself perpetual ruler?

Would you agree that the government must be strong enough to prevent anyone from making him/herself the perpetual ruler?

And if a government must be strong enough to protect its citizens from a private concern becoming perpetual ruler, would that not by definition mean the government itself must be perpetual ruler?

If there is never a "Ruler" to begin with, then there can never be a "ruler" to perpetuate. The problem does not come from government being powerful. The problem I believe is from government bestowing too much power and too much authority and too much faith in 1 person, or even 1 personally connected group of individuals.

I would like to know of a single example of a "weak" democratic government which has succeeded?

Re:Changed the view of the US?

[Chris L. Mason]

> Or did you mean that Warren Buffet and Bill Gates Sr. think I should also be paying more taxes?

No, that's not what I meant. Warrent Buffet has publicly stated he's *proud* of how much taxes he and his company (Bershire Hathaway) have paid, and that he hopes to pay more in the future. If I remember off the top of my head, this amounts to more than $300 million per year. Plus, he think the rules should be changed so *he* pays more (not middle or lower income people.) While most rich white guys may be greedy fascist assholes, they aren't *all*!

Re:Changed the view of the US?

[Master of Transhuman]

Oh, that's a nice idea: a Cuban refugee would be a "willing participant" in being shot by a sniper!
Absolutely brilliant! And citing the fact that President Kennedy shot down the Pentagon's plans does nothing to ease anyone's mind - except yours apparently - that the Pentagon was seriously contemplating actually doing this crap. As for you having no fucking clue, I rest my case.

As for 9/11, please explain how with a couple hundred flight schools in Florida that Mohammed Atta ended up at one with connections to the CIA and the DEA?

Not to mention the total standdown of US air defenses (including those in the New York area who have been conducting emergency response exercises for exactly that scenario for the past twenty years - except on 9/11) and not to mention the fact that Condoleeza Rice called San Francisco mayor Willie Brown the day before and told him not to fly on that day.

I reiterate: you have no fucking clue what you're talking about. You're just another patsy relying on "conspiracy theory" insults which makes your condescending tone about being rude merely hypocritical.

Re:Changed the view of the US?

[MrResistor]

The current grand master of propoganda is Michael Moore, an American (unfortunately). He could teach a class called, "Propoganda 101, The Big Lie Through Creative Editing".

I love how you conservatives keep harping about this like it hasn't been your bread and butter for the last 10+ years. You've had the likes of Rush Limaugh spewing the same kind of rhetoric for years and it was great, but now that someone on the liberal side has finally stooped to your level you get all offended? Suck it up, bitch! Turn about is fair play.

Re:Changed the view of the US?

[Tassach]

Mandatory birth control for the poor.

If there are no poor people then who'll pick up your trash, clean your pool, polish your shoes, bring you your food, and detail your Hummer?

Re:Changed the view of the US?

[whorfin]

Induhviduals are not the only borrowers. companies borrow lots and lots of money to finance their operations. Most small businesses would not exist if it were not for being able to borrow money against their future.

And for MS to give the money away, they have to, as you put it 'call their liquid assets in', which you say would be an ugly day.

Re:Changed the view of the US?

[be951]

Oh, that's a nice idea: a Cuban refugee would be a "willing participant" in being shot by a sniper!

I did not claim it was likely, or even considered, but if you think there are no Cuban refugees who would take a bullet (from a trained marksman trying to make it a superficial flesh wound, even) for a free Cuba, you're the one with no fucking clue.

And citing the fact that President Kennedy shot down the Pentagon's plans ....

You haven't presented any evidence that any particular part of those "plans" was ever under serious consideration of implementation. You have a lot more proof to show before you can claim Kennedy was the last line of defense.

As for 9/11, please explain how with a couple hundred flight schools in Florida that Mohammed Atta ended up at one with connections to the CIA and the DEA?

First, there are only 65 FAA certified flight schools in Florida, not counting helicopter schools (six, I believe). Several of those schools are associated with military bases. Now how about some evidence that there are connections between the flight school and CIA and/or DEA?

Not to mention the total standdown of US air defenses (including those in the New York area who have been conducting emergency response exercises for exactly that scenario for the past twenty years - except on 9/11) and not to mention the fact that Condoleeza Rice called San Francisco mayor Willie Brown the day before and told him not to fly on that day.

Evidence? Perhaps you're familiar with the phrase "extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof". Let's have some, or I'll have to write you off as just another whackjob and consider my end of this discussion closed.

Re:Changed the view of the US?

[Master of Transhuman]

Do your own Google for the facts.

Your idea that some Cuban would take a bullet is fucking insane - not to mention the fact that nowhere in the documents is it suggested that the plan was to use a willing participant anyway.

Based on what I remember of the Northwoods article, the plan was presented to the Secretary of Defense and Kennedy and shot down. Which means they actually intended to do it - it was not merely blue-sky planning.

As for Florida flight schools, I quote you CNN here (http://www.cnn.com/2001/US/09/13/flight.schools/)

Those aspiring to a career as a commercial pilot are often drawn to Florida, which is home to at least 250 flight training schools. Not only are programs plentiful, but the cost is relatively inexpensive for students coming from overseas.

You got a problem with the number, take it up with CNN.

You want evidence of CIA connections, Google for "Daniel Hopsicker", a former NBC producer who has written a book on notorious drug smuggler Barry Seals and now has one out on the 9/11 terrorists which allegedly establishes CIA connections to the flight school where Atta supposedly got his training.

You want the Willie Brown story, go here:
http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f ile=/ch ronicle/archive/2001/09/12/MN229389.DTL

According to a report Friday, May 17, 2002, on Pacifica Radio, the warning to San Francisco's mayor came from squeaky-clean Condoleezza Rice.

You got a problem with that, take it up with KPFK.

Sure, consider the discussion closed. You obviously get all your news from Fox and Rush, so it's hardly likely you'll ever get your head out of your ass to see what's going on.

Re:Changed the view of the US?

[be951]

Based on what I remember of the Northwoods article....

Well, they're available online. I looked at them. Nothing to indicate anthing other than "...a preliminary submission suitable for planning purposes."

I quote you CNN here

Fair enough. As far as Hopsicker goes, I don't know if he has an agenda or just wants to sell books, but everything I've seen from him seems to be from the conspiracy nut cookbook (take hearsay, vague references, etc... mix well then say it means anything you want it to). If you consider him a reliable source, great. It doesn't work for me.

The article on Willie Brown doesn't mention Rice at all, nor any particular threat. He even says it wasn't anything unusual. The Pacifica Radio story seems to be widely cited, but if you search their archives there is no mention of Rice on that date.

Re:Changed the view of the US?

[prisoner-of-enigma]

It has nothing to do with wishing it away. I understand that people are going to develop and reinforce stereotypes. I also understand that murder, rape, and robbery exist and aren't likely to stop anytime soon. That doesn't stop me from pontificating on the wrongfullness of engaging in murder, rape, or robbery.

So, the moral of the story is this: you can continue to lump me into the generalized, stereotypical "ugly American" category. You'll also continue to be wrong. If people want to remain wrong, it's their right to live in ignorance. I would hope, however, that ignorant people would seek to eventually become less ignorant.

Re:Changed the view of the US?

[prisoner-of-enigma]

One thing I, as an American, find somewhat funny (funny ha-ha, not funny weird) is how much emotional and historical baggage some Europeans carry around with them about fellow Europeans. The British disklike the Continentals, the Continentals disklike the Brits, the Austrians don't like the Germans, the Germans don't like the French, and the French don't like anybody. This is a "united" Europe? So much squabbling about such petty things. It in many ways resembles the U.N., with lots of posturing and speeches, but what's really going on is the politicians looking out for themselves.

No offense meant, but that's how it looks from this side of the pond. We have this same kind of stuff in Congress, but at least it's just states arguing, not sovereign, and supposedly "mature," countries.

Re:Changed the view of the US?

[innerlimit]

the biggest problem a 'unified' Europe faces is the tendency to regulate everything according to the wrong norm. The EU comission regulating the manufacturing of local cheeses in the north of italy is an extreme example of some of the stuff that needlesly sets back real progress.

Only now are we beginning to allow other coutnries easy access to criminal records, such a thing should have been done a long time ago. Improved administrative integration will be a boost to the inter-state relations.

In the end we're just 200 million crazy people wedged into a small space, it'll drive you crazy :)

Re:Changed the view of the US?

[GooberToo]

Wow...what a surprise. The loser struck yet again.

I have a hard time imagining how pethetic ones life has to be to moderate/troll like this loser does. It's probably safe to assume that it's spectecjr at this point. As any reasonable mod would of fixed the above mess rather than continue to wrongfully punish me. Since that didn't happen, it seems like a reasonable assumption that we're dealing with a serious idiot. That would appear to define spectecjr's mental state.

Fisching Trip

[mfh]

> Fischer, indicted by a grand jury in 1992, managed to elude authorities and left a tantalizing trail that included radio broadcasts from the Philippines and sightings in Japan.

So Fischer played a 12 year game of chess against the feds and lost, eh? That's the problem when you run from the law... you can't 'mate 'em, but they can 'mate you in 12.

Re:Fisching Trip

[Anonymous Coward]

It isn't the "mate in 12" he is worrying about, it is the "mate in prison" that is his real problem now.

Re:Fisching Trip

[JosKarith]

"you can't 'mate 'em, but they can 'mate you in 12."
What a coincidence - that's almost certainly what they said to "Shower Bitch Bobby" was told as he was escorted to his cell.

Re:Fisching Trip

[Anonymous Coward]

...an intersting gambit.

Re:Fisching Trip

[mj2k]

no, what he's really worried about is being put in an israeli prison....

Re:Fisching Trip

[ThatsNotFunny]

Prison Chess: Black [c]rook takes White king?

Re:Fisching Trip

[evilviper]

That's the problem when you run from the law... you can't 'mate 'em, but they can 'mate you in 12.

But it's always a timed-match you see. Sometimes as long as 80 years.

You just keep them from "mate"-ing you for that long, and you win by default.

Thank God!!

[Anonymous Coward]

They finally caught that villain! Justice is served!

Re:Thank God!!

[gmletzkojr]

Yes, finally our world will be safe from rogue chess players. Now the US can spend its resources on petty topics, such as the economy, drugs, unemployment, invading other countries, etc, etc.

Well, only non-medicinal drugs.

Re:Thank God!!

[Oligonicella]

"Now the US can spend its resources on petty topics, such as the economy, drugs, unemployment, invading other countries, etc, etc."

Troll

The U.S. didn't spend resources, he was detained by Japan.

Re:Thank God!!

[Anonymous Coward]

We have another victory in the war against terror*.

* terror = things we** don't like.

** we = George W. Bush.

Re:Thank God!!

[chris_mahan]

Yes, and now that the US has demonstrated its superior manhunting skills against a determined strategist, we'll be getting our miffs on Osama in no time.

Oh, but it was ... In Japan!!!!

Re:Thank God!!

[jadenyk]

Troll

The US spent resources over several years looking for him. They will continue to spend resources in bringing him to the US, providing a fair trial (which will be next to impossible given his statements in the past) and housing and feeding him for the next x years while he sits in prison.

Is he a true criminal? No. The only thing he has actually done that is illegal is play chess in a "bad" (as defined by the US Government) country. His views on terrorism and the attacks suffered by the US (as previously explained) are, unfortunately, shared by people who are still given time on TV, in newspapers and other media outlets. Freedom of speech is a basic right in this country.

IMHO, the US should not bother bringing this guy back to the states and prosecuting him. They should revoke his citzenship and ban him from the US. "If you don't like it here, don't come back!" There is nothing to gain and everything to lose in giving this man a trial.

Re:Thank God!!

[Limecron]

** we = George W Bush***

*** George W Bush = Richard B Cheney

Re:Thank God!!

[Throtex]

Well of course, your argument makes perfect sense! What better than to let the US Government revoke citizenships without a trial because some guy on Slashdot thinks it's cheaper that way and somehow more exemplary of the values of our Constitution?

Re:Thank God!!

[jadenyk]

You're right. So instead, simply say "Leave and don't come back - if you come back, you'll be arrested."

My real point was that it's a waste of time and money to put this man through our legal system when the "crime" he had commited was of no consequence.

To me, it seems a lot like getting pulled over for a broken tail light or something trivial like that. 9 times out of 10, the cop will give you a warning the first time and expect you to fix it.

I think, if he goes to trial, he will be convicted more for the statements he has made against the US than for the "crime" he commited.

Re:Thank God!!

[Serggod]

Come on he's not a villan! He's awsome and worthy of respect. Just because he doesn't want to comform to idiotic politics doesn't make him a villan. He stayed true to himself and his pricples.

Re:Thank God!!

[HeghmoH]

Unless I'm totally mistaken, he's not being extradited to the US on charges of a crime, he's simply being deported because he doesn't have a valid passport. That is a decision the Japanese undertook, because like most countries, Japan doesn't like foreigners wandering around without valid passports, visas, and so on. Normally the action taken in such cases is to kick the offender out of the country by deporting him to his country of origin, in this case the United States. Once he arrives, of course, he'll probably be arrested, since he is a wanted criminal, but it's not like he was the subject of a long international manhunt and the US is finally bringing him to justice. He simply fucked up and is getting forcibly returned to a place where people want to arrest him.

Open mouth, insert paranoid foot

[erick99]

I was somewhat surprised to find this in the article:

In radio interviews, he praised the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks, saying America should be "wiped out," and described Jews as "thieving, lying bastards." His mother was Jewish.

Behavior like that wont't help his cause regarding his 1992 match that was in violation of UN sanctions.

This is sort of interesting as well. It hints at a greatly inflated sense of self-importance and a little paranoia.

He announced that he had abandoned chess in 1996 and launched a new version, "Fischerandom," a computerized shuffler that randomly distributes chess pieces on the back row of the chess board at the start of each game. Fischer claimed it would bring the fun back into the game and rid it of cheats.

Cheers!

Erick

Re:Open mouth, insert paranoid foot

[gowen]

Fischer claimed it would bring the fun back into the game and rid it of cheats

Thats not entirely it. Fische Random is designed to remove the advantage to be gained from memorising scores and scores of standard openings and to encourage play based on talent rather than preparation.

Re:Open mouth, insert paranoid foot

[October_30th]

Yes.

Here is a more thorough article on Fischer's rise and fall.

Re:Open mouth, insert paranoid foot

[the chao goes mu]

Is it just me, or is he starting to sound like the chess-playing version of Ezra Pound (well, minus the pro-fascist propaganda)?

Re:Open mouth, insert paranoid foot

[TheCarp]

Well Fischer has always been politically incorrect. This is the same man that accused the russians of ruinin ghte game of chess by always playing for mates against eachother and always playing western masters for the win, and saying that women can't play chess because theres not a woman in the world he couldn't beat given knights odds. (not that there are more than a handful of men that could beat him with knights odds)

As a friend informs me, he had dissapeared back in the 70s because he believed the US government was out to get him. So in his mind he had been in hiding from the US for 26 years before he said that.

I guess the upshot is that we can now all expect a few more good crzy bobby fischer quotes in the near future.

Frankly i think its all pretty bogus. Ok Yugoslavia was under sanctions. Big deal. He went there to play chess. I think this entire mess shows an inflated sense of self importance for the US gov, or at least hypocracy. The UN matters when they agree with US and doesn't matter when they don't?

Hes an old coot who was one of the most well known chess grand masters ever. SO much so that he gave up his title and quit the game years before I was born, and I still know who he was. Just let him be, hes not hurting anyone.

Sure hes an asshole, but should bein gan asshole really be a crime?

-Steve

Re:Open mouth, insert paranoid foot

[gcaseye6677]

Wow, could his arrogance and sense of self importance be any greater? Guys like this give geeks a bad name.

Re:Open mouth, insert paranoid foot

[YellowElf]

And just where did you find this article? We slashdot nerds can handle active weblinks, you know. Or at least a reference to a tree-killing publication or something.

Re:Open mouth, insert paranoid foot

[rifftide]

Not a bad idea. Memorization of openings has long been a dreary arms race, and machines have way more capacity than anybody else. Maybe they should try it on an exhibition basis during tournaments.

Re:Open mouth, insert paranoid foot

[Xiver]

Ah yes... since some people are not good at, or don't like, preparation / memorization they deem that it is cheating, not fun, and should be somehow removed from the game.

<SARCASM>

I can see that. I don't really like the dribbling part of basketball, maybe it would be more fun if I could just carry the ball across the court.

</SARCASM>

Other than moving pieces to where the should not be, how does one actually cheat at chess?

Re:Open mouth, insert paranoid foot

[BigBir3d]

designed to remove the advantage to be gained from memorising scores and scores of standard openings and to encourage play based on talent rather than preparation

That is a nice way to say 'cheats' if you ask me. It's like a trained dog, it knows how to do it, but it does not understand why it is doing other than to make that tall biped happy so it can get a treat.

Re:Open mouth, insert paranoid foot

[YellowElf]

Well I guess I should insert my own foot. I found the text in the article I misread it to read "in an article", not "in the article".

Re:Open mouth, insert paranoid foot

[Anonymous Coward]

American officials apparently had been following his recent movements.

We can't get enough forces into Afghanistan, but thank Gawd we're traking down Bobby Fischer...

Re:Open mouth, insert paranoid foot

[Quirk]

A Phd in Psychology who worked with Fischer suggested Fischer was a paranoid schizophrenic.

Re:Open mouth, insert paranoid foot

[JPelorat]

OMG, governments can multitask?! I was hoping the IRS was going to be too busy running IED patrols in Iraq to demand I pay my taxes next year!

Re:Open mouth, insert paranoid foot

[pizza_milkshake]

Behavior like that wont't help his cause regarding his 1992 match that was in violation of UN sanctions.

insanity plea anyone?

Re:Open mouth, insert paranoid foot

[TheCarp]

Its the US that he has been hiding from for the past 29 years or so.

Granted, he has only been "wanted" in the US for 12 years, he has been supposedly in hiding since 1975.

Japan is going to hand him over to the US, said it right in the article. He wouldn't have been committing passport violations if he hadn't been wanted in the US.

-Steve

Re:Open mouth, insert paranoid foot

[shobadobs]

There are a few ways to cheat at chess.

For starters, one could consume a large amount of caffeine before the game.

Also, suppose a player decided to rig a chess clock so that it ran slow or fast.

Also possible is the use of handheld chess computers during a bathroom break. A few players have been caught using such things (not good players, I would imagine).

Although, I don't see how Fischerandom would counteract any of that.

Re:Open mouth, insert paranoid foot

[J-Piddy]

Just doing some quick mental math, I find it hard to believe that anyone's memory is good enough to memorize enough of the intial moves to have a significant impact.

At the beginning of the game, there won't be much variation between one game and another (at least compared to later in the game), so what's the difference between playing enough games that you figure out what are good openings and good counters, and just memorizing them? Do you think Fischer doesn't know "scores and scores of standard openings" himself?

I would argue that the difference is in the middle game, where there is so much variation that only practice and pure ability can help, and where the chess versions of "script kiddies" are easily dispatched.

IMAM (I Am A Mathematician), so trust me that combinatorics with games like this produce some huge frickin' numbers very quickly.

Re:Open mouth, insert paranoid foot

[Richthofen80]

From the article:

Bobby Fischer has been swindled out of a "vast fortune" in royalties by book publishers, movie studios, and clock manufacturers (yes, clock manufacturers), who have brazenly pilfered his brand name, patents, and copyrights.

Oh no! Bobby fischer is a geek, so slashdot should love him, but he believes in copyrights, so slashdot should hate him! OMG contradiction!

I can see thousands of geeks' heads spinning.

Re:Open mouth, insert paranoid foot

[FuzzyBad-Mofo]

Fischer claimed it would bring the fun back into the game and rid it of cheats.

I hate those wankers with aimbots and wallhacking, chess is supposed to be a gentleman's sport for Pete's sake!

Re:Open mouth, insert paranoid foot

[Anonymous Coward]

It's not cheating, but it does allow a way of playing the game besides thinking out your moves. If you can remember a large number of opening moves and end games, you can significantly reduce the amount of effort required to win. This is exactly how computers are able to beat human players at chess. They store huge numbers of opening and ending moves, and only use "smarts" to get from one set to the other. Randomising the pieces would drastically increase the number of the possible opening moves, most likely making it practically impossible for any human to remember any significant number. Computers would have similar difficulty, and it would probably take a lot of time and storage space to allow them to match up against a grand master again.

I think it would also change the inherent fairness of the game. Randomising the location of the pieces for each side is likely to give one person an advantage. The question is, is it more likely to give one side an advantage than the other side? Well, since we don't even have proof of whether or not chess is a fair game to begin with, I doubt we'll know that for awhile. Personally, I think being inherently unfair while also being computationally intractable makes for an interesting game.

I've got to try this.

Re:Open mouth, insert paranoid foot

[Zak3056]

Frankly i think its all pretty bogus. Ok Yugoslavia was under sanctions. Big deal. He went there to play chess. I think this entire mess shows an inflated sense of self importance for the US gov, or at least hypocracy. The UN matters when they agree with US and doesn't matter when they don't?

Ignoring the larger issue of whether or not violating sanctions should come with crminal penalties, it should be noted that Yugoslavia was under US sanctions at the time in addition to UN sanctions. That being the case, this isn't an instance of "the UN matters when they agree with us, and doesn't when our opinions differ" though I certainly agree that the current US administration holds that view in general.

Re:Open mouth, insert paranoid foot

[ideatrack]

Sure hes an asshole, but should bein gan asshole really be a crime?

Two words: Darl McBride.

Re:Open mouth, insert paranoid foot

[mslinux]

He's very mathematical...probably has asperger's syndrome (high-level autism). These types of people don't have *any* social feelings, or if they do it's very little. It's simply not in their DNA. They don't purposefully intend to piss everyone off, but that's one of the things they do. Nothing personal, it's just how they are.

I have asperger's syndrome. I offend people constantly. I know this, but I can't help it and the fact that they're offended doesn't bother me... not in the least. I've tried to make myself feel bad about my lack of social tact, but I can't.

Re:Open mouth, insert paranoid foot

[AndyMouse GoHard]

"accused the russians of ruinin ghte game of chess by always playing for mates against eachother and always playing western masters for the win"

What? I think you forgot to check the quote. In this context "mates" and "win"(s) means the same thing. Perhaps "draws" against each other and wins against the west?

Bill

Re:Open mouth, insert paranoid foot

[AmericanInKiev]

I would suggest that cheating involves getting to the front of the race by some route or means other than sheer force of personal intellect and a life free from intrusion.

"memorizing" openings invented by great minds other than your own is akin to playing Bethoven's fifth - it's really great stuff - but it aint' YOUR stuff.

Think of tic-tac-toe. I know all the openings - I know all the responses - and there isn't any fun left in the game. Admittedly my chess has not matured to that point - but in some circles it has pretty nearly - and I believe this is the fun he's talking about.

Apparently he has got himself a world-class attitude problem. - I feel sorry - seems mostly harmless in spite of his vitriol.

AIK

Re:Open mouth, insert paranoid foot

[hunterx11]

Don't drink too much coffee, FIDE conducts drug testing, because of this insane delusion that chess will get into the Olympics. Sadly, this is not even the most pathetic thing about FIDE.

Re:Open mouth, insert paranoid foot

[Rich0]

For computers the problem with opening libraries isn't just capacity - but history.

A computer has memorized the results of every opening ever applied in a decent game of recorded chess, and the results of that opening. So it has a statistical basis to consider some moves stronger than others. The libraries aren't computer generated - they're generated based on the best games between real humans.

There would be no relevant historical archive of openings if randomized chess were introduced. Sure, you'd have records, but you'd probably only have two or three tournament games played using any given opening setup - and that would be 100 years from now. So, there would essentially be nothing to memorize.

Basically, when you make an opening move, the computer is asking itself (well, when people did this to Kasparov and Fisher, how did they respond on games that they won?). You aren't playing against the computer in the opening - you are literally playing against the greatest minds ever to play the game, with the benefit of 20-20 hindsight.

Fischer randomizes one side only and mirorrs the other side so as not to create an imbalance - so the game should still be fair - well, within the limits you already pointed out.

Re:Open mouth, insert paranoid foot

[Fujisawa Sensei]

His mother was Jewish.

That would also make him Jewish.

Re:Open mouth, insert paranoid foot

[cheeseSource]

It's a lot better than randomly shuffeling the front row.

Re:Open mouth, insert paranoid foot

[Rich0]

You obviously aren't a chess player. Serious ones literally read books on opening libraries, and spend considerable time memorizing them.

I'm sure the brain uses pattern recognition such that it isn't truly memorizing every piece at every step of every opening, but the net effect is the same. Any chess champion could probably reproduce hundreds of openings on demand.

Sure, the battles are won in the middlegame - however if you go up against a better prepared opponent you probably will be well-behind by then. If your opponent does nothing but read chess openings for six months prior to the game, while you actually take time to eat and sleep, you probably will lose. And that is the part that Fisher doesn't like. No professional sportsman out there spends as much time preparing for a match as a chess champion...

Re:Open mouth, insert paranoid foot

[lusid1]

The UN matters when they agree with US and doesn't matter when they don't?

Thants pretty much how it works, yes.

Re:Open mouth, insert paranoid foot

[Xiver]

That is my point exactly. There is talent in memorization and studying an opponent as well.

Re:Open mouth, insert paranoid foot

[hibiki_r]

You might be a mathematician, but I'm pretty sure you are not a chess player. Most legal opening moves are so bad that a chess player does not have to memorize anything: If somebody opens with something like a3 or g4, any reasonable move will give you an advantage. This is caused by how inmediately obvious most bad moves are. In chess, a really bad move can be "punished" 2 or thee moves later. A more subtle error might be noticeable in 8 moves or so. Compared to a game like Go, where mistakes could not be obvious to an amateur 30 moves later, chess's true complexity is relatively low.

In pro chess you'll never see a truly awful opening move: any move that could be considered a theoretical innovation is tested and retested by a grandmaster before he ever makes it on the board.

As far as known opening lines go, some of the biggest opening families like the Ruy Lopez have known variants well past move 10. More like move 23. Any Grandmaster out there knows all of that theory. Even I, a complete amateur, know more than a couple dozen opening lines past the 8th move.

Re:Open mouth, insert paranoid foot

[KilobyteKnight]

The UN matters when they agree with US and doesn't matter when they don't?

Well, yes. That is more or less the reality of the UN's importance.

Re:Open mouth, insert paranoid foot

[drooling-dog]

Randomising the location of the pieces for each side is likely to give one person an advantage.

In that regard it would be more like poker, where skill definitely counts but you still have to play the cards you're dealt...

Re:Open mouth, insert paranoid foot

[MoronBob]

"Behavior like that wont't help his cause regarding his 1992 match that was in violation of UN sanctions." Actually his anti-semitic comments are now much more in line with the current policies and attitude of the UN. He may be in line for a pulitzer prize or similar award from the Europeans and the UN.

Re:Open mouth, insert paranoid foot

[Bromrrrrr]

I think it would also change the inherent fairness of the game. Randomising the location of the pieces for each side is likely to give one person an advantage.

Well, I imagine you'd randomize the position of pieces but give both players the same set.

Re:Open mouth, insert paranoid foot

[Dun Malg]

We can't get enough forces into Afghanistan, but thank Gawd we're traking down Bobby Fischer...

"Yeah, that's right, we were chasing Bobby Fischer with the US Army, that's why we couldn't send them to Afghanistan."
He was picked up in Japan by Japanese officials. All they did was revoke his passport and wait for him to get caught and deported. Take your troll-s elsewhere.

Re:Open mouth, insert paranoid foot

[J-Piddy]

Yes, but to how many moves does a typical game go? 30, 40, 50? Memorize all the opening moves if you'd like, but if you do that at the expense of actually learning the game, getting to move 23 (if it's possible to memorize ALL of the openings to 23 as well as ALL of the variants to your opponents responses) will be about as worthwhile as learning hundreds of pick-up lines, without ever learning a response to "what did you just say?"

You're right, there aren't very many opening moves. However, I'm sure you didn't learn those moves in the absence of the study of chess itself. I may be wrong, but if I remember correctly in the last contest between Kasparov and the most recent incarnation Deep Blue (as well, of course, as the early ones), the programmers said that they did not try to compute all the moves. Rather, they had to teach the computer to learn the relative "quality" of the moves.

And while it's true that chess doesn't have the complexity, and hence the "incalcubility" (word?) of Go, I still think that this isn't much of a problem.

Re:Open mouth, insert paranoid foot

[mthyen]

That is indeed the case. The white side is randomized (with a few rules like bishops on opposite color squares) and then the black side gets the exact same setup.

Re:Open mouth, insert paranoid foot

[azaris]

Sure, the battles are won in the middlegame - however if you go up against a better prepared opponent you probably will be well-behind by then. If your opponent does nothing but read chess openings for six months prior to the game, while you actually take time to eat and sleep, you probably will lose.

From an interview with Rustam Kasimdzhanov, the new FIDE World Champion:

(On his preparation for the World Championship) Nothing special, I only prepared for the first round against Alejandro Ramirez. I had to work very hard to catch up with opening theory during the tournament. I took each decision round by round and played lines I had rarely played before, since all my opponents were very well prepared.

Of course the new time controls and knockout format favored blitz players and players with good nerves in time pressure but still, opening theory can only get you so far.

Re:Open mouth, insert paranoid foot

[pgilman]

" Even I, a complete amateur, know more than a couple dozen opening lines past the 8th move."

dude. if you know more than a couple dozen opening lines past the 8th move, you're hardly a complete amateur. 8-P

Re:Open mouth, insert paranoid foot

[Danny Rathjens]

Ah yes... since some people are not good at, or don't like, preparation / memorization they deem that it is cheating, not fun, and should be somehow removed from the game.

It's not about being good at it. The reason some of us enjoy chess so much is that we like to be in that state of intense concentration where you come up with ideas and make analytical decisions. When you just use the 'recall from memory' part of your brain, it is not as fun. And there have been studies using scans of brains to show that using the recall part of the brain more is precisely what happens the more advanced a player is.

Re:Open mouth, insert paranoid foot

[kfg]

. . . Yugoslavia was under US sanctions at the time. . .

You will probably find, if you examine your own passport, a notation to the effect that, while you are requested to contact the State Department before visiting certain countries, the American government has no authority to restrict the travel of citizens.

Sanctions, legally, only restrict trade, not travel, so the issue devolves to how much money Fisher left behind or took out of Yugoslavia.

KFG

Re:Open mouth, insert paranoid foot

[dustman]

You might be a mathematician, but I'm pretty sure you are not a chess player. Most legal opening moves are so bad that a chess player does not have to memorize anything: If somebody opens with something like a3 or g4, any reasonable move will give you an advantage.

First you say that "a chess player does not have to memorize anything", and then you say that you've memorized a couple dozen lines past the 8th move?

I play a lot of chess... Since I signed onto freechess.org in Sep 1997, I have played more than 22,000 games (lots of them were with very fast time controls, or variant games, but still)...

I am still a patzer. The most annoying thing (to me) in a game is just "trying to have fun", play an interesting game, and you run into people with a ton of opening knowledge.

The fun part of chess is figuring things out. Not looking up a move in a book. (It doesn't matter if you've memorized the openings or not... It's essentially the same thing)

I like Fischer Random much more than "normal" chess for this reason.

In pro chess you'll never see a truly awful opening move

There was another slashdot article a few years ago where a British GM was suggesting that he (and others) had probably played Bobby Fischer online, basically just because they got spanked so bad.

Against GMs, this "mystery figure" would do things like his first 8 moves moving every pawn up once, or 1. d3 ... 2. Kd2 ... 3. Kc3 etc..

And even after these horrible openings, this person was still dominating other GMs.

Re:Open mouth, insert paranoid foot

[Zak3056]

Sanctions, legally, only restrict trade, not travel, so the issue devolves to how much money Fisher left behind or took out of Yugoslavia

Another poster already provided citations elsewhere in this thread, but after winning, Fischer left with almost four million dollars. The US Treasury also argued that his presence was a significant economic boon to Yugoslavia.

In short, the answer is "alot" and he seems to be pretty screwed to the tune of something like a quarter million in fines, and having to forfeit all of his winnings. Not to mention the possible jail time.

While I don't think the US government should be telling its citizens that it can't engage in economic actibity with foreign countries we are not at war with, I can see how the power to regular foreign commerce gives the government the right to do just that. What's worse for Fischer is that he isn't exactly a sympathetic figure--I'd be amazed if there is a Jury in this country that could be impartial in regard to him.

Re:Open mouth, insert paranoid foot

[Politburo]

Behavior like that wont't help his cause regarding his 1992 match that was in violation of UN sanctions.

No, it won't help, but it shouldn't hurt, either. Those statements have no bearing on the issue at hand and Mr. Fischer is free to say whatever he likes.

Re:Open mouth, insert paranoid foot

[kfg]

What's worse for Fischer is that he isn't exactly a sympathetic figure. . .

No. Not exactly.

KFG

Re:Open mouth, insert paranoid foot

[TheCarp]

Your right I did... but more so I forgot to read what I wrote... I meant draws not mates. And I would check the quote by my chess quotes book is in a box somewhere right now.

but I didn't put it in quotes.... I was paraphrasing.

-Steve

Re:Open mouth, insert paranoid foot

[Stray7Xi]

In competitive games amateur does not mean necessarily a reference to skill level. Amateur simply means not professional (makes money through the game).

Think amateur golf tournaments, they may be amateurs, but they can still kick most peoples' ass.

Re:Open mouth, insert paranoid foot

[aminorex]

The real sphincters are the prosecutors who chose to waste public monies on these frivolous prosecutions. Messing up people's lives for no valid public interest, for the sake of personal publicity and aggrandizement, has to rank up there with child pornographer as a contribution to human culture.

Re:Open mouth, insert paranoid foot

[Kohonen]

Fischers views get alot more extreme and offensive the more you look into it. For years he's had a radio show spouting anti-American, anti-Semetic rhetoric. Here is a website

http://home.att.ne.jp/moon/fischer/

This story is going to get alot bigger, it will be very interesting to follow.

Re:Open mouth, insert paranoid foot

[MarcQuadra]

described Jews as "thieving, lying bastards."

I grew up in a Jewish neighborhood, and I have oodles of Jewish friends. I will say that I will NEVER work for another jewish-owned comapny. Of the five jobs I've had the two working for Jews were the hardest to get money from.

One explained to me how I should be glad to have a job and he wouldn't pay overtime because he was 'ideologically opposed' to the idea, the other would cout hours if you filed realistic reimbursement forms and wouldn't pay contractual minimums for state-involved projects.

I'm still getting used to my boss telling me to get things reimbursed and to buy stuff on our budget.

So while I don't have a big-enough sample, I can say that my experience so far is that Jews, while great people, tend to be the ones who will wring their employees for every cent.

Also, I think many Jews have a 'socially acceptable' racism towards arabs and Muslims. I've never seen a Jew get chewed out for slurring an arab, but If I were to chime in and say something about 'niggers' people would kick me out on the street.

Re:Open mouth, insert paranoid foot

[Xiver]

When you just use the 'recall from memory' part of your brain, it is not as fun

You mean its not as fun to YOU.

Re:Locked Up

[mnemonic_]

That is the worst written post I have ever read on Slashdot.

And that's saying a lot.

Why does this mean so much?

[CrackedButter]

Anybody with some knowledge care to inform the few of us who are clueless as to what he did other than play a game of ...chess.

Re:Why does this mean so much?

[CrackedButter]

That article certainly holds a small amount of bias, i liked the line where Japan should claim "trillions" off the US for war repayments. As if they could or would.

Re:Why does this mean so much?

[Maqueo]

Up until Bobby Fisher Russia had been the reigning chess champion... well forever (with the exception of some european / cuban[!] players the beginning of the century). Not only the fact that he won in a time of political tension, but also played REALLY brilliantly was quite an amazing feat. He remains one of the greatest players all-time, and his matches against Spassky continue to be studied nowadays by chess aficionados everywhere. It also seems the KGB tried to pull several dirty tricks in order to help Spassky to win, without luck. If you have an interest in chess, check out some of his games. Amazing style (although I prefer Alekhine :P )

Re:Why does this mean so much?

[Maqueo]

I haven't got any links bookmarked really, I have the stuff on print. After the many hours in front of a screen I rather play on a board. Google for his championship games againt Boris Spassky. Besides the political significance of his victories, he just had a kick ass style. Very american I guess: open, agressive, creative. These games were followed all over the world and covered extensivly in the (regular) press. But as has been mentioned before, he was extremely excentric, refused to defend the title in the rematch, and hasn't played much chess since. To say that he'd get in trouble every time he opened his mouth is not an understatement.

Re:Why does this mean so much?

[falcon5768]

well they have wanted him for 12 years, if they REALLY wanted him im sure he would haven been found.... he got stupid and caught and now they are following proccedure, no big deal about it... Cant let him go since he broken international law with that game of chess..

Personally I think the guy is a asshat, he was and probably still is a the greatest chess player who ever lived, but someone really needs to sew his mouth shut since any idea of genius instantly goes out the door when he opens his mouth and shit comes out

Re:Why does this mean so much?

[Maqueo]

How do you think he felt as a chessmaster knowing that all he had been was a pawn

I think he was quite aware of the political implications of it all (not that it mattered to him). His refusing to continue playing was more due his excentric demands (and one could argue mental problems).

but who would really expect that from his chess style?

No, not really no :) Come to think of it... something very similar happened to Alekhine (my fav player). He had a brilliant style (along with a very strong personality and a vodka habit), and was screwed over by the russian goverment when he refused to be a political pawn. Very sad story (I recommend his biography/best games book)

But what about Paul Simon?

[lxt]

...not entirely sure about this one, but didn't Paul Simon violate US/UN sanctions by recording his album Graceland in South Africa? I don't recall anything happening to him over it (then again, I was only around four years old at the time :))...

Re:But what about Paul Simon?

[Japong]

Well yes, but you couldn't help but bob your head to Graceland. You can't dance to chess!

Re:But what about Paul Simon?

[vidarh]

UN sanctions, yes, but not US sanctions. UN sanctions don't automatically have the force of law. Graceland entered the Billboard Top Album chart on September 8th 1985. On September 26th, Reagan vetoed the bill intended to start US sanctions. On October 3rd the veto was overriden by the Senate... So it was close, and he got some flack for it, though it was largerly silenced because of the focus on black South African music, but he didn't violate US law.

Re:But what about Paul Simon?

[Anonymous Coward]

The cast begs to differ.

Re:But what about Paul Simon?

[blackmonday]

Yes, but nobody realized it was him, he was going under the pseudonym of a guy named "Al". He kept telling people to call him that.

Re:But what about Paul Simon?

[dasmegabyte]

Of course he didn't take much flack. If a guy goes out and records an album for the sole purpose of increasing the awareness of an oppressed culture, you don't fault him for breaking the law you invented to inconvenience the opressors. It'd be political suicide.

Re:But what about Paul Simon?

[two_socks]

The cast begs to differ.

That was actually funny ... why on earth would you post that AC?

Re:But what about Paul Simon?

[JPelorat]

I still prefer Johnny Clegg & Juluka/Savuka. Too bad they never had the attention or stardom that Simon got.

Re:But what about Paul Simon?

[mrtrumbe]

Read your sibling posts. Paul Simon did NOT violate US law. He violated UN law.

I'm not disagreeing with your comments about selective enforcement. This is just not one of those cases.

Taft

Re:But what about Paul Simon?

[Democritus2]

That was not in Hitler's, errrr, I mean Bush's America!!!!

liberal unamerican terrorist bastard

Re:But what about Paul Simon?

[FinalCut]

Flamebait sucks - and this is about as bad as it gets.

Re:But what about Paul Simon?

[MrScary]

I think you are thinking of Black Sabbath.

Re:But what about Paul Simon?

[TamMan2000]

yeah, I figured that out after I hit submit...

Nobody had commented when I started typing...

Re:But what about Paul Simon?

[eoyount]

No, Chevy Chase was sentenced to make the worst talk show in history. That was punishment for everyone.

Re:But what about Paul Simon?

[Placido]

And we all know how wonderfully effective the UN is. /Sarcasm

Re:But what about Paul Simon?

[drooling-dog]

True, but it's hard to be inconspicuous when you have diamonds on the soles of your shoes...

Re:But what about Paul Simon?

[AndroidCat]

The FBI is still looking for "Betty".

Re:But what about Paul Simon?

[Cereal Box]

I just learned about "Freedom of Speech Zones"

Bush did not invent these. It's common practice to not allow protestors front and center access to a political event (the democrats recently got a slap on the wrist from by the media for doing the exact same thing).

legislating morality (constitution ammendment on marriage)

There are many valid reasons for opposing same-sex marriage, primarily the negative social effects it will have (conclusions drawn from same-sex marriage legalizations in Scandinavian countries).

war

Bush didn't invent war.

removal of free speech

Specific example please.

Of course i am just a commie liberal right?

Probably.

Re:But what about Paul Simon?

[Cereal Box]

People are being arrested in areas because they have a sign that is anti-bush and for no other reason.

Cite please (and not from some blog where a guy "says" he got arrested for doing that).

Your answer on Same sex marriage is extremely weak. That does not justify putting a constitutional ammendment in place that violates the very constitution it is ammending (equal protection). Name me one justification that does not involve offending someones moral code based on relgion?

Well, the ENTIRE article I linked to had NOTHING to do with religion. It has to do with the fact that in the Scandinavian countries that have legalized gay marriage the idea of marriage itself has dissolved, leading to a record high ~60% birth rate out of wedlock. That's not a good situation for children.

Re:But what about Paul Simon?

[Cereal Box]

Your article has NOTHING to do with constitutionality. Which is why I did not address it.

No, it sounds to me like you didn't address it because you ASSUMED the core argument revolved around morality and religious beliefs. You've got to be kidding me if you think the only acceptable argument AGAINST gay marriage is to somehow prove that the equal protection amendment is somehow UN-constitutional. The fact of the matter is that there ARE valid social consequences to legalizing gay marriage and that IS a valid reason to oppose it.

Department

[pteaxwa]

"from governments-never-play-for-a-draw dept"

haha, that is great.

chess sanctions?

[Lord Ender]

Perhaps they should start an oil-for-chess program.

Busting him for violating sanctions

[LookSharp]

Kind of like busting Al Capone for tax evasion. The US has to bust him for playing in Yugoslavia in 1992 during sanctions, because since he's lost his mind he's been spreading all sorts of anti-US and anti-semitic propaganda around the world... even praising the 9/11 attacks. And we can't have things like unpopular speech going on during a war, eh? ;)

Sad when a genius has his cheese slide off his cracker.

Re:Busting him for violating sanctions

[Tar-Palantir]

Sad when a genius has his cheese slide off his cracker.

Fischer's always been a nutcase, even back when he was World Champion. Read a decent book on the history of chess (or one specific to him), there are (true) stories about Fischer that you just wouldn't believe. Little things like making the tournament organizers get a chessboard 3 millimeters larger. Flying his favorite chair to the match (in Iceland, no less). Giving up his freakin' World Championship because his insane terms didn't get met.

Basically what I'm saying is, yes Fischer is crazy, but this not new.

Re:Busting him for violating sanctions

[Lord Ender]

You can't really censor someone by arresting them. A jailed person can still have visitors, write letters, etc. Military detanees can still be censored, but for US citizens, your freedom of speach is safe, even in jail. I guess we just need to conquer the world so everyone can share our freedoms.

Re:Busting him for violating sanctions

[JPelorat]

You realise he's been on the lam for a very long time now, right? That not everything has 'the war' or 'Bushcroft' as a primary cause? That more people freely say much worse than he has every day and nothing happens to them, nor will happen to them?

Re:Busting him for violating sanctions

[LostCluster]

The US hasn't even had a chance to do anything to him yet. All that was done was he was placed on a list of wanted criminals known back in 1992, and when his true identity was discovered by Japan's officials, they're sending him back to the USA to face the pending charges.

This isn't about what he's said recently, it's about declaring that if you're an American who does business with a sanctioned nation you're going to have to spend your entire life on the run because one slip of your true identity and you're headed to jail.

Re:Busting him for violating sanctions

[yack0]

> Sad when a genius has his cheese slide off his cracker.

Fischer's cheese was never on his cracker. Ever.

Yes, he was/is a brilliant chess player, but other than that he's shown absolutely no positive social graces, a raging ego (into the bad side of ego - some ego good) a sense of vengeance overall and a pretty cracked sense of the world.

I'd even submit that there's a large portion of those who could be 'genius' and are wackos and/or socially inept as well.

(no, not a troll, but I realize I should don the nomex suit)

Re:Busting him for violating sanctions

[LookSharp]

You realise he's been on the lam for a very long time now, right? That not everything has 'the war' or 'Bushcroft' as a primary cause? That more people freely say much worse than he has every day and nothing happens to them, nor will happen to them?

Clarification:
I apologize if you got the impression that I'm a weak-kneed, hippie liberal in opposition to the war. The comment was made quite tongue-in-cheek, to possibly stimulate some discussion here.

While it is true that I generally mistrust the work of Ashcroft, it is because I fear the net effects of his political work which seems to undercut civil liberties. (I consider myself largely Libertarian in mindset, except that I have never taken illegal drugs nor owned a handgun, so many of the vocal Libertarians have little use for my support. :)

Re:Busting him for violating sanctions

[LookSharp]

I agree that to jail someone does not censor them, especially in the US. But do I believe that some element of the zealousness surrounding the press for extradition is punitive for his speech? Absolutely. :)

Unpopular speech is generally now, more than ever before, tolerated in our society and by our government. But there are still cases of dissenting public figures and private parties who seek to nullify the offending speech, either by discrediting the speaker or going as far as physical backlash.

Re:Busting him for violating sanctions

[LookSharp]

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.

Re:Busting him for violating sanctions

[BigBir3d]

That and an illegal passport.

It is sad to see his 'fall from grace' as it were.

Re:Busting him for violating sanctions

[ViolentGreen]

You can't really censor someone by arresting them. A jailed person can still have visitors, write letters, etc.

In this case, it might do exactly the opposite of censor him. He has been in hiding for a long time. Now he'll be in the US and while probably inprisoned, he'll have less of an incentive to keep quite.

From reading these posts though, he sounds like a complete nutjob. I doubt anyone will take him seriously. He'll just be another nutjob mailing letters to someone to post them on the web.

Re:Busting him for violating sanctions

[tabdelgawad]

The difference is that Capone's other 'activities' were criminal, but spouting off anti-semitic and anti-American propaganda is not. I really hope this was a routine bust, not a calculated way to silence dissent (even if it's the worst kind of dissent).

Re:Busting him for violating sanctions

[MORTAR_COMBAT!]

Personally I think it's quite sad. Bobby has a serious mental illness of some kind, and as it has run un-checked for so many years he is regarded widely as just being a nut-job. When he mostly just needs to get some psychiatric help.

I think it is a reasonable assumption that:
1. Bobby Fischer will try to defend himself
2. He won't be allowed and his lawyer will find him not guilty by reason of insanity.

Re:Busting him for violating sanctions

[MoneyT]

Nope, the US listens to the UN all the time. But you'll note, the UN did nothing to stop us from going in Iraq, the merely refused the play along.

Re:Busting him for violating sanctions

[falcon5768]

if that was the case the middle east would be a glass factory... take off your tinfoil hat please.... and he did break the law, they arnt taking him in cause hes a asshole, they are taking him in cause he went and broke US law to play in a country that caused the Bosnian war because was on another one of his ego trips thinking he was invincible.... yeah he won the match but in the prosses had hundreds of countries looking to arrest him and deport him

Re:Busting him for violating sanctions

[The_REAL_DZA]

Sad when a genius has his cheese slide off his cracker.

Genius' cheese lives on the edge of the cracker, some would even say that's where it thrives. In other words the more average someone's overall "grip" on reality the less likely he is, overall, to be of stunningly superior intelligence. That's not to say you have to be nutty to be a genius, but apparently it helps. 8-D

Re:Busting him for violating sanctions

[TwistedSquare]

The conflict isn't about "crushing" so-called Palestinians (more correct term is Palestinian Arabs, since Palestine is just a name for the region where Israel happens to be as well) -- it's about refusal of all Arab world (more than 20 countries) to accept existence of Israel. That is Arabs want to destroy Israel, whereas Israel wants not to be destroyed.

Or another way to look at it might be that the Arabs are annoyed with Israel setting themselves up on their land and now trying to grab more land. The problem with complicated conflicts like this is that it is almost impossible to have a neutral standpoint.

Europeans chose to be on the Arab side for many reasons, partially for their historical anti-semitism

That is an amazing generalisation across goodness knows how many countries. Do you have any justification for that, besides the Holocaust?

Re:Busting him for violating sanctions

[falcon5768]

read your history, Yugoslavia's policies after the breakup of the USSR where in direct line to why the breakup and bosnian war started... there was hatred there, but it was the ruling power after the breakup that let it go out of hand, not arms sales...

You do have history books in england right?

Re:Busting him for violating sanctions

[shlaf_2]

Or another way to look at it might be that the Arabs are annoyed with Israel setting themselves up on their land and now trying to grab more land. The problem with complicated conflicts like this is that it is almost impossible to have a neutral standpoint.

Well Arabs may be annoyed all right. But Israel is on Israeli land, thank you. And Arab aggression against Israel made them to loose some tiny portions of land which would be their should they have accepted UN partition plan of 1947. So what? They're not the last nation in the world to loose x sqare miles. Take a look at Germany, Japan, Yugoslavia, to name just few. So how many Japans are blowing up cafes in Moscow? Or Germans in Czech Republic? Huh?

Your claim that "Israel <...> now trying to grab more land" is a propaganda cliche, free of any sense, sorry.

Re:Busting him for violating sanctions

[shlaf_2]

That is an amazing generalisation across goodness knows how many countries. Do you have any justification for that, besides the Holocaust?

Huh? Amazing you call it? You mean historical anti-semitism of Europe never existed? How about expelling Jews from Spain in 1492? Ghettos in medieval Italy? Limitations in Russia in 17-19 centuries. Dreifuss affair in France?

The point is, the hatred toward Jews has been imprinted into heads of generations of Europeans and it obviously cannot disappear all of a sudden.

... the Holocaust was just a climax of those centuries-long practices. Europeans (most of them, not all of them, fortunately) were just to happy to assist to Hitler.

What happens today -- deligitimatization of the Jewish state, denial of Jews the right to defence themselves against brutal terror -- is just continuation of Holocaust. And a cynic one, I have to add, while modern anti-semites disguise themselves as "just" anti-Zionists, they have chutzpa to Israelis to Nazis.3.asp

Re:Busting him for violating sanctions

[wwest4]

> The comment was made quite tongue-in-cheek, to possibly stimulate some
> discussion here.

That is a pretty good definition of trolling.

Re:Busting him for violating sanctions

[LookSharp]

Or it could also be considered "Insightful." Making an insight on a situation, or providing commentary on it, is what makes many enlightening conversations happen.

I guess it all depends if you agree with the comment or not, to come to the conclusion that it's a troll.

Re:Busting him for violating sanctions

[Maltheus]

Actually, international law forbids the taking of land by force. We made that illegal in order to prevent another Hitler. Your examples are from a period before these laws (except Yugo, which was a result of Soviet disintegration). But the Jews were wronged and now international law no longer applies to Israel (or the US apparently). They're like abused children who grew up to become abusers themselves. And just as it's not an excuse to abuse children because you were abused yourself, neither does Israel have the right to treat Palestinians like "two-legged beasts (Menachem Begin - in 1982 Knesset)."

Israel is in violation of countless UN resolutions and those resolutions are not inspired by anti-Semitism (Arabs are Semites). You steal land, then you're a criminal. This is a black & white issue for most of the world and for anyone with common sense. You quote a 1947 UN partition plan without taking the dozens of resolutions meant to curb Israel's criminal behavior. They're far more guilty than Sadaam was of violating UN resolutions and unlike the Iraqis, they actually have nuclear weapons and are clearly destabilizing the Middle East.

Re:Busting him for violating sanctions

[Thomas Miconi]

Let's not forget that popular mindset in Europe right now appears to be that "Zionist Isreal crushing Palestinians is a very bad thing,"

The European mindset (especially in France, which has experience of invasion both as a victim and a culprit) is that when a country invades another one, and when the invaded country replies with terrorism, well guess what, the invader should find a way to get out instead of installing colons in the conquered lands.

This is something we learnt the hard and painful way in Algeria.

Mind you, this is exactly what the US kept telling us (and rightly so) during the Algerian war, when we were using methods that were arguably much worse than anything Israel ever did, but quite reminiscent of Abu Ghraib...

But that was back in those distant days when America was against colonialism.

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."

What planet are you living in ? The mindset in Europe is that the US rails muslim extremism, then does every fscking thing they can to support and encourage it, and make the Al Qaeda lunatics look like the heroes of the Muslim resistance they claim they are !

We're not saying Bush = Ben Laden. We're saying that Bush and the band of (christian or jewish) fundamentalists that manipulate him have been the best thing that could ever happen to Ben Laden.

Please, get rid of that buffoon and make the world a safer place.

Thomas Miconi

Re:Busting him for violating sanctions

[bshroyer]

I don't think that it's the extremism that the "US rails against." It's the actions taken by those extremists.

Every now and again, a "fundamentalist Christian" extremist will shoot an abortion doctor, or keep a harem of 30 wives in a compound in Texas. The railing against Muslim extremists really ramped up when they killed several thousand people a couple of years ago in New York.

I'd go out on a limb and venture that there would be similar railing if Linux zealots started bombing Fortune 1000 companies that employ Microsoft OS fileservers.

Re:Busting him for violating sanctions

[wwest4]

> Or it could also be considered "Insightful." Making an insight on a situation.

Insightfulness and trollishness aren't mutually exclusive properties.

> I guess it all depends if you agree with the comment or not, to come to the
> conclusion that it's a troll.

Not at all. However, opinion on "insight" does depend on whether one agrees or not, in addition to whether or not the idea of the post is non-obvious.

Lo, and behold your mods for that post - and tell me how what I'm saying doesn't make sense. For the record, I agree with your post to a degree. I also happen think it's a troll by the /. definition.

Re:Busting him for violating sanctions

[shlaf_2]

Only two kinds of people believe in Jewish SupremAcy: (1) some very stupid Jews and (2) all anti-semites.

To which of these two categories you belong, my anonymous friend?

Re:Busting him for violating sanctions

[Blastrogath]

The problem with your argument is that the Koran specificly instructs believers to make war on and conquer all non-believers. You don't have to do anything but not be a muslim. Don't take my word for it though, look up Surahs 4:89, 9:123, 8:59-60, 8:39, and 5:51.

http://www.usc.edu/dept/MSA/quran/ is a site with a few translations placed together so you can look at a few translations of each verse at once.

As far as I know there isn't a bible verse that says "go out and kill or conquer all non believers". Do you know of one???

Really

[gowen]

How could the submitter fail to title this article

Bobby Fischer Found ... In Japan

Re:Really

[Anonymous Coward]

Ok, I must be the last person not to get this. Can someone please explain the recent "...in Japan" thing, or at least provide a googleable name (Smirnov, Zero Wing, Kent Brockman, South Park etc.)?

Re:Really

[Anonymous Coward]

See the end of this article

Re:Really

[Wanderer2]

Ok, I must be the last person not to get this. Can someone please explain the recent "...in Japan" thing

Try this post

Personally I think we should do everything in our power to smother this attempt to start a new Slashdot meme at birth.

Re:Really

[paulydavis]

Well I did submit it as "Searching for Bobby Fischer no more" but Michael changed it which is fine with me.

Re:Really

[hcdejong]

Too late! All your base already are belong to us! HAHAHA!

Re:Really

[AndroidCat]

On my browser it says "Bobby Fischer Found - Microsoft Internet Explorer". No wonder they stopped him, he's probably carrying spyware!

What, why is everyone looking at me like that?

Re:Really

[robotbrain]

I wholeheartedly agree. I love Japan and was just there a few months ago (and plan to move there next year) but I think this doesn't even qualify as a meme. It's just lame.

Re:Really

[ImprovOmega]

I do love how Wiki reamins current, but damn...

With all due respect (Score:5, Funny) by The-Bus (138060) on Tuesday July 13, @08:21PM (#9693512)

This was posted three days ago, you can still reply to comments in the thread!
It probably will become a meme, it definitely has that potential, but it's no wonder a lot of people don't get it, it's recent even by internet standards ;)

The man is clearly mentally unstable

[amliebsch]

There is a fine line between genius and insanity. Bobby Fischer erases that line.

Re:The man is clearly mentally unstable

[garcia]

Because he has outspoken political views that don't match what is generally accepted in the United States?

Or is it because he believes that people, in a game that he has mastered since his teenage years, cheat?

Re:The man is clearly mentally unstable

[the chao goes mu]

Only on slashdot could supporting murder (whish is what 9/11/2002 was) be called "outspoken political views that don't match what is generally accepted in the United States?". Uh, I hate to bring just a tiny bit of common sense to this, but murder IS BAD. It is generally accepted that killing is not a good thing. It is not a political statement, it is a bad act. Why do so many seem to hate Bush and/or the US so much that they come to see murder as some sort of abstract "political act"?

Re:The man is clearly mentally unstable

[amliebsch]

It's because his outspoken political views are not just unpopular, but based on premises that have little relation to reality.

Re:The man is clearly mentally unstable

[XMyth]

Somewhat off-topic, but that statement crossed my mind....how DO you cheat in chess? Some sleight of hand when moving your pieces or what?

Re:The man is clearly mentally unstable

[awol]

Because eccentric is caring how high your toilet seat lifts whilst mentally unstable is caring that it lifts higher than anyone elses (http://www.theatlantic.com/issues/2002/12/chun.ht m)

Re:The man is clearly mentally unstable

[garcia]

It is not a political statement, it is a bad act. Why do so many seem to hate Bush and/or the US so much that they come to see murder as some sort of abstract "political act"?

In other parts of the world (and unfortunately here even though we claim they aren't) Religion and Politics are one in the same. These people saw what they did to be right as their religion tells them it's acceptable.

I was just putting myself in his shoes to play the devil's advocate. Don't get yourself all up in a huff.

Re:The man is clearly mentally unstable

[jjohnson]

What Fischer calls "cheating" is what others call "chess study". His criticism of the current form of chess is that being a grandmaster involves memorization of openings and endgames more than general strategy and tactics. His particular criticism of the "Russian Chess Machine", as he called it, was that it cheated by having hordes of grandmasters studying chess to back up their contender in a tournament; when there was a break in the game, the contender would meet with his committee of experts and receive the abridged version of their studies. The effect was to multiply the power of the contender because the rote memorization and study was done for him.

Of course, Fischer also accused Russian chess players of throwing games to advance other Russian chess players who'd been picked to be the champion so that their contendor could get to the final round without exerting himself, and be fresh for the championship match, while someone like Fischer had to fight his way to that match and be exhausted when he got there.

Fischer saw the former kind of cheating as an inherent problem in the fixed starting position of the game, and invented Fischerandom (TM) to overcome it. By randomizing the starting positions, book openings become meaningless and chess becomes much more an exercise in pure strategy/tactics and on-the-board analysis.

Re:The man is clearly mentally unstable

[XMyth]

Wow, thanks for the thorough reply.

Deported !!

[hyderabadi]

deported to the United States - that's new!!

Re:Deported !!

[DrWhizBang]

not really. Here in Canada, that's where we send all of our criminals.

Oh, and bad comedians.

So ...

[TheGavster]

We've been hunting a guy around the world for 12 years because he played a chess match in a country we didn't like at the time? Better ship him to Guantanamo - consorting with those chess players who happened to be in Yugoslavia must've been aiding and abetting those terrorists in some way!

Re:So ...

[Tumbleweed]

Hey, what's with this 'Yugoslavia' place? It doesn't seem to be on my map... :)

Re:So ...

[Oligonicella]

If the article tells you that he "just sort of fell into the U.S.'s lap", why say it "seems a bit much to chase a chess player player around the world for 12 years"?

Re:So ...

[kannibal_klown]

Just made me realize something scary...

It took us 12 years to find that nutcase. Granted, we probably weren't looking as hard as we could, but he's still just one man with few resources.

This doesn't make our hunt for Osama look any more positive, as he has funds and followers.

Re:So ...

[Maestro4k]

• We've been hunting a guy around the world for 12 years because he played a chess match in a country we didn't like at the time?

So that's why the FBI didn't notice what Al Queda was up to, too busy hunting for an insane chess genius!

Re:So ...

[another_mr_lizard]

Its right down in the southern hemisphere, east of Rand McNally.

Re:So ...

[Tumbleweed]

Hmmm...I thought there be dragons there...sounds dangerous.

Nice chap

[ultrabot]

Sound like a guy that could be posting on slashdot, if he only was into computers :-).

Re:Nice chap

[blackbear]

Nice chap (Score:0, Flamebait)

More evidence of the left-wing slant of Slashdot. The parent is exactly right. I've seen worse here. The only thing I'll add is that he is into computers, so I expect to see him posting here as soon as fatherland security is done with him. I despise out of controll government only slightly more than I despise collectivism.

More to the point of the article. I find it abhorant that the US government actually indicted someone for playing chess. Especially since he won!

I don't much care for what he said on the radio, but I'll defend to the death his right to be an asshole. Even an insane one.

Re:Nice chap

[falcon5768]

feeding the troll...

they didnt care he played chess, heck they didnt even care he was there....

if you read the above posted letter and sanction, they cared the guy made over 4.5 MILLION dollars playing there...

Like someone said before, its just like Cuba, you can go there, you just cant buy anything or have anything be bought for you

Re:Nice chap

[blackbear]

feeding the troll...
Just think of it as a sport. It's easier that way.

if you read the above posted letter and sanction, they cared the guy made over 4.5 MILLION dollars playing there...
Since I neglected to RTFA, I seem to have missed that point. Thank you for enlightening me.

That, however, puts the US government's actions in a worse light in my opinion. Since socialists frown on competing for money, the fact that they offered and paid a huge prize woud appear to undermine their cause on two fronts. And In spite of the fact that I don't care for his political views, Americans should see Fischer's actions as a cold war victory precisely because it was a violation of UN sanctions, and a confirmation of capitalist philosophy.

Like someone said before, its just like Cuba, you can go there, you just cant buy anything or have anything be bought for you
Another of my disconnects with fellow consevatives; I think the best way to defeat comunism is to send lots of tourists and spend lots of money. People who are trying to figure out how to make more money aren't usually trying to figure out how to kill you.

Just one more dollar. It's waffer thin.

Re:Nice chap

[identity0]

Just what we need, even *more* conspiratorial rants against moderators and editors. What do you think he would post if he was here? Probobly something like:

"Damn, modded flamebait again! Must be those Jewish moderators, they're all out to get me!"

"I've been trying to post the TRUTH about the Jewish conspiracy behind Microsoft, but the evil Zionist editors won't let me!"

Of course, one more crazy dude probobly would get lost in the noise here... Maybe he's been here all along, trolling instead of playing chess?

A Better Article

[Corbin Dallas]

Can be found at this site.

Hmm...

[xaqar]

So before this, they were indeed Searching for Bobby Fischer ?
(Sorry, it had to be done)

Re:Hmm...

[Surt]

Yes, indeed they were. That's why the movie was titled that.

Interesting.

[Tyranny12]

What this says to me is he is suffering from serious delusions of grandeur, probably
inspired by his need to run and hide for so long and proving himself the second time.

Re:Interesting.

[aralin]

Actually, I've heard about Bobby Fisher by the time I was 6 year old and I am not even american. Never heard about you though. Now on the subject of "delusions of grandeur", I guess I'd have to vote for you. Maybe you should try and hide for the next 25 years. But if you've got the impression that nobody will care, its utterly wrong. At least I will be overjoyed over the loss of one more troll.

Re:Interesting.

[Tyranny12]

Nowhere did I state I hadn't heard of Bobby Fischer. However, I would say that inventing a *new version of chess,* along with his other claims, after he'd been on the run for years indicates a level of instability.

I personnally don't even think the US should prosecute him, but that really had nothing to do my comment on the article. For that matter, neither did your flame against me.

Interesting that the Japanese authorities are

[foidulus]

going to extradite him to the US, but they will not extradite a soldier by the name of Jenkins, who "disappeared" into North Korea while in the US military guarding the 38th parallel some 20 or so years ago. Jenkins married a kidnapped Japanese woman while in North Korea, and will be returning to Japan for a medical checkup soon. I actually don't think they should extradite either of them, but if you are going to do it, at least be consistent...

Re:Interesting that the Japanese authorities are

[Zak3056]

I actually don't think they should extradite either of them, but if you are going to do it, at least be consistent...

Fischer isn't being extradited, he's being deported because his passport isn't valid. There's an important distinction there.

Re:Interesting that the Japanese authorities are

[Pizzop]

Woah! Get the articles straight. First off, Fischer was in Japan, Jenkins wasn't. So Fischer can be extradited, Jenkins (who is in Indonesia [which doesn't have an extradition treaty with the US]) won't be unless he goes to Japan for the free (and needed) Medical procedures. I agree consistency is needed, but so far, they have been consistent.

Re:Interesting that the Japanese authorities are

[BJH]

What he says.

In any case, nobody knows what happened to Jenkins all those years ago, except Jenkins. Put it this way - if you knew your family was at risk of getting gacked by NK agents, would you say anything that might piss off the Glorious Leader?

Re:Interesting that the Japanese authorities are

[no reason to be here]

Jenkins, however, is nearly on his deathbed, and is going/has gone to Japan for medical treatment. If/when he is healthy, things might change.

It might also have something to do with Japan's recent efforts to have greater diplomatic relations with N. Korea.

Re:Interesting that the Japanese authorities are

[MarsDefenseMinister]

Interesting, my ass.

1) Jenkins is not in Japan, he's in Indionesia, where he's safe because we have not extradition treaty with them.

2) He's very sick, and may have to go to Japan for treatment, or die. Japan has said they will nab him there.

3) When you say "returning" to Japan, don't forget to include the fact that his last visit was before he defected to NK. His recent trip to Indionesia is the first time he left NK since his defection in 1965.

4) It was 39 years ago that he defected, not 20.

5) It's not a medical checkup, it's for possible life saving action. Quite a difference.

Re:Interesting that the Japanese authorities are

[schtum]

I have to disagree. Circumstances should always be taken into account when meting out justice, otherwise what's the difference between first degree murder and self-defense if the end-result is a dead body?

Granted, that's an extreme example, and the distinction between Jenkins and Fischer is probably more political than legal. Jenkins' wife must be an extremely sympathetic figure to the Japanese public, and (to be completely cynical about it) it would probably cost someone some votes come election time if she were robbed of her husband at such a delicate time in her life. The Prime Minister of Japan himself has promised he won't be extradited. Fischer, on the other hand, is a hate-spewing loose cannon who few want to be associated with. Easy call.

Japan does have an extradition treaty with the U.S., and I'm sure they've been consistent in the past (wouldn't be much of a treaty otherwise). Jenkins is a rare and highly publicized exception.

Re:Interesting that the Japanese authorities are

[powerlinekid]

Actually the US soldier that went AWOL into North Korea will be taken into custody by the US military due to the Japanese-US extradite pact.

However it doesn't say that Fischer is being extradited, just that hes being deported.

Re:Interesting that the Japanese authorities are

[powerlinekid]

The United States warned Thursday it would seek to use its extradition treaty with Japan to secure legal custody of Jenkins if and when he flew to Tokyo for medical treatment.

From this:
Charles Jenkins to be extradited

Re:Interesting that the Japanese authorities are

[holt]

Well, not having read the article, I imagine the real reason they are deporting him is because of the passport violations. Typically when one is denied entry to a country because of something like this, they are sent back to their country of citizenship. (There was a case of a Syrian-Canadian who tried to come into the US after 9/11 and they denied him entry. Rather than let him drive back to Canada, they flew him to Syria and billed him for it! He had dual citizenship.)

So, the Japanese are hardly at fault here. It's just unlucky that Mr. Fischer still has US citizenship if he can't ever safely return to that country. If Mr. Jenkins hasn't violated any Japanese immigration laws, they can't deport him for that reason, right?

Re:Interesting that the Japanese authorities are

[PetrusMagnusII]

however, Japan is legaly required to send Jenkins out to US becuase of the way the goverments work together..
that is why he didn't go to japan originaly.. he went to the philipians or whatever to go the hostpital their becuase they don't have the same relations iwth the us as japan does..

i think it's stupid to put the guy in jain now. especially since it is completely possible that he was kidnapped and brainwashed just like all of those japanese poeple that the same happened to..
which brings me to another unrelated point; making those children go to japan and pretend to be japanese.. they're not japanese.. they don't even speak japanese. they were born and raized in north korea.. they're fine their.. not hurting anyone.. they'll be tourtured for their entire lives in japan until the commit suicide..

Re:Interesting that the Japanese authorities are

[Nimey]

but they will not extradite a soldier by the name of Jenkins, who "disappeared" into North Korea while in the US military guarding the 38th parallel some 20 or so years ago.

Jenkin's not going to meet with the woman on Japanese soil. In fact, the meeting will be inside a country that doesn't have an extradition treaty with the US.

Re:Interesting that the Japanese authorities are

[incom]

Personally I would have modded this funny, but whatever. I'm not even going to bother to point out the obvious.

Cheats in chess?

[Gentoo Fan]

He announced that he had abandoned chess in 1996 and launched a new version, "Fischerandom," ... Fischer claimed it would bring the fun back into the game and rid it of cheats.

I think Valve should hire this guy to patch up Counter-Strike.

Re:Cheats in chess?

[CaptnMArk]

My way of getting rid of cheats (q3a): /callvote insta_weapon 0

works every time.

Re:Cheats in chess?

[Quill_28]

Yes, I remember him wanting to randomly change all the pieces on the back row before each game. Is that what "Fischerandom," is?

Anyway I agree with him on this,
I am decent at chess but I have always refused to memorize moves and openings because then it started being work and not fun.

Re:Cheats in chess?

[OxygenPenguin]

I don't think that even the world's reigning lunatic/chess champion would be enough to rid Counter-Strike of cheats.

There aren't any wall-hacks in chess, unless Jews have thought up a way.

Pointless Prosecution

[Cavio]

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.

Re:Pointless Prosecution

[Rosco P. Coltrane]

Shouldn't there be some kind of rule against arresting somebody for violating a law that is no longer in effect?

No. There's a fundamental principle in law called "retroaction" that says you can't be prosecuted for something you did in the past that contravenes a law that was passed after what you did, the only notable exception being war crimes and genocide (the Nazi atrocities were severe enough that the Nuremberg court simply ignored this rule and tried the Nazi officials with law made up after the fact).

So Bobby Fisher should be tried for violating a law that existed when he did the deed, just as you shouldn't be prosecuted for driving at 70mph on a road that has a 50mph sign today, but had a 70mph sign when you drove on it.

Re:Pointless Prosecution

[Doc Scratchnsniff]

No, there should not. While these particular sanctions no longer exist, other sanctions exist against other countries, and will presumably exist in the future. Sanctions are not an end unto themselves, they are a means of coercing the sanctioned party in some way. This means all sanctions are intended to end eventually. The "violating a law no longer in effect" clause would diminish the effectiveness of sanctions, since potential violators would need only evade discovery until the sanctions are lifted.

A quite extreme example of this is Iraq right now. Should we "let slide" anyone who broke sanctions there? After all, sanctions are lifted now. Of course, if the sanctions had been strictly held to, perhaps they would have actually diminished Saddam's power, instead of increasing it.

Re:Pointless Prosecution

[XMyth]

Don't you mean a moo point? Like a cow's opinion....it doesn't matter.

Re:Pointless Prosecution

[Cavio]

I wanted to say that, but I didn't think anyone would get the reference.

Re:Pointless Prosecution

[GojiraDeMonstah]

I agree that it seems like a pointless "crime" to prosecute. However, if you commit an act in violation of the law, your crime doesn't go away just because the law does. For instance, if they suddenly made marijuana legal in the US, that doesn't mean that all of the people in jail for selling / possession would go free. It was still a crime when they sold / possessed it.

It can sometimes be the case that when an unpopular law is repealed, some authority figure will pardon those currently being punished for that law. But it doesn't always happen.

Similarly, you can't punish people for previous acts that violate a new law (at least according to Section 9 Paragraph 3 of the US Constitution... though if some had their way...). So if they outlawed playing arcade games tomorrow, you couldn't be punished for all those quarters you dumped into them during the 80s.

Bottom line: if it was illegal where/when you did it, it's a crime, no matter what the law is now. If it wasn't illegal where/when you did it, it's not a crime, no matter what the law is now.

Re:Pointless Prosecution

[insensitive_clod]

I killed a guy, but he's not alive anymore, so what the heck?

I embezzeled millions of dollars from this company, but its out of business now, so what the heck?

Re:Pointless Prosecution

[Trespass]

If the guy you killed wore a different uniform than you, you're a hero.

Re:Pointless Prosecution

[multimed]

'Cuz hardly anyone watches Friends?

Re:Pointless Prosecution

[Cavio]

Well, it is slashdot.

Re:Pointless Prosecution

[Anonymous Coward]

There's a slight problem with your argument. There are certain cases where you should NOT be tried for a crime you comitted, that was illegal at the time, but no longer so.

A specific example I can think of is marijuana posession/use. Most of Europe has already figured out that there's no point in prosecuting personal posession/use. They won't prosecute you for posession back when it WAS illegal either. The reason? There was no basis for the law in the first place.

Re:Pointless Prosecution

[Minwee]

By the same logic, why is it that you can be arrested for firing a shotgun at someone who, at the time you were arrested, is already dead?

Is calling that "first degree murder" just a technicality, since you can't murder someone who is no longer alive?

Re:Pointless Prosecution

[zsau]

That's not actually a fundamental principle of law, though it may be a fundamental principle of American law. In at least Australia and New Zealand, it is possible to pass retrospective legislation, thereby causing something that was legal at the time you did it to have become illegal at the time you commit it. This is of course dispicable and horribly unethical, and one of a few things that will cause me to straightaway vote for a particular party if they promise to fix it (all else being equal).

Re:Pointless Prosecution

[mqx]

"There's a fundamental principle in law called "retroaction"

There's also a principle called "statute of limitations", meaning that even if you committed a crime, there is an expiry period after which you cannot be prosecuted. The time periods vary depending upon severity of the crime. There may be no statute of limitations on murder, for example. In Australia, for example, some crimes expire after 6 months, or 10 years.

Would be interested to know the exact crime and limitation period that he is charged with.

I'm guessing that in the oppressive USA, there's no limitation on anything that's a felony.

Re:Pointless Prosecution

[node 3]

The poster asked "shouldn't there be some kind of rule", not, "isn't there some kind of rule."

And your whole retroaction thing doesn't address the question at all.

It's overly clear that at least in some cases a person shouldn't be arrested/prosecuted for laws that existed at the time of violation, but which no longer exist, such as the Jim Crow laws.

Re:Pointless Prosecution

[evilviper]

Shouldn't there be some kind of rule against arresting somebody for violating a law that is no longer in effect?

So, if I'm speeding down a road that's going to be demolished in a few days, my speeding ticket (or wreckless driving charge) should just go away?

Re:Pointless Prosecution

[Wolfrider]

--You know, Bush could prolly gain a few points by publically pardoning Fischer. Think about it.

Re:Has to be Said...

[dasmegabyte]

I wonder if the Japanese customs agent was clever enough to ask him "Trick or Treat" before slapping on the cuffs.

I can't sympathize

[erroneus]

At this point in the world's history, I cannot sympathize with anyone attempting to use false ID to travel. Further, if it's true, I cannot sympathize with his point of view regarding the senseless murder of thousands of innocent lives.

If his only transgression were for the love of the game, the world would have forgiven him quickly... the court of public opinion would have ruled in his favor. This guy has hosed himself up pretty bad and now he's caught. If it's true that his views are against the people of Jewish faith and that he applauds the horror of 9-11, then the court of public opinion will rule against him if it hasn't already.

I feel that there is a lot more going on than is being revealed though... I've seen crazy in a variety of ways, but there is something really weird about this case.

Re:I can't sympathize

[flossie]

If his only transgression were for the love of the game, the world would have forgiven him quickly... the court of public opinion would have ruled in his favor. This guy has hosed himself up pretty bad and now he's caught. If it's true that his views are against the people of Jewish faith and that he applauds the horror of 9-11, then the court of public opinion will rule against him if it hasn't already.

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?

Re:I can't sympathize

[jdavidb]

I don't understand. Why should his thoughts and his speech (though reprehensible) be a crime? Why should playing in a chess tournament be a crime?

I am totally unfamiliar with the case, but I have the feeling there's a lot of things the slashdot writeup assumes I should know. Maybe I should go read the article.

Re:I can't sympathize

[SydShamino]

>> If his only transgression were for the love of the game, the world would have forgiven him quickly... the court of public opinion would have ruled in his favor. ... If it's true that his views are against the people of Jewish faith and that he applauds the horror of 9-11, then the court of public opinion will rule against him if it hasn't already.

He sounds like a stupid jackhole with more ego than higher intellect (with the exception of chess), but I'm still glad the "court of public opinion" has no bearing whatsoever on how he will be tried or sentenced. He opinions on 9/11 or the Holocaust, as stupid as they may be, are still his to say, and they cannot be used to influence his prosecution in a criminal case unless he tries to use them in his defense.

I find it more telling, though, that we'll seek to retain a guy who played a game of chess in the wrong country, while letting one who defected to the wrong country, technically at war with us, then made propaganda films for them, be allowed safe passage just because he's sick. I hope to see consistency, one way or another.

Re:I can't sympathize

[div_2n]

I cannot sympathize with his point of view regarding the senseless murder of thousands of innocent lives.

Which is why you wouldn't be on any jury of which I am glad. It has nothing to do with anything having to do with the violations of which he is accused.

Re:I can't sympathize

[Azghoul]

Since, for all eternity, the more popular you are, the less likely your ruling government can destroy you.

If this Fischer guy is a charismatic trickster type, people will love him, and shit that would stick to you and me will slide right off (modern day example: Bill Clinton. Lying under oath, no matter what it's about, is a crime).

If he's an asshole advocating more terrorism and wiping out the Jews, he's not going to get any sympathy from the vast majority of Americans.

Unfortunately for this nutjob, he's apparently the latter.

Re:I can't sympathize

[miffo.swe]

Would it be better if he was against people of muslim faith and if he applauded the thousands of innocent iraqis killed because of the UN sanctions and the ongoing war?

I hate this double standard, cant take it anymore!

Re:I can't sympathize

[Asic Eng]

Why should playing in a chess tournament be a crime?

Well, I can see that one: it's propaganda support for a country his own country was at war with. (Not that the US had actually declared that war.)

Still whatever he says, and no matter how offensive that is: he hasn't actually hurt anyone. I think even to bother looking for him for 12 years is way over the top.

Re:I can't sympathize

[hackstraw]

regarding the senseless murder of thousands of innocent lives

Re:I can't sympathize

[eSims]

I can't help but reply to this... and mod me troll if you must.

The so called 'Court of Public Opinion' is a Court of Fools (tm) easily manipulated and controlled by those with the influence and inclination to do so.

Whether he has committed crimes will be judged in a court of Law where at least there is some semblance of justice... let the Fools(tm) have their opinions... I'll settle for broken justice!

Re:I can't sympathize

[Roached]

At this point in the world's history, I cannot sympathize with anyone attempting to use false ID to travel.

He apparently thought his passport was valid but it was suddenly revoked which is why he was caught.

If it's true that his views are against the people of Jewish faith and that he applauds the horror of 9-11, then the court of public opinion will rule against him if it hasn't already.

Of course Isreal has not been doing too good in the court of public opinion recently (New Zealand being the latest example). Neither have we since 9-11 has been used as an excuse to further US interests across the world.

I think we conveniently use someone when it suits us (cold war chess hero, make the USSR look bad) and then throw them away when this usefulness is over.

At least I hope this allows Bobby to officially confront the charge and clear himself.

Re:I can't sympathize

[Physics Nobody]

I really hate how this issue keeps coming up after so many years and yet so few people actually have their facts straight. Honestly I don't even care very much anymore, but if you're going to use Clinton as an example you should at least be accurate.

What you never hear in regards to Clinton's famous court appearance is that before 'lying under oath' he asked the judge to define 'sexual relations'. The judge defined it as intercourse. Only after that did Clinton claim he did not have sexual relations.

Now, I will not argue that he was being dishonest. I will not argue that he was being weasely. But lying under oath? If you can't go by the judge's definition of a term then what can you go by?

Re:I can't sympathize

[multimed]

OK so he applied a judge's definition to his answers there. But whose definition was he using when he got in front of a national TV audience & said the same thing? While that very specific definition may have applied during the scope of his testimony, he knew full well that the rest of the country had no such limited connotation.

What to this day still upsets me is the limousine liberal mentality that some how the rules don't apply. Most of the same people who fought so hard for society to take seriously sexual harassment and in particular, women taken advantage of by their bosses or other men in authoritative positions, were so quick to completely excuse and defend Clinton for doing it. And no it's not relevant that she was a willing participant--he was the President of the United States and she was an intern!

Re:I can't sympathize

[amliebsch]

At least I hope this allows Bobby to officially confront the charge and clear himself.

How do you think he can "clear himself"? Is he going to deny he violated U.S. law? is he going to argue that he was under duress, or playing chess in self-defense?

Re:I can't sympathize

[TamMan2000]

But whose definition was he using when he got in front of a national TV audience & said the same thing? While that very specific definition may have applied during the scope of his testimony, he knew full well that the rest of the country had no such limited connotation.

I agree it was slimy of him, but was it illegal? If bold face lying to the american public was an impeachable offence, I have no doubt that every president since Carter (and probably him as well), would have been impeached.

Re:I can't sympathize

[Anonymous Coward]

And how is this different from our current president "lying" to us and starting a war? Sure he didnt tell intelligence to find WMDs he just said "Find anything on Saddam so we can attack him", then lied to start a war and kill Americans. Not much different in my opinion, and a whole lot more immoral. But I am sure you will find some nit picky difference.

Re:I can't sympathize

[johnjay]

Would it be better if he was against people of muslim faith and if he applauded the thousands of innocent iraqis killed because of the UN sanctions and the ongoing war?
Of course it wouldn't be better. Applauding the death of innocents is sickening no matter what their faith, religion, or country of origin.

Why did someone consider this an "insightful" question?

Re:I can't sympathize

[kyknos.org]

I can agree that views against jewish people are a bad thing. And supporting horrors of 9/11 too. But views against arab and or muslim people, so common these days, are the exactly the same Bad thing. And supporting horrors caused to civilians in Iraq and elsewhere by US army too.

Re:I can't sympathize

[Azghoul]

Fair enough. I never really cared about it and ran with the "common wisdom". Of course, it's not the point of my post (interesting that yours got the big mod bump, however).

Really, your point makes mine: Clinton, the slippery rogue that he is, essentially got away with all sorts of shenanigans, and people continue to give him a pass.

Fischer will never get that treatment because of the offensive things he's apparently said.

Re:I can't sympathize

[johnjay]

grr...that was supposed to be "race, religion, or country or origin". Not that anyone reading the comment would misunderstand it, or care.
previewpreviewpreview

Re:I can't sympathize

[Qrlx]

Bobby Fischer wasn't using false ID, rather it was an expired ID that he did not realize had expired.

What exactly would you define as "this point in the world's history?" 9/11 wasn't the apocalypse you know.

If his only transgression were for the love of the game, the world would have forgiven him quickly

Actually, the world doesn't particularly care much one way or the other. You, on the other hand, seem to be quite willing to throw the book at him for his personal beliefs. Which in turn speaks volumes about your personal beliefs.

Re:I can't sympathize

[tsotha]

That's very naive. Do you remember Leona Helmsly?. What about the current crop of "hate crimes" laws? What you say can definitely get years added to your sentence, or get you prosecuted when other people were not (a la Rush Limbaugh).

There are millions of federal statutes now, and you couldn't possibly do anything in life without breaking some of them. If the Feds decide they want to "get" you, they will. If they can't find something specific, they'll use RICO (which can be stretched to cover anything).

Re:I can't sympathize

[cardshark2001]

Clinton, the slippery rogue that he is, essentially got away with all sorts of shenanigans, and people continue to give him a pass.

That's just ridiculous and I am tired of hearing it. Clinton didn't get "a pass". Clinton couldn't get a hall pass to go to the john. He was hounded from his very first day in office from all sides, yet many investigations and many millions of dollars later, he was never convicted of any wrongdoing whatsoever. Even now, however, people like you continue to insinuate that he was guilty. Shouldn't the president be innocent unless proven guilty, just like you and me? People like you keep talking about the "rule of law", but Clinton was never convicted of violating those rules. You say he got a pass. I would laugh hysterically if it weren't so depressing that you actually believe that.

Re:I can't sympathize

[erroneus]

How is it that so many people believe that my use of the expression "court of public opinion" means anything except that.

I am just saying I'm not sympathetic to the guy because of the way he has been conducting himself. I made no assertions that he should be free or in jail. I made no positive assertions that I believe he even said the things claimed.

The story I read wasn't specific about the sort of ID problems but it would be easy to assume it was a false one rather than an expired one given the amount of time that has passed.

And regardless of how things "should be" the court of public opinion still factors in... especially in cases that might be high in visibility. The world knows that O.J. was guilty. So why's he free? The world knows that Rodney King deserved to be arrested, though I'm still not certain about the beating and brutality... there are cases when it's needed to put people under control... and he later proved it by again driving under the influence. But he got off the first time due, again, the effects of the court of public opinion.

I don't dare depend on the facts presented in the news link to form a complete opinion except in what my expectations would be where the public's opinion weighs in.

Re:I can't sympathize

[geekoid]

" ...he knew full well that the rest of the country had no such limited connotation."

Not true, many places in the country do not consider Oral Sex the same as sexual intercourse.

Re:I can't sympathize

[Anonymous Coward]

"If bold face lying to the american public was an impeachable offence, I have no doubt that every president since Carter (and probably him as well), would have been impeached."

Carter lied in italics.

Re:I can't sympathize

[snolan]

He was not hip to current culture - he should have said: "Hell yeah, baby, I shagger her rotten and you would have too..." imitating Mike Myers as Austin Powers. He'd have been censured by the damned GOP laden congress anyway, but the public would have loved him for his forthright honesty.

Re:I can't sympathize

[Azghoul]

Well, considering you missed the damn point as well, I might as well humor you with a direct reply.

Monica Lewinsky was an intern right? In your version of reality? Now, correct me if I'm wrong, but sexual relations (the legal def as intercourse or otherwise!) by a boss with an underling is essentially the essence of sexual harrassment right?

Face the fact: Clinton got away with murder (figuratively and, if you buy into the more paranoid fantasies, literally) because of expert lawyers and technicalities so many times it's ridiculous that "people like you continue to insinuate" that he's just a poor, trod-upon soul.

Bush has done some major things wrong, and a few bigger things wrong (Abu Ghraib alone should be enough to kick his ass out of office). I was in HS at the time, but I don't remember Bush Sr doing much of anything... Some might suggest that Clinton brought the hounds upon himself, no? But "people like you continue to insinuate" that poor ol' Clinton was just a victim of the vast, right-wing conspiracy I guess.

Clinton is the worst sort of politician. And before you think I'm just bashing him, Bush is at least as bad. Kerry is no better. The poll-driven mentality of these career blood-suckers is pathetic. Jefferson would cry. And then secede.

Re:I can't sympathize

[cardshark2001]

You have a point that he brought it on himself. I never said he didn't do anything wrong. I said he didn't do anything criminal and there is a difference. Having sex with a subordinate is not sexual harrasment, especially if, in her own words she pursued him somewhat doggedly, rather than the other way around (see the HBO special "Monica, in her own words").

Re:I can't sympathize

[multimed]

Not true, many places in the country do not consider Oral Sex the same as sexual intercourse.

I agree. Most people do consider them to be different. But that's not what he said. He said "I did not have sexual relations with that woman."

Re:I can't sympathize

[multimed]

I agree it was slimy of him, but was it illegal? If bold face lying to the american public was an impeachable offence, I have no doubt that every president since Carter (and probably him as well), would have been impeached.

True. But maybe if we held elected officials to any sort of standard befitting their postion instead of wringing our hands and saying "what are you gonna do, they're all are like that", the bar might be raised. Then again since only a small fraction of people vote and even less actually pay any attention to the world around them beyond their surrounding 20 feet, I guess we get what we deserve.

US Hypocrisy

[fpga_guy]

From the article:

U.S. authorities accused him of violating U.N. sanctions imposed against Yugoslavia by playing the match.

Yeah 'cos we all know about the US's unwavering respect for the UN...

But only when it suits...

Re:US Hypocrisy

[EnglishTim]

I think if the chair on Human Rights abuses had to come from a country with a clear record on Human Rights, we'd need to import someone from another planet. Certainly I can't think of a suitable country off the top of my head... Iceland, perhaps?

Re:US Hypocrisy

[Ubergrendle]

Unfortunately he's an American citizen. He's subject to American laws. The US chose to recognise those UN sanctions, so its not a UN violation but a US violation.

He's being deported to the US on the basis of an expired passport. When he hits american soil, he'll be charged. So he's not being EXTRADICTED for violation of law, but since the authorities know about his arrival they pretty much HAVE to charge him. This isn't a situation where law enforcement has alot of discretion.

It really comes down to whether the Department of Justice wants to pursue this. I'm sure we can all look forward to Ashcroft & Company executing their evaluation on the basis of common sense and justice... :(

Re:US Hypocrisy

[mirio]

Your link doesn't make a whole lot of sense. You linked to some random bit about Israel's wall they've deemed necessary for their own security. I will agree that if the wall is being used in a land grab ploy it is a bad thing. However, we should remember that there is no such thing as international law because there is no such thing as an international governing body. The UN is not government. It is a forum for countries to meet and discuss issues. Israel is a sovreign nation and can build whatever it wants to.

I already have my federal, state, county and city governments. I'm all stocked up here and don't need anymore, thank you very much.

If your contempt is for the US consistantly using its Security Council vote to veto UN condemnations on Israel, the US always gives the same response. The US always requests the resolutions also condemn the Palestinian cafe/bus/wedding suicide bombers for targeting innocent civilians. And people say the US takes sides? How about all of these one-sided pro-Palestinian/anti-Isreal resolutions?

Hey, I'm not taking either side in the debate. I just think we should keep an open mind to both sides!

Re:US Hypocrisy

[b-baggins]

Oh, for crying out loud. Are you seriously maintaining the asinine argument that putting a brutal, oppressive, murdering, dictatorial regime as the Chair of the Human Rights Commission is no big deal because there is no nation in the world with a perfect record on human rights?

Re:US Hypocrisy

[Entropius]

"I already have my federal, state, county and city governments. I'm all stocked up here and don't need anymore, thank you very much."

Not necessarily disagreeing with you, but:

I've got a city government (which is doing pretty well), a county government (which I never see), and a state government. Trouble is, that state is Alabama... which is a steaming pile of poo. So, I'm glad I've got the federal government to keep the state folks in line; would you believe that a vote to permit interracial marriage failed here four years ago?

I'm not sure if I want a world government to keep my federal government in line. Until four years ago I'd have said that they did a pretty good job. GWB has screwed things up pretty badly recently, but hopefully the process can work like it should: we vote him out, repeal the Patriot Act, reverse the rest of the damage he did, and things get back to normal.

But, say, Zimbabwe? The people there could really use someone with both 1) a bigger stick than Mugabe, and 2) the jurisdiction to use it.

If I'm anything I'm a libertarian--I think government shouldn't meddle just for the sake of meddling. (I had to sign a form giving my *dentist* permission to use my records for counterterrorism. What?) And, thus, the idea of yet another layer of government isn't exactly a walk in the park. But, without the Feds to keep the rednecks in line, this state (AL) would be in much worse shape than it is now.

Re:US Hypocrisy

[Zapdos]

He is wanted for running from the law. If he had defended himself in a trial, he would of had a great chance of getting off.

Re:US Hypocrisy

[rd_syringe]

When the UN's members are taking oil for food from Iraq in violation of sanctions and ethics, meanwhile blocking you from removing a dictator because it would affect their bottom line, it's kind of hard to respect them.

Oh, I forgot, anti-greed rants only apply when we're criticizing the U.S., because you're a more enlightened individual if you hate the big guy, or something like that.

Actually...

[Cavio]

You may not remember this, but Bobby Fisher was the original "Hot Grits" guy.

Few people know this.

Finally safe

[xs650]

Now that Martha Stewart and Bobby Fischer have both been aprehended, I feel much more secure.

Re:Finally safe

[_Sprocket_]

Now that Martha Stewart and Bobby Fischer have both been aprehended, I feel much more secure.

Unless you consider the possibility of these two being introduced to each other through the penetentary system. Just picture THAT for a moment.

Wait. I sense the basis of a Cinemax movie here. Call my agent.

Cool

[beforewisdom]

Maybe he can tell us where Osama Bin Laden is

Re:Cool

[setes]

No sheet. Good to see the authorities have focused their efforts on a real threat to national security... a freakin' chess player.

Somewhat OT: Hatley High

[~Socrates]

I just couldn't help myself but think of the movie Hatley High when I saw this newsitem. I thought it was a great movie about chess and would like to reccommend it to all :).

imdb link

Jesus!

[mfh]

Did you listen to the whole thing? He's fucking nuts! I guess there is such a thing as being too intelligent. I just thought that if you were intelligent, you'd be smart enough to know where the straw men are. He said the Holocaust was a hoax, among other really scary things.

Re:Jesus!

[mirko]

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.

Re:Jesus!

[lseltzer]

And he was fucking nuts back in 72 as well. He's always been paranoid. He went apeshit before the 72 tournament refusing to play if there were any cameras or recording devices in the room. I believe he forfeited at least one game because he imagined there was a camera there.

I was 11 years old at the time but I remember it pretty clearly. I was aware back then that he was kooky anti-semite.

Re:Jesus!

[Anonymous Coward]

A lot of top players are nuts. Korchnoi claimed opponents were using mind control on him. Morphy became a paranoid recluse. Euwe wore gloves while playing his games. Alekhine was world champ for many years but noone claimed his body when he died. Its a lonely occupation and the top players seem to have no other interests.

Re:Jesus!

[The Almighty Dave]

If I remember correctly, in addition to being intelligent and somewhat crazy, wasn't there some talk a while back about him being autistic, or at least showing some traits of autism?

Re:Jesus!

[lseltzer]

You're right. He did make a stink and demanded the cameras be removed (see this page for lots of details).

Re:Jesus!

[Toadpipe]

Seeing as most autistics tend to be very very good with mathmatics, him being a chess genius and an aut would make a bit of sense.

His paranoid conspiracies aside, the only thing this man did that was illegal was play a chess game in a country we didn't like. Not exactly a dangerous criminal mastermind. Just a guy would played a game in violation of sanctions.

This is total bullshit, Bobby Fisher should be freed.

Re:Jesus!

[Colonel Cholling]

Seeing as most autistics tend to be very very good with mathmatics

A lot of people believe this, probably due to the popularity of the movie Rain Man, but the fact is that so-called "idiot savants" are fairly rare among autistics. Most autistics do not have exceptional mathematic abilities.

Re:Jesus!

[Rei]

No, he didn't kill anyone - although, in response to September 11th, he told a Philippine radio station:

"I was happy? ?Yes, I applaud the act? ?Fuck the US. I wanna see the US wiped out. "

I'm just waiting to hear him blame his detention on Japanese Jewish operatives. ;) You know, Bobby, I'm not too fond of Israel's policies in the middle east, either. However, when you take things as far as, say, blaming the confiscation of your property in absentia by the government on "the Jews", you might as well be working to rebuild the Fourth Reich. Lets close with one of Bobby's quotes:

"I'm hoping for a [scenario] where the [US] will be taken over by the military, to close down all the synagogues, arrest all the Jews, execute hundreds of thousands of Jewish ringleaders, and you know, apologize to the Arabs by killing off all the Jews over there in that bandit state, you know, Israel."

Sieg heil, Bobby. Sieg heil.

Re:Jesus!

[Deathdonut]

While he didn't willingly concede a game, he was warned that if he kept making silly demands (such as removing the first 7 rows of spectators, changing the lighting, de-glossing the chessboard, etc) the game would be forfeit. He continued, and the second game of the match was awarded to Spassky. The third game (and his first win of the match) was played in a secluded room to placate him. After the third match, he stopped being the one making insane demands and the Russians started taking apart light fixtures, filling bags with 'air samples' and accusing Fischer of using electronics to interfere with Spassky's brainwaves.

Re:Jesus!

[mirko]

Sounds a drunkard to me, I don't applaud but I don't hate him, simply because I do not care.
The fact is that is being jailed because he fucking attended a chess match in a country when his country law forbid it...
So, it was forbidden to have an innocent play somewhere...
I guess he's as extreme as that law sounds like the system he grew in was.

Re:Jesus!

[BrokenHalo]

That, Mr. Toadpipe, is probably the only sensible comment I've read on this sorry topic this evening.

Some of his purported comments seem pretty screwy to most of us, but his chess play was brilliant. It all seems a bit sad to me, and I hope the authorities look on his case with a sensible the perspective on his "indiscretion".

In the current climate, I don't hold out much hope for that, however.

Re:Jesus!

[secolactico]

This is total bullshit, Bobby Fisher should be freed.

Most likely, he will be.

He will either get a slap on the wrist or will plead insanity.

Just a guy would played a game in violation of sanctions.

Yup. And there are american citizen that go to Cuba in spite of the embargo. Nothing happens to them, usually. My guess is that if some official notices, they usually look the other way.

Re:Jesus!

[JustAnotherReader]

If I remember correctly, in addition to being intelligent and somewhat crazy, wasn't there some talk a while back about him being autistic, or at least showing some traits of autism?

I have a nephew who is autistic. Autism is an overwhelming syndrome that generally restricts the person who has it to only the most basic level of communication. More likely Fischer has symptoms of Asperger's syndrome.

With Asperger's syndrom a person will often be quite intelligent but have some difficulty communicating verbally. They can speak, but they come off as being very shy. They tend to be focused on patterns and sequences (quite a talent to have for a chess player). They also tend to "self stimulate" by self hugging and/or rocking back and forth.

All these symptom also appear in autistic children but with autism the ability to speak and communicate normally is quite often lost. They sometimes also tend not to bond with people. I know there was a time when my nephew didn't seem to understand that he had to relate to the people in his family differently than he relates to a chair. Also, autism tends to strike male children at about 18 months to 2 years old. It's not a syndrome that get worse as you get older. You have it or you don't.

Fisher can obviously speak well. His thoughts may be delusional, but he doesn't have the speech issues or physical movement issues normally associated with autism.

Re:Jesus!

[joshamania]

No, it's not total bullshit. Fischer violated economic sanctions that were leveled against a country for being complicit in the mass murder of thousands of people. His participation in the match gave credibility and economic advantage (probably) to a government that slaughtered its citizens.

Now tell me it's total bullshit.

Re:Jesus!

[T3kno]

Just because you take a different view doesn't mean you're necessarily nuts. There are a lot of people who challenge the Holocaust, at least some of the validity of the history we learn. I'm not one of those BTW, I've never seen any credible evidence contrary to what I've learned, although I think a lot of the rank and file German officers didn't have much of a clue as to the magnitude of what was happening. I do believe that we are always presented with a far from acurate picture of history. Stalin killed ~27 MILLION people, 4.5 times the amount Hitler killed and we don't have a /. axiom about him yet. History is in the eye of the beholder, and like it or not what you think you know about what happened is not the truth.

Re:Jesus!

[untaken_name]

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.

Re:Jesus!

[Scarblac]

An innocent play? There were economic sanctions against Yugoslavia for the civil war and genocide in Bosnia(*) that was supported by the Yugoslavs. Fischer netted $3.5 million for what amounted to a propaganda operation. He was convicted by a US jury, and I can see why.

(*: I'm not 100% sure if it was exactly that part of the war, or another conflict at the time)

Re:Jesus!

[operagost]

Actually, it wasn't just the U.S. that forbade it, it was a U.N. sanction. Essentially, the whole world forbade it.

Re:Jesus!

[operagost]

There was a U.N. sanction against Yugoslavia at the time. It was the U.S. government's duty as a member of the U.N. to attempt to enforce that sanction.

Re:Jesus!

[hedgehogbrains]

It's total bullshit.

Since when did the state own its citizens? Bobby Fischer is esentially being hunted for refusing to co-operate with U.S. propaganda. If Fischer helped the government of Serbia commit a crime then he's a criminal. Otherwise, a game of chess is just a game if chess.

Re:Jesus!

[michaelggreer]

...complicit in the mass murder of thousands of people.

Excuse my ignorance, but what mass murder are you talking about exactly? I think the match was in Yugoslavia, which while communist was not, in fact, an ally of the Soviet Union (so not complicit in their murder of millions). I'm no apologist for Tito (my girlfriend's family was expelled by him), I simply cannot figure out what you are referring to.

Please school me.

Re:Jesus!

[mirko]

Not a troll, I just want to highlight the fact that it's stupid to block-out a country even from competitions :
In Ancient Greece, games were the only way country would suspend their fighting...
I guess such a view now looks obsolete.
BTW, my father was a former Tito convict, a journalist who was sentenced for writing poetry. I do not like their former gobernadores but I thinkg if they want to play, they should be allowed to.

Re:Jesus!

[be951]

Yeah, that whole family is bad news. Didn't he have a sister named Amy that just got out of jail or something?

Re:Jesus!

[Muerte2]

While I agree with you that Mr. Fischer is a little extreme with regards to his political reviews, that's his right. You can say all the crazy whacked out things you want, even things that aren't true. That's what freedom is speech is all about. That's what this country is founded on. It's only when you begin to act on these feelings that you run afoul of the law.

There are certainly other people just like him living free in the US spouting just as much insane madness, but they're not being investigated by the feds. If you don't believe me have a walk through downtown USA outside a homeless shelter. Having a contrary opinion is NOT a crime. If it were all of us /F?OSS/i people would probably be in jail. If Mr. Gates had his way anyway.

Re:Jesus!

[mpe]

Fischer violated economic sanctions that were leveled against a country for being complicit in the mass murder of thousands of people.

So have plenty of other countries including countries the US has activly supported.

His participation in the match gave credibility and economic advantage (probably) to a government that slaughtered its citizens.

How is this worst that the governments of rich countries having over their tax payers money to help out questional governments they consider "friends"?

Re:Jesus!

[ahdeoz]

A game of chess is just a game of chess. Except when it's a multi-million dollar fund raiser for a 'rogue nation' under UN sanctions. You can disagree about the rogue nation bit or about the right of the UN to impose sanctions. But you can't call it just a game of chess.

Re:Jesus!

[Rei]

I didn't say that it should be a crime. But I'd also describe it as more than just "a little extreme", and point out that Fischer is not just some homeless person on the street.

And actually, in some countries, what Fischer has said *would* be a crime. For example, France.

Re:Jesus!

[BLKMGK]

Well that and hiding out from the folks who wanted to prosecute him for playing that game. Also apparently attempting to use an invalid US passport. If the reports of his popping up in the Phillipines and in Japan alternately are true then certainly he may have some other immigration questions to be answered as well.

At this point I'd say his problems are far less simple than having violated a sanction against Yugoslavia...

Re:Jesus!

[The Almighty Dave]

Interesting post, thanks for the clarification.

Re:Jesus!

[banzai51]

So you think Charlie Manson should be set free? He didn't kill anybody, he just expressed his opinion. Like many mob bosses.

Re:Jesus!

[tarumaasu]

According to this website: http://www.chessclub.demon.co.uk/culture/worldcham pions/fischer/fischer_spassky_match.htm He did in fact forfeit a game. "Fischer was one game down in the match. He then didn't show for the beginning of the 2nd game, saying the noise of the film cameras in the main hall was distracting him. It led to him forfeiting the game. He was now two down and seriously considering abandoning and returning to the States."

Re:Jesus!

[banzai51]

Since when has Bobby Fischer been hunted? Sure he's wanted, but where is the international manhunt? It doesn't exist. The US Govern't decided that they'll get him if they by chance run across him. He only got "caught" in this case because the Japanese noted his passport wasn't up to date and turned him in. Please excuse me when I don't give one damn ounce of pity for this guy. So now he has to answer. Screw him, let him take it like a man. He got PAID to participate in Serbian propaganda. Let him pay the price.

Re:Jesus!

[untaken_name]

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.

Re:Jesus!

[GooberToo]

Modern research suggests that there can be "degrees" of autism. So, it's not JUST a question of if you have it or not, but to what degree it effects you.

I'm not sure how accepted the research is, but I've read several such articles talk about it. Along those longs, it's thought that many techies are slightly autistic.

Re:Jesus!

[Muerte2]

Ultimately what it comes down is the fact the he's a nutball. No question there. The silly thing is that he's being deported BACK to the US for playing in an effing CHESS TOURNAMENT! Come on! Don't we have some terrorists we should be finding? Last I heard Osama was still on the loose. Good thing we caught that chess guy from 1972!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Re:Jesus!

[Citizen of Earth]

"I was happy? ?Yes, I applaud the act? ?Fuck the US. I wanna see the US wiped out."

Maybe the US should schedule the extradition flight through Iraq and then 'accidentally' allow Fisher to be abducted by his terrorist heros. Maybe a little face time would allow him to understand them a little better.

Re:Jesus!

[Citizen of Earth]

And he was fucking nuts back in 72 as well. He's always been paranoid. He went apeshit before the 72 tournament refusing to play if there were any cameras or recording devices in the room. I believe he forfeited at least one game because he imagined there was a camera there.

Schizophrenia much?

Re:Jesus!

[Toadpipe]

Ok, it's total bullshit. It was a privately funded tournament, had nothing to do with the governement. Besides, name one country that hasn't commited "mass-murder" ,then when you realise your own country isn't on that list, fuck off and cry me some more justifications.

Re:Jesus!

[mirko]

If you allow countries that are human rights abusers to have the appearance of legitimacy, you give their actions that appearance.
Actually, the US are under Human Rights Watch focus for Guantanamo's excess, but we sent people play tennis in Los Angeles, though, does this make us corroborate Iraq's invasion ?
No : it's a game, a proof we support the people under the Power.

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.
Fisher is a Chess player, not a diplomat. Fox and CNN legitimated that WMD joke, why would they leigitimate Fisher's delirium ?

No, respect your 1st amendment and let him bark, it's not as dangerous as intelligency evasion or terrorism conceiling.

Re:Jesus!

[Smallpond]

There was no US law against what Fischer did. Bush Sr. wrote an executive order forbidding US citizens from doing business in Yugoslavia. This assumes that the US executive branch has jurisdiction over its citizens while they are not on US soil. What is the legality of that?

Also, he was not convicted by a US jury, he was indicted. To the best of my knowledge we still have an innocent until proven guilty system.

Re:Jesus!

[maxpublic]

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.

I see. And somehow that's supposed to make the whole thing less absurd?

The man is being charged with playing in a chess tournament when his fuckwit government ordered him not to. As insane as the son-of-a-bitch is, the government had no business pulling this totalitarian temper tantrum in the first place.

It doesn't matter what his views are. It doesn't matter if Hitler is his hero. All that matters is that the government over-extended it's authority and attempted to illegally shackle one of it's own citizens. For try as I might, I see no Constitutional authority granting the government the right to command it's citizens as to which countries they might go to, and what they might do while they're there.

Max

Re:Jesus!

[frost22]

This crap is supposed to be "insightful" ?

If this was even a borderline "free" world he could go play chess where he fucking liked, and tell his politicos to shove it.

Instead you US morons try to put that guy into prison for moving black and white wooden figures across a small playing field, thereby harming absolutely nobody, and all that while your borderline criminal president is all but proven to have started a real war with thousands of real people getting really killed based on a stinking pile of lies and innuendo ?

Why the f*** don't you put the Texas moron into jail and leave harmlos players alone, instead ?

Gosh !

(Consider that a flame !)

Re:Jesus!

[maxpublic]

Now tell me it's total bullshit.

It's total bullshit. Now tell me where the Constitution grants the President the right to issue an executive order of this nature.

Max

Re:Jesus!

[naiv]

have you ever thought that not everything in the world can be summed up by something in the dsm4?

Re:Jesus!

[Citizen of Earth]

Maybe if you weren't such a f--king idiot, you'd realize that THE TERRORISTS RESPONSIBLE FOR 9/11 AREN'T FROM IRAQ

They're there now.

Re:Jesus!

[syberanarchy]

Do you have a freaking brain tumor? You are comparing a guy - a crazy, fucked up, nutjob of a guy, to be sure, but still - with men who command others to kill for them.

Let's see - a chess match vs. killing in the name of money and power (either over other beings, or over an organization). If you can't see the difference, I don't know what to tell you.

In the end, some of BF's money would have been spent back into the US economy. He essentially took money from the Yugos, and gave it back to the US...(or he would have...) They should be THANKING him, not detaining him.

Re:Jesus!

[Breakfast Pants]

I know what you are saying man. I got a traffic ticket yesterday! Come on! Don't we have some terrorists we should be finding?

Re:Jesus!

[bishiraver]

That's why we're allowed to go to Cuba and buy all the cigars we want while there, eh? The government can put sanctions on countries - we did with Iraq, we have with Cuba... And that generally means that what US citizens do there is very controlled.

Re:Jesus!

[untaken_name]

I *do* respect the first amendment. You don't seem to understand. He wanted to play as an American in a country where America did not wish to be represented. He could have given up his american citizenship and represented another country if he just wanted to play. the fact is, he *wanted* to make a statement. He did it intentionally and that is why he is in trouble. He always had the right to say whatever he wanted. He just didn't have the right to compete as an American in sanctioned tournaments in Yugoslavia, but he did it anyhow. I'm really really sorry if you cannot understand the distinction.

Re:Jesus!

[untaken_name]

Everything must be so simple for you in your black-and-white, clear-cut world. The government did not wish to be represented in those tournaments. he played them anyhow, as an American, even though America did not wish to be represented. He could have given up his citizenship at any time. In fact, with the comments he has made and is making, I don't understand why he didn't just renounce his citizenship many years ago. Then he wouldn't be in trouble today. I agree that after all this time, it doesn't matter much, but I also understand why he is in trouble. It's not like he didn't know exactly what he was doing and what message he was sending. I'm sorry if you don't agree, bnut he could have easily changed his situation to make his nationality a nonissue and he chose not to.

Re:Jesus!

[mirko]

I can understand the distinction, but I do NOT agree with it, ok ?

Re:Jesus!

[untaken_name]

You are retarded. No one told Bobby Fischer he 'couldn't play chess.' He couldn't play chess as a representative of America in certain tournaments in a santioned country. If you do not grasp the essential difference there you are a fuckwit and should be shot to help slow the spread of insipid knee-jerk reactionary idiots. Dipshit.
Consider that a flame.

Re:Jesus!

[untaken_name]

I'm fucking sick and tired of people acting like he's in trouble 'for playing chess.' You fucking idiots. It wouldn't have mattered if it was water polo or ping pong or fucking croquet. He played as a representative of America in a sanctioned country. What the fuck is the point of sanctions if a country can gain an appearance of legitimacy even with them in place? If you have a problem with the way santions work, that is one thing. To say that Bobby Fischer is 'in trouble just for playing a little chess' is ridiculous and stupid.

Re:Jesus!

[untaken_name]

That's fine, but you were arguing as though his freedom of speech were restricted, which it most certainly was not, and which you would know if you actually do understand the distinction. You don't have to agree with how sanctions work but it is insipid to say that not being able to represent America in a formal tournament in a sanctioned country is somehow violating your 'rights.' He could have played chess on the street or in someone's house or in a bar all day long. Bobby Fischer was trying to make the US look bad, not 'play a little chess.'

Re:Jesus!

[untaken_name]

Nope. Worldwide, it's alcohol. There are some countries where tobacco (it's not actually the nicotine, usually) kills more than alcohol, but overall, alcohol is the deadliest drug in the world, as well as the most popular. Alcohol is more addictive than heroin and does more damage to your body if you abuse it. I've always found it strange that such a horrible poison could be promoted so much while less harmful recreational substances are vilified and lied about and criminalized. It just doesn't make much sense to me.

Re:Jesus!

[Thomas Shaddack]

He couldn't play chess as a representative of America in certain tournaments in a santioned country.

Oh? No one of the stories said anything about Fischer representing USA. They all talked about his rematch with Spassky.

Hence my understanding is that he represented himself. Hence I consider the US Government's actions against him to be equal with thievery and unlawful restraint, and other things that lawyers know names for.

Fischer's biggest mistake was to come to a country that allows extradition for political non-crimes.

Re:Jesus!

[Thomas Shaddack]

For try as I might, I see no Constitutional authority granting the government the right to command it's citizens as to which countries they might go to, and what they might do while they're there.

Sadly, contemporary USA seems to have perverted "freedom" the same way the USSR used to pervert "communism". The word has the same sound, but most of the meaning is lost, changed, or dramatically amended.

Re:Jesus!

[Lehk228]

actually that would be control of border crossing and control of import/export, if you entered cuba from somewhere other than the USA then smoked a Cuban cigar While still in Cuba the US govt couldn't touch you.

Re:Jesus!

[untaken_name]

Like I said before, it is appearance that matters. Bobby Fischer appeared to represent the US because he was competing as a US citizen. I'm truly sorry if you don't see how that can be intentionally or unintentionally construed as representing the US. American citizenship conveys responsibilities as well as rights, and people who refuse to honor their obligations as a citizen but wish to benefit from that status make me sick.

Re:Jesus!

[untaken_name]

If America truly was a Nazi-run country, you wouldn't be able to anonymously post about it on a system based in the US. This trollish meme is nonsensical and stale. Nice try, though.

Now That Kevin is Free.....

[tailgate]

Now that Kevin is free, when will ThinkGeek be selling the free Bobby shirts?

So we can find Bobby Fischer but...

[jogoodma]

...we can't find those damn WMD's?

Re:So we can find Bobby Fischer but...

[ElaborateCalculator]

It's taken twelve years to find Fischer, give them a chance...

Note to anyone reading this in the slashdot archive in 2016: did we find the WMDs yet?

Re:So we can find Bobby Fischer but...

[Doc Scratchnsniff]

Perhaps the WMDs have valid passports.

Here it comes

[NetNinja]

Since most chess enthusiasts know of Bobby Fishers infamous chess games. I can see the networks salivating over an opportunity to create a Bobby Fisher miniseries

Sure...

[Pii]

But is it Conjugal Visit prison, or Federal Pound-me-in-the-Ass Prison?

great article on Fischer

[paulydavis]

I wanted to submit this link when i submitted the story but it was an afterthought. It is a great story on what Fischer has been up to in the alantic monthly. story>/A>

You might be onto something...

[goldspider]

...if not for the fact that you're completely wrong.

He was indicted in 1992. That would be 11 years before the 9/11 attack.

You can take off your tinfoil hat now.

Re:You might be onto something...

[div_2n]

Except that 1992 plus 11 years is 2003. I am guessing you mean to say 9 years.

Re:You might be onto something...

[LookSharp]

Wow, that was a visceral reaction! :) The unpopular speech remark was more a tongue-in-cheek commentary on government attitudes, not the war, the terrorist attacks, etc. Sorry about that, please see my clarification above. I don't believe he's being persecuted for unpopular speech, but I think that the unpopular speech adds to the reasons for the US to consider pushing hard for his extradition to face the charges he was accused of back then.

hacking into fed radio frequency now...

[Anonymous Custard]

hacking into fed radio frequency now...I think I hear them discussing ficher's capture...

---TRANSMISSION INTERCEPTION---
"If we can hit that bull's-eye, the rest of the dominoes will fall like a house of cards...Checkmate."
---TRANSMISSION SIGNAL LOST---

Re:hacking into fed radio frequency now...

[orkysoft]

Well, they had on their side the element of surprise... SURPRISE!

He sort of makes sense to me...

[Anita Coney]

While I'd never condone terrorist activity, I too would hate a country that tried to arrest me for simply playing chess. As an American I'm utterly embarrassed.

Re:He sort of makes sense to me...

[stienman]

Bobby's profession is Chess. He makes money playing chess. Others make money when he plays chess. When he plays chess it draws tourists.

It's not any different than if I practiced my profession there. Just because chess can be played as game with absolutely no money involved by 'regular' chess players doesn't mean that in this case he was not practising his profession and thereby generating financial transactions.

What if the game wasn't for money? What if he just played for fun

Then he wouldn't have gone. He went to make money, among other (lesser) reasons.

-Adam

Re:He sort of makes sense to me...

[stienman]

I'm sure that if we continued this conversation you could come up with some barely concievable, twisted story that would demonstrate that he could indeed play chess in Yugoslavia at the time.

The simple fact is that he was not in trouble for playing chess. They don't care what he did that caused money to be spent there.

What they do care about is that he provided a financial boost to the economy, no matter how small or large that boost was as a US citizen it was illegal for him to do so.

And yes, incidently, it would have been illegal for him to simply go there and play the match for fun, rankings, etc. He would have still needed to pay for his meals and accomodations - or someone would have to pay for them - and under certian sanctions while one may be allowed to travel to the country in question, they are not allowed to spend money or have money spent in their behalf.

So, go ahead and change the circumstances in some twisted way that got around all these restrictions. The simple fact is that whatever you come up with is not what happened, Bobby knew full well what he was getting into, and he broke the law.

-Adam

I know another man...

[No. 24601]

who was a champion for the US during the Cold War. He's now the most wanted man in the world.

Re:I know another man...

[_Sprocket_]

What was your point? I'm not really in to the game of Chess myself. But I've heard that Fischer has been rumored to play online from time to time. Maybe you have knowledge of his applying his chess skills towards a world-wide campaign of chess defeats against the United States?

Re:I know another man...

[Xiver]

Osama Bin Laden was never a champion for the US.

Like many allies we once had a common enemy.
Even then he viewed the US as infedels to be dealt with later.

Sounds Fischy To Me ...

[quarkscat]

considering that USA passports were only good for 7 years back then in 1992 (and now still only good for 10 years). If this wanted character has been globetrotting all this time, on which country's passport has he been traveling? (Please, don't tell me he was using a Micro$oft Passport account!)

Hypocritcial??

[Anonymous Coward]

They have a problem because he broke UN sanctions to go to Yugolavia to play chess?

Didn't America and Britain go against the UN's wishes to send several thousand troops to Iraq to play war?

Re:Hypocritcial??

[adzoox]

No, a wish and a sanction are not the same.

One is a request or vote

The other is legally inforceable law put into place by the international community.

Re:Hypocritcial??

[DrWhizBang]

I could be wrong, but I think in the case of the of the Fischer, the UN said "Don't go to Yugoslavia", whereas with the US and Britain the UN said "We didn't say you can go to Iraq." Didn't say they couldn't though.

Of course, Fischer played chess, but Bush busted heads. Big difference. But different situation. One could certainly call the US hyprocritical (for a lot of reasons), but these two events do not give any logical proof.

Re:yugoslavia neighbour of bosnia?

[REBloomfield]

Bosnia was one of the six federal units that made up the former Yugoslavia, but gained independence in the early 90's.

Interrogate

[BlinkyBob]

Maybe he knows where Bin Laden is.

Murray Head saw this coming...

[angst7]

Japan. Oriental setting
and the city dont know what the city is getting...
The creme de la creme of the chess world
and a show with everthing but Bin Laden.

Time flies! Doesn't seem a minute
since Yugoslavia had the chess boys in it
All change dont you know that when you
play at this level its no ordinary venue?

In New York or Afganistan or Iraq... or this place!

One night in Tokyo and all jews are bastards...
Not much between self hate and insanity
You'll find a spook in every karaoke bar
and if your lucky you've still got your qeeen
I can feel deportation creeping up on me.

(ok, so the execution was weak, but you get the idea)

Re:Murray Head saw this coming...

[AndroidCat]

The song One Night in Bangkok from the musical Chess. (About two chessplayers, American and Russian, imagine that.)

Re:Murray Head saw this coming...

[kasperd]

The song One Night in Bangkok from the musical Chess.

Now if somebody with a bit of talent (unlike me) would record this version, I believe listening to the .ogg file would be hilarious.

Re:Murray Head saw this coming...

[Wolfrider]

--That is genius, man - GENIUS! :)

(For the uninformed, this should be sung to the lyrics of "One night in Bangkok") which is still one of my favorite songs to this day.

BOOK OF ENDINGS.......

[FLOOBYDUST]

aHH.... The Banzai ending...... always works......

Terrible Idea!

[Pii]

We can't have him down in Guantanimo, tutoring terrorists in the finer points of chess...

If bad people become chess masters, the terrorists win!

Nice.

[The Tyro]

It's a shame that a man with such a talent should also be such a vicious anti-semite. Just goes to show that genius in one area can be accompanied by pig-ignorance in other areas. I knew he was an odd sort of man... but his anti-semitism is news to me.

Also, to suggest that 3000 innocents slaughtered by terrorists is a good thing puts him in the same category as those palestinians who danced in the streets when the towers fell. He's probably not going to get much sympathy from most americans.

Hmm...

[TxdoHawk]

I feel bad for the man, considering he called Bush "borderline retarded", he probably won't exactly be welcomed with open arms.

Now, whether Bush deserves such a label, that's a whole 'nother story, but that is one flame war I don't want to start, so I'll just keep my mouth shut. :x

Statute of Limitations

[bigattichouse]

Ok, murder I understand haveing no statute of limitations, but UN Sactions having >10 years of statute limitations? Thats downright silly.

Re:Statute of limitations

[sirwired]

I believe he had been indicted years ago. It just took him a while to be caught.

SirWired

Re:Statute of limitations

[LordLucless]

Yeah...what limit does the statute of limitations give to a chess game?

Here's a Question

[StalinsNotDead]

If you get deported from Japan to the US, do you have to pay the airfare?

Re:Here's a Question

[swb]

Do you get to sit in first class? Do they put an armed guard on you or transport you in irons to keep you from being unruly?

As far as the airfare goes, I'd wager that if you were at risk of arrest in the US when you returned, I'll bet they add the cost of 2-3 short-notice, one-way first class tickets to whatever fine you might be eligible for. The multiples covering the cost of extra seats or guards required to keep you from being a dick during the flight.

If you were just being deported and weren't subject to arrest in the US upon return, I'd bet they'd just jail you until you agreed to pay for the airfare. I'm not sure what they do for people who can't pay; perhaps there's some reciprocal agreement with the deportee's country to pay for their indigent deportees airfare.

There could also be an arrangement with the airlines where they agree to haul indigents home as part of their landing/flyover/airport fees (leaving them free to collect for the airfare in the deportee's home country). And don't some countries require you to deposit funds to get into the country? Money could come from there.

All in all, one of those annoying questions you never hear answered.

Re:Here's a Question

[Dun Malg]

There could also be an arrangement with the airlines where they agree to haul indigents home as part of their landing/flyover/airport fees (leaving them free to collect for the airfare in the deportee's home country).

Actually, the way that works is that the indigent person's home country generally pays the airfare. For example, you can walk into the US embassy in Paris and say "I was backpacking across Europe with all my money in cash and it got stolen" and they'll usually arrange you a flight back to the US. However, if you do this once they'll be reluctant to let you fly back to Europe a year later to try it again.

Re:Here's a Question

[cocotoni]

According to IATA rules, it is airlines obligation to verify that you have the neccessary paperwork (be it passport, visa, medical checks) to travel to the country of destination. Failure to check this leads to the airline having to transport you back to the country of origin (not neccesarily to the same airport, but to the country from which you entered).

The part I don't understand about this deportation, if it really is deportation, is that when deported you are sent to the country from which you illegaly entered the offended country - he should be sent to US only if he has entered from US. And if he flew from US, why didn't the feds book him there?

Re:Here's a Question

[swb]

I guess maybe they deport you to your country of citizenship if they can't determine your country of origin.

Re:Here's a Question

[cocotoni]

Well, in case of air-traffic it is much more easy to determine the country of origin (ie. you flew in on the flight XY 1234 from Utopia), than guessing someones citizenship (ie. am I really citizen of US if I have a non-valid passport, or do you have dual citizenship, or are you facing an arrest in your home country).

If they send you to the country of origin they do not have these problems, because they know the vector, and being that you entered from there they assume that you were there legally in the first place.

What's wrong with you people?

[Cecil]

There are altogether too many people on this story commenting what basically amounts to, "Oh, he's a crackpot anyway, who cares?"

IT IS NOT OKAY TO ARREST PEOPLE FOR BEING CRACKPOTS.

You can be locked up because you're insane, but only if you're a danger to yourself or others. I consider this a valid criteria. Bobby Fischer, despite doing things that you might consider insane, is in no way a danger to himself or to others, unless you consider it dangerous to hear things you don't like. And if you do, too bad, it doesn't make it true.

Leave this man alone. He hasn't done anything substantially criminal. It's not like he was shipping food in violation of sanctions to the poor Yugoslavians or anything.

Re:What's wrong with you people?

[Anonymous Coward]

he is using fake ids to travel?

that is a pretty decent crime.

the fact he is a crackpot just makes him more interesting.

but the japanese arrested him, for a REASON, he broke the law.

Re:What's wrong with you people?

[Anthony Boyd]

Leave this man alone. He hasn't done anything substantially criminal.

Substantially? Who gets to define that?

Re:What's wrong with you people?

[stienman]

Until you fully understand what sanctions are, what they are meant to achieve, and just how fully bobby broke them, then you can't possibly simplify this arrest into "Don't arrest him because he's insane." That doesn't even enter into the argument, although it is information being used to publicly disgrace him and make this action somewhat more palatable to the public rather than explaining what exactly he did wrong in each newspaper article.

He has done something substantially criminal, and before he did so he fully understood the consequences. He's not stupid.

-Adam

Re:What's wrong with you people?

[kirkjobsluder]

Leave this man alone. He hasn't done anything substantially criminal. It's not like he was shipping food in violation of sanctions to the poor Yugoslavians or anything.

Actually, the exhibition match was a big deal for Yugoslavia drawing in thousands of people with money to spend into the local economy. In the process, Fischer pocketed a goodly sum just for showing up. Now, certainly we can debate at length whether said sanctions were a good idea, but arguing that "it was just a chess match" or that it was not a criminal act is missing the point. I'm much more sympathetic to Americans engaging sister-cities programs in Cuba who face the same penalties than the star of what many argue was THE chess event of the 1990s.

Another facet behind this story is that it is not as if Fischer is being persecuted here. He's been living comfortably overseas for over a decade. The maximum penalty he faces is 10 years and $250,000. If he behaves himself, he could probably get away with a token fine and public service. There was no big manhunt. Although his probable where abouts have been known off and on for the last 10 years, we have placed no public pressure on the countries he lived in to capture him. He was detained and deported on a routine problem with his passport. For the most part, it seems as if the U.S. had written Fischer off as a loss, and was willing to let him live as and expatriate.

Re:What's wrong with you people?

[Pecisk]

Common sence, perhaps?

Fischer's sentence

[justkarl]

He's probably going to jail, right? Just think of his roomate...

"Hey, buddy, wanna play chess?"

"No, Bobby, we've played chess 12 times since breakfast."

I'd probably kill a man to learn chess from Bobby Fischer in jail.

Interesting read

[News for nerds]

Bobby Fischer's Statements have been Misrepresented

BTW how did you find the URL of the mp3?

Re:Interesting read

[hunterx11]

On a related note, Sam Sloan is crazy too.

Re:Interesting read

[arivanov]

This definitely makes an interesting read. In btw, people should not take chess champion statements seriously. It is not just Bobby, there were quite a few other not quite balanced people to hold the crown as well. Karpov, Spassky, etc they all were a bit wierd from an average commoner's point of view.

Re:Interesting read

[arivanov]

The links from there make an even more interesting read. Especially this quote from a BF interview:

Bobby Fischer: But it was in violation, apparently, of an order, an executive order which President Bush had signed, uh, I think in around May of 1992, that forbid Americans to, uh, do business with Yugoslavia, unless, of course, they had permission or an exception from the government, which I didn't get. Everybody got it. CNN gets it, all these Jew controlled outfits get it, and you know, you know how many people were involved in that match, nobody was indicted? Spassky wasn't indicted, he played. The [...] government didn't indict him. And I'll tell you something else about Spassky. He played in that match, nobody indicted him. That guy has been to the U.S. at least a few times since the match. He can go to the U.S. Nobody touches him. He played in the match just like me. The U.S. government doesn't give a damn about arresting him. They only want to arrest me. Eugene was over there. He made a nice pretty penny there. The Philippine government doesn't wanna put him in jail. There were a lot of people involved in that match. Nobody wants to put anybody in jail but me. They wanna put me in jail cause the Jews are behind all this. They're behind everything. They're orchestrating everything, this, uh, indictment, this movie, the forged Batsford edition of My 60 Memorable Games, this fake forged book, called umm uh, I mean CD-Rom called Bobby Fischer Teaches Chess. Now they're behind this mega-robbery of all my stuff at the Pasadena storage house, the robbery and auctioning off of all this stuff. You know, they grabbed this stuff on the cheapest, meanest trick. The most transparent ploy you can imagine. This fuckin Elsworth, deliberately, they used a secret Jew I'm sure...deliberately, behind my back, just stopped paying for six months. I sent him the check. You saw the check, Pablo.

While the interpretation is rabid paranoia, the facts are definite. CNN made billions in advertisement time warmongering in ex-Yugoslavia. We used to stage bets where the next shootout will be based on where their crew went. Spasski was never indighted for the embargo. Noone dealing with any chess material from the games was indighted either

Re:Interesting read

[Karl Cocknozzle]

people should not take chess champion statements seriously. It is not just Bobby, there were quite a few other not quite balanced people to hold the crown as well.

Amen. And this applies to any sport or game: Just because you're good at a game or sport (or activity of some kind) doesn't mean that I need to hear your opinion on world politics, economics, etc. Yet for some reason, Americans have this desire to interview celebrities about the issues of the day.

The fact that most celebrities are pretty and not smart is forgotten for the few moments of the interview. And there are smart ones, true. But we often find them to be smart but not articulate. (Or, in this case, particularly sane.)

Let me be the first to say...

[weeboo0104]

Free Bobby!

FischerRandom chess != inflated sense of ego

[microbox]

Other great playres have dabbled in creating chess variants. Alkehine and Capablanca played on a 10x10 board with two new types of powerful pieces - one moving like a bishop and knight, and the other moving like a rook and knight

While Fischer may be a little on the crazy side, his chess variant is an excellent idea.

Not just wishes, buddy

[adb]

All Members shall settle their international disputes by peaceful means in such a manner that international peace and security, and justice, are not endangered. All Members shall refrain in their international relations from the threat or use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of any state, or in any other manner inconsistent with the Purposes of the United Nations. Invasion ain't "peaceful means", and that wasn't an authorized enforcement action. The UN Charter is a treaty, fully ratified, and therefore just under the Constitution as the supreme law of the land. But hey, this is a nation of men, not laws, right?

That's interesting....

[theJerk242]

wanted since 1992 for playing a tournament in Yugoslavia despite U.N. sanctions

So this guy is in trouble for playing chess, while George W. Bush Jr. isn't (for waging an agressive war without the consent of the UN). It just goes to prove something....if you are going to go against the will of the UN, then do it big. And, also, make sure that your have the worlds strongest military backing you. After all, the U.S. military makes up a large chunk of the UN peacekeeper forces.

Re:That's interesting....

[theJerk242]

Is there anything that you don't blame Bush for? When you have no better argument, just work in some good old fashioned Bush bashing. Fucking troll.

You are mistaken. I did not intend to bash Bush. I don't care for him but I don't hate him. I'm just bashing how screwed up the UN's sence of justice is. UN law states that waging an agressive war against the consent of the UN is punishable by being put on trial at the Haige (excuse my spelling). In other words, you will be punished as a war criminal. George W. Bush Jr. did exactly that. I'm not sayiny that Bobby Fischer is a saint either. After all, he went against the UN will by playing a chess in Yugoslavia. So in summary, which is the greater evil, a chess player or a war criminal? I was just trying to point out the irony of how the UN is supposed to prevent wars from happening by punishing those who do cause agressive wars but instead put more effort into punishing someone who was merely playing chess.

Re:That's interesting....

[damiam]

It was also against US sanctions. Whatever you may think of the Iraq war, I think it's safe to say that there was no US law explicitly forbidding it.

Re:That's interesting....

[mabu]

It was also against US sanctions. Whatever you may think of the Iraq war, I think it's safe to say that there was no US law explicitly forbidding it.

Take a look at the Constitution and the War Powers Act. Think again.

Technically speaking, the president is not granted the authority to declare "war" and Congress does not have the ability to arbitrarily give such authority to the executive branch. Bush's "war" was definitely un-Constitutional, and likely illegal.

Re:That's interesting....

[djp928]

George W. Bush is not a "Jr". His father's name is George Herbert Walker Bush. His name is George Walker Bush. There's no Jr. or Sr.

-- Dave

heh

[Anonymous Coward]

He, like many others has fallen in for the romantic idea that somehow being good at chess makes you intellectually "better". This is patently not true.

As I highly doubt he as any capacity in international relations, programming or physics next to graduates in those respective disciplines.... and I would put each of those many times ahead of chess in terms of importance to the world, and in the range of skills needed to be sucessful in them.

The whole "crisis" that happened when the top human chess player was beaten by a computer was an example of that romantic myth of the chess player as representing human intellect. And yet even now computers STILL have trouble stringing sentences together.

I would also like to point to the IQ myth in this rant as it too (through orgs like mensa) has been overly inflated. I say overly inflated because it is *one* metric. And that one metric should not be used to judge a persons worth. I would maintain that there is no master narrative of what constitutes intelligence - there is only synthesis of analysis that results in action.... which may or may not lead to benefit... that very benefit is also a subjective measure.

There is a reason why rhodes scholars are often leaders of countries and in important positions (clinton, hawke etc.) and they may well have high IQs in addition to their other skills. But their defining characteristics are not their raw computation - and I would have to suggest that people who go on and on about chess and IQ and actually quite insecure.

But I am not an important person, or a world leader... nor a member of mensa or a chess grandmaster. So I guess my opinion counts for shit right?

Re:heh

[justkarl]

As I highly doubt he as any capacity in international relations, programming or physics next to graduates in those respective disciplines.... and I would put each of those many times ahead of chess in terms of importance to the world, and in the range of skills needed to be sucessful in them

I would agree...on some points. Physics and programming do require different kinds of knowledge; as does chess. Programming deals with logic, as does chess, to a degree. Physics has to do with established rules...so does chess(the pieces can only move in certain ways). But chess also deals with another kind of knowledge, based on strategy, probability, and, as mentioned before, logic. You have to think about how your moves(and your opponent's) affect the rest of the game, so in a way, I'd say these grandmaster guys are smarter than most nuclear physicists/many computer programmers.

He's real :-)

[SteelX]

Actually, they did, so I guess he's real. :-)

So let me get this straight....

[jstultz]

The US imposed sanctions on Yugoslavia, and then he's wanted for taking $3.35 million away from them?

Does this not make sense to anybody else?

Clearly....

[zandermander]

You've never had to escape from people bent on killing your entire ethnic group.

Not that I have, mind you, but I would think you have heard of the Holocaust, Cambodia (ever see The Killing Fields?), Rwanda and even what went on in South Africa for so long.

At this point in the world's history, I cannot sympathize with anyone attempting to use false ID to travel.

I don't know about you but if were being persecuted and all I needed to do to escape harm was to use a false ID, I think I'd choose the false ID.

Sometimes the right thing to do is to ignore and/or willfully break stupid laws.

Sorry for sounding so harsh but that part of your comment was pretty dumb. Seeing mountains of skulls in Cambodia has a way of changing your point of view.

Re:Clearly....

[jred]

Don't forget the native americans, as long as we're talking about attempted genocide.

Re:Clearly....

[Grishnakh]

Where do you live? It sounds like you need to move to someplace that isn't still in the stone age (i.e., out of the South). Come to the southwest; we're much more open-minded around here (except in Utah).

Re:Clearly....

[Murgalon]

What do you know about what's been going on in South Africa? I hope you are referring to the mass murder of thousands of mostly elderly white farmers. Not for the sensitive eyes : http://www.africancrisis.org/photos16.asp

Mentally Ill

[Black-Man]

His mother was Jewish, yet Jews are "lying, stealing bastards"? He's so intelligent, he uses phrases only illiterate morons would use?

He needs locked up all right... in the mental ward.

Re:Mentally Ill

[CyPlasm]

From this article:

Contrary to popular belief, Fischer didn't emerge from the womb a full-blown grand master. While he was learning the game, as a child in Brooklyn, he was essentially a hotshot club player--a prodigy, to be sure, but not obviously world-championship material. But at age thirteen, in 1956, Fischer made a colossal leap. That year he became the youngest player ever to win the U.S. Junior Championship. He also dominated the U.S. tournament circuit. What was astounding wasn't simply that a gawky thirteen-year-old kid in blue jeans was suddenly winning chess tournaments. It was the way he was winning. He didn't just beat people--he humiliated them.

Maybe the onset of puberty "turned on" his mental illness. This article and others seem to suggest that puberty can trigger an underlying mental condition. In fact, this article says:

Social phobia is the irrational fear and avoidance of being in a situation in which a person's activities can be watched by others. In a sense, it is a form of "performance anxiety," but a social phobia causes symptomsthat go well beyond the normal nervousness before an on-stage appearance. People suffering social phobias intensely fear being watched or humiliated while doing something--such as signing a personal check, drinking a cup of coffee, buttoning a coat or eating a meal--in front of others. Many patients suffer a generalized form of social phobia, in which they fear and avoid most interactions with other people. This makes it difficult for them to go to work or school, or to socialize at all. Social phobias occur equally among men and women, generally developing after puberty and peaking after age 30. A person can suffer from one or a cluster of social phobias.

Sounds like Mr. Fischer to me!

Re:Mentally Ill

[ajs]

Ok, I didn't listen to the recording (will try to get a chance later), but I'm curious: did he say anything that was actually antisemitic or did he just express the opinion that the holocaust was a hoax? The latter is almost certainly an incorrect opinion (I've met too many people who were there or whose parents were there not to believe), but holding that opinion does not make one an antisemite... obviously, it is in the political favor of an antisemite's arguments to hold such an opinion, and for their opponents to label anyone who holds such an opinion as either a crackpot (probably true) or antisemite (unfounded).

However, I would think that this late in the game, we would understand the difference.

Worse, labeling someone who doesn't acknowledge that tragedy as being against any one group devalues the lives of the other groups (e.g. homosexuals, Gypsies and political prisoners) who were killed.

Re:Mentally Ill

[reidbold]

And yes this IS the land of the free, but the minute your freedom is used to take away someone elses freedom, then there is a problem

I was unaware that Bobby Fischer exercising free speech takes away from the freedoms of others. Care to enlighten me regarding how this takes place?

Re:Mentally Ill

[reidbold]

I haven't listened to it either, just giving this chap the benefit of the doubt.

Re:Mentally Ill

[Vellmont]

He's a nut and says crazy things, but I don't think he's a danger to himself or others. Thankfully we don't lock people up for believing crazy things just yet, otherwise probbably 30% of the population would be behind bars.

Re:Mentally Ill

[just some computer j]

If he has a social phobia that was severe, why was he in one of the mostly densely populated countries in the world? Just walking in Narita International Airport would have been a major challenge for him.

Re:Mentally Ill

[Grishnakh]

2. Bobby Fischer has exhibited the fact that he is crazy by more than simply being an antisemitic Jew.

Huh? First of all, how is he antisemitic? The quotes I read had him saying pro-Arab things. Arabs are Semites, so he's definitely not antisemitic. Anti-Jewish, definitely, but not antisemitic.

Second, how is he a Jew? If he's trashing Jews, he's obviously not part of their religion. If you don't believe in a religion, you can't be said to be a member of it simply because your parents were. Religion is a personal choice, just like what music you listen to, what profession you choose, etc. It's not like race and gender which you're pretty much stuck with, or nationality which can be extremely difficult to change.

Re:Mentally Ill

[McDutchie]

If he has a social phobia that was severe, why was he in one of the mostly densely populated countries in the world? Just walking in Narita International Airport would have been a major challenge for him.

Well, no... you don't interact with any of those people, nor would any of them be particularly watching you. In fact, being anonymous in a crowd is the easiest way for a socially phobic person to be "among people".

Re:Mentally Ill

[ahdeoz]

No, you fucking morons. Listen to the tape. If you're on a jury, you can't say "I don't believe he has been proven guilty beyond a reasonable doubt because I wasn't paying attention when the evidence was shown." Concerning the parent poster's forays into "logic", while it is technically true that denying the holocaust is not causatory evidence that he is anti-semite, it is strong corralary evidence. No one has ever denied the holocaust who wasn't anti-semite. Many anti-semites deny the holocaust.

Re:Mentally Ill

[soft_guy]

Wow, a psychiatrist who can make diagnosis about a person's mental state just by reading a news article about them! (Or maybe NOT reading the article? This is Slashdot after all.)

What school did you get your psychiatric credentials from? Have you written a book enlightening the rest of the world on your amazing techniques?

Re:Mentally Ill

[mpe]

Thankfully we don't lock people up for believing crazy things just yet, otherwise probbably 30% of the population would be behind bars.

What yardstick do you use to measure "crazy"? Espcially how do you avoid highly political metrics being used...

Re:Mentally Ill

[reidbold]

What the hell.
First, the red herring.

If you're on a jury, you can't say "I don't believe he has been proven guilty beyond a reasonable doubt because I wasn't paying attention when the evidence was shown."

Then, a logical implication.

it is technically true that denying the holocaust is not causatory evidence that he is anti-semite

Followed by a logical implication contrary to the prior.

No one has ever denied the holocaust who wasn't anti-semite.

Alright kids, you've just witnessed the perfect way to /not/ frame your arguments.

Is everyone who disagrees with you a fucking moron?

Re:Mentally Ill

[Vellmont]

Uhh.. huh? Do you start out with the assumption that people are a danger to themselves or others, then require people to disprove that? He didn't SAY anything indicating he was dangerous, therefore we assume he ISN'T, get it?

Re:Mentally Ill

[Vellmont]

One yardstick might be people who take off-the-cuff remarks that are supposed to be humourous and pick them apart as if they were hard logical statements written in textbooks.

Re:Mentally Ill

[Probashi]

Because he could be ethincally Jewish without following Judaism. There are Jewis people I know who fall into that category.

Re:Mentally Ill

[paganizer]

I believe in the Holocaust.
However, I think it would be possible to not believe in it even if you were jewish; people make up their own minds what to believe in.
Millions of people believe Angels let a father throw his daughters to a crowd of rapists in their place, and that it was a GOOD thing.

Re:Mentally Ill

[paganizer]

sounds like a democrat.

Re:Mentally Ill

[banzai51]

Care to point out where Bobby Fischer was arrested for what he said? Or was he arrested for what he did?

Re:Mentally Ill

[banzai51]

If he's trashing Jews, he's obviously not part of their religion.

Us Catholics bash our relgion all the time. Doesn't make us not-Catholic.

Re:Mentally Ill

[Grishnakh]

Wouldn't that make them Hebrew or Semitic? To my knowledge, the word "Jew" is actually a very recent (1800's) term formed from "Judaism". I don't see how you can use a name for a religion as a name for a race or ethnicity.

Re:Mentally Ill

[reidbold]

He hasn't. The grandparent was suggesting he should be locked up because of what he says.

Re:Mentally Ill

[Grishnakh]

It does if you stop calling yourself a member of that religion. I was raised Catholic too. Guess what? I'm not a Catholic anymore. I chose to not be part of that group.

I also can't imagine anyone who condones the killing of Catholics still being himself considered a Catholic by any sane person. Same goes for this guy.

Re:Mentally Ill

[TWX]

"I also can't imagine anyone who condones the killing of Catholics still being himself considered a Catholic by any sane person. Same goes for this guy."

*cough*spanishinquisition*cough*

Re:Mentally Ill

[maxpublic]

Care to point out where Bobby Fischer was arrested for what he said? Or was he arrested for what he did?

Which was what, precisely? Telling the President to fuck off and mind his own business, when the executive order issued had absolutely no legal, Constitutional grounding?

Yeah, I'd tell the President to fuck himself too. Since Bush II seems to be looking into ways to call off the November elections, I might just get my chance.

Max

Re:Mentally Ill

[hexatron]

I take this opportunity to trot out my own Fischer anecdotes:

I went to high school with him, except that he didn't attend it much. The only time I saw him was in a gym class. This class had about 250 kids in it (very big city school), and mostly we just sat around the walls and talked--a few more athletic types played basketball, and the teacher, as I remember, took attendance and hid.

One day, Bobby Fischer showed up in this class, wearing street clothes (the other gym ritual was changing into white shorts, a white teeshirt (no printing on it--this is in antedeluvian 1958) the smelliest socks imaginable--never washed, abandoned at the end of the year--and Converse-style sneakers.

So Fischer starts walking through this mass of sullen teenage humanity, and a big freckley Irish kid follows him around, loudly challenging him to a chess match. Fischer finds the teacher, gets whatever signature he needs, and starts walking back to the door. At this point, the Irish kid decides he is the new world chess champion by default, and declaims this loudly in Bobby's ear.

My high school girl friend went to elementary school with Fischer--it was some little private school. She said that in the fifth grade, if he lost a game (probably basketball) during the lunch break, he would go home for the afternoon.

Re:Mentally Ill

[soft_guy]

In the case of Bobby Fischer, I think I am safe in making my default position that the guy is an absolute nutbag AND that he is probably a danger to himself and others until shown to be otherwise through some evaluation.

Lame excuse.

[miffo.swe]

Land of the free my ass. This is just an example of how the US misuse laws to detain uncomfortable people. Im just waiting for Michael Moore to be imprisoned for using the wrong kind of sunblock.

How is it that in the US you can say pretty much anything about muslims but call Israel (not jews as a group, the country damnit!) something you are toast? Free speech cant be selective you know.

Re:Lame excuse.

[transient]

My God! You just evoked an image of Michael Moore with no shirt.

Re:Lame excuse.

[KnightStalker]

Well, not to me. But YOU did, damn you to hell. Oh, God, the burning in my eyes!

Re:Lame excuse.

[east coast]

My God! You just evoked an image of Michael Moore with no shirt.

And I WAS going to have lunch... 86 that plan...

Re:So ...insightful?

[maggern]

hehe, ur post is rated "insightful" :-)

Some of the mod's don't understand that your supposed to be funny ;-)

Yes, it's 2004,

[Exmet Paff Daxx]

...Martha Stewart is going to jail and Osama is still at large!

Now that we've gotten Bobby Fischer, that naughty chess player, we can move on to less dangerous criminals like Ken Lay and the entire accounting staffs of Tyco, Enron, Worldcom and Adelphia.

I love how in America we believe in free speech but we also believe in selective prosecution of people based on what they have to say. Sure, "Operation Pipe Dreams" got us mad because they busted Tommy Chong, but even here on Slashdot no one has sympathy for a Holocaust denier.

Anyway based on the CIA's track record of intelligence failures I'd be pretty surprised if their information on Fischer was accurate. These are the people who were completely wrong about Iraq having massive quantities of nuclear and biological weapons, I'm pretty sure they could have screwed up a chess game too.

If I were president I'd never trust the CIA again.

Re:Yes, it's 2004,

[frank_adrian314159]

If I were president I'd never trust the CIA again.

And if I were the CIA (given the fact that there appears to have been quite a bit of pressure on them to get the desired information rather than accurate information, I don't think I'd trust the president again...

Give the Poor Guy a Rest (not Arrest)

[Teancum]

While Bobby Fischer might have technically violated some U.S. laws, (and this one technicality is just the first that he has dealt with) he really should simply be left alone.

I've been following Bobby Fischer since he started publishing Chess columns in Boys' Life. While not necessarily a hacker, certainly a classic geek.

He all but dropped out of society in almost a Ted Kaczynski fashion, and can IMHO be classified as the most persecuted American by the U.S. Government. He was also wanted a few years ago on tax evasion charges, but I thought that got cleared up. He really has been hounded by the U.S. government for many things, and gone through ups and downs in his life that I would not wish on anybody.

A really good writeup about Bobby Fischer's trip to Yugoslavia is on bobbyfischer.net

I had to use the internet wayback machine because for some reason the regular website is down. Probably due to some slashdotting, although in this case probably not directly due to slashdot it self (surprisingly). Some absolutely incredible articles. I've also seen segments on television news programs that have also discussed his life, and it seems rather pathetic. How much of this is brought onto himself, and how much is out right presecution remains to be debated, but he should really be given a nice quite spot in Montana and be left alone.

Maybe the U.S. government is afraid of letting intelligent people who think the U.S. government is screwed up be left alone.

Re:Give the Poor Guy a Rest (not Arrest)

[Anonymous Coward]

Whoa whoa whoa, why does he have to be my neighbor? Since when did Montana become the little "out of the way" place to store your undesireables? First you send us Californians and movie stars, and now you're sending hate filled nutcases. That's on top of the wack-jobs we already have here. Damnit! Montana is NOT the Australia of the U.S.!

I say we give Bobby a quiet little spot right next door to you.

Re:Give the Poor Guy a Rest (not Arrest)

[CXI]

Maybe the U.S. government is afraid of letting intelligent people who think the U.S. government is screwed up be left alone.

There's a difference between being intelligent related to government issues, and being an absolute conspiracy nutjob who people, apparently like you, think is intelligent about government instead of just being an autistic chess wiz who thinks the Jews made up the Holocaust to make money.

Perhaps we shouldn't put him in jail, but we should certainly lock him away somewhere.

Re:Give the Poor Guy a Rest (not Arrest)

[Unnngh!]

Why? He's not hurting anyone and I doubt anyone not already crazy would listen to him anyway. Sheesh, how about just leaving the poor guy alone?

Re:Give the Poor Guy a Rest (not Arrest)

[Anomalous Cowbird]

"A nice quiet spot in Montana"??

I think not. Perhaps a nice quiet spot in a room with some nice padding on the walls . . . .

Re:Give the Poor Guy a Rest (not Arrest)

[CXI]

The post I replied to brought up the reason itself. Ted Kaczynski. I let you figure the rest out (as if it isn't obvious).

Re:Give the Poor Guy a Rest (not Arrest)

[Grishnakh]

I agree. I was even thinking of eventually buying some property in Montana when I get older, and I don't want to live around a bunch of nutcases.

People like this should be sent to New Jersey.

Re:Give the Poor Guy a Rest (not Arrest)

[mabu]

There's a difference between being intelligent related to government issues, and being an absolute conspiracy nutjob who people, apparently like you, think is intelligent about government instead of just being an autistic chess wiz who thinks the Jews made up the Holocaust to make money.

Need I remind you, half the country, as well as our president seems to be comparably intellectually misguided with respect to the connection of Iraq to 911 and Saddam Hussein having WMDs.

The whole world has gone mad. Bobby Fischer doesn't seem that weird anymore.

Re:Give the Poor Guy a Rest (not Arrest)

[Teancum]

The nice thing about Montana is that it is a huge state with low population. It is one of the few western states, and the only small (population) western state, to lose representation in the U.S. House or Representatives in the past 30 years.

I would recommend Utah or Nevada as equal candidates, and there are plenty of nuts in these two states as well, but it is starting to get a little crowded there, with the growing population centers of Las Vegas, Reno, and Salt Lake City (St. George could almost be considered a suburb of Las Vegas now.) North Dakota is also a nice spot to get away from just about anybody who is getting in your face.

Personally, I wouldn't mind having Bobby Fischer as a neighbor, and compared to some of my neighbors, he might just fit in too, even with his anti-governmnet attitudes (or even because of them). The problem is that strong-arm police have come here, so it wouldn't solve any of his problems, especially considering how outspoken he is. I'd love to have him for a visit, but I'd have to tell him to move along rather quickly, and that is unfortunate.

It's pathetic

[Macka]

It's pathetic isn't it. How exactly is playing a game of chess hurting anyone or anything, no matter where in the world it takes place. You just know there is/was some power mad, ego inflated bureaucrat behind this, with a puffed up idea of his own importance.

This really is one of the most asinine things I've read about in a long time, and a total waste of taxpayers money.

Re:It's pathetic

[falcon5768]

considering we had him wanted.... but no one was really looking for him it wasnt a waste.... no money was spent ON looking for him.... And its the principal of the matter, the country he was in did cause the bosnian war which DID kill US and UN troops when we went there to stop it, it ALSO caused the mass slaughter of muslims in that region... the sanctions where ment to cause the country to back down by preventing them from contributing or having the world contribute to them... even the US couldnt last without imports and exports.... he made it ok to dissregard those sanctions.

Re:It's pathetic

[theCrank]

The point is the game was intentionaly arranged to be in Yougoslavia as a sanctions buster. The whole purpose was to promote Serbians as they were in the process of murdering their neigbours (in many cases literally their neigbours).

Fisher was fully aware of this and was happy to take his his blood money. Now he must pay the price.

That you find this asinine, well that's really your problem isn't it.

Re:It's pathetic

[mdecerbo]

I call bullshit. "falcon5768" is just parroting a whole bunch of half-formed, selective impressions, and making errors of act. Some are forgivable, because of the one-sided portrayal of the war in the U.S. media. Some are not.

First of all, to say that "Yugoslavia" caused the Bosnian war is as meaningless as saying that the United States caused the (U.S.) Civil War.

The Bosnian war started because some leaders of the Bosnian Muslims-- who as a people had historically been pro-Yugoslav-- wanted to secede from Yugoslavia and start their own Islamic state, and to impose Islamic law on all the people living there-- including the ethnic Serbs and Croats who made up a majority of the population. This was all detailed in their president Izetbegovic's "Islamic Declaration". Along with taking advantage of all the usual Muslim suspects-- including Osama's right-hand man al-Harbi-- who flocked there to fight the jihad, the Bosnian president also recreated a WWII-era SS Division to help in the fight.

A history lesson, since falcon5768 and probably others need it: hundreds of thousands of Serbian civilians were murdered in concentration camps during WWII, when they were on the Allied side while the Bosnians and Croats were allied with the Nazis. Memories are long in that part of the world, and Islamic law is not much fun either-- so is it any wonder that not just Serbs but moderate Muslims like took up arms to prevent the secession of Bosnia, or at least keep their own land out from under the thumb of Izetbegovic and his cronies?

I am confused why you say that the Bosnian war "DID kill US and UN troops". What US or UN troops were in the region? And as for the "mass slaughter" of Muslims at Srebrenica, the story is now starting to leak out that it's not so clear-cut as that-- most of the bodies have never shown up, and many of the dead turned out to be the troops of Muslim warlord Nasr Oric, who would use the UN-protected "safe areas" as a base from which to launch raids involving beheadings of prisoners... sound familiar?

The most laughable part of your post (and, by extension, the US's case against Bobby Fischer) is when you go on about how the sanctions were meant to prevent the world from contributing to the war. Of course, as the Guardian newspaper in England documented (much later after it was no longer inconvenient for the facts to come out), the US government was violating the embargo all along:

...the Pentagon had incurred debts to Islamist groups and their Middle Eastern sponsors. By 1993 these groups, many supported by Iran and Saudi Arabia, were anxious to help Bosnian Muslims fighting in the former Yugoslavia and called in their debts with the Americans. Bill Clinton and the Pentagon were keen to be seen as creditworthy and repaid in the form of an Iran-Contra style operation - in flagrant violation of the UN security council arms embargo against all combatants in the former Yugoslavia.

The result was a vast secret conduit of weapons smuggling though Croatia. This was arranged by the clandestine agencies of the US, Turkey and Iran...

The reason you, and so many other people, hold this inaccurate and deluded view of the Bosnian war, is attributable mostly to the really top-notch propaganda war waged in the U.S. and U.K. media, making the Bosnian Muslims out to be the wonderful, multicultural good guys and the Serbs the baddies. It doesn't matter that so much of the lies have now been exposed-- like

Great Movie

[bbeebe]

I had to post something because growing up, Searching for Bobby Fischer was one of my favorite movies. I pretty much lost interest in him, along with everyone else but the feds, when he disappeared, but if nothing else maybe they can make another good movie. If you've never seen it before I recommend 'obtain a copy' for viewing, using your desired methods.

Re:Great Movie

[Zebbers]

dude, that movie has pretty much nothing to do with bobby fischer, except in the fact that the kid is nothing like him.

New Movie

[hoborocks]

I expect "Searching for Bobby Fischer II: Bobby Fischer strikes back" and "Searching for Bobby Fischer III: Return of Bobby Fischer" to follow - it makes sense here too, since II would be about his comments and random antagonization, and III would continue from today.
Unless they'd rename the first one to #4, then continue with 5 and 6, and have the first three be about his childhood....

The possibilities are endless!!!

Re:New Movie

[SuiteSisterMary]

Aye, but then come the 'prequels' made twenty years later: 'SfBF 1: The Phantom Fischer' which completely recreates his early years, includes incredibly stupid sidekicks, and so on, followed by 'SfBF 2: Attack of the Pawns' which some people consider to be better, but includes Gary Kasparov playing chess at 10 times normal speed, bouncing around like a rubber ball.

Also, the original movies will be 'improved' with neater special effects, but a cruical moment will be changed; 'Spassky moves first!'

Re:New Movie

[hoborocks]

most excellent response =)

Re: Your .sig

[DLWormwood]

Fast Food: Corporate America in your body
Television: Corporate America in your mind.

Hmmm... seems familiar.

Bread: Ancient Rome in your body
Circuses: Ancient Rome in your mind.

We have officially come full circle. We are the new Rome.

Sanction info

[tambo]

Wow. 238 comments at present, and yet no one (including the OP) has provided information about the sanction? You guys are slacking...

I dug up some information:

On September 1, 1992, Bobby Fischer came out of his 20 year retirement and gave a press conference in Yugoslavia. He pulled out an order from the U.S. Treasury Department warning him that he would be violating U.N sanctions if he played Chess in Yugoslavia. He spit on the order and now faces ten years in prison and a $250,000 fine if he returns to the U.S. In addition, he must forfeit his $3.65 million to the U.S. Treasury and forfeit 10% of any match royalties earned. On September 30, Bobby Fischer began his rematch with Boris Spassky in Sveti Stefan, Yugoslavia. The match was organized by banker Jedzimir Vasiljevic. On November 11, Fischer won the match with 10 wins, 5 losses, and 15 draws. He received $3.65 million for his winnings and Spassky received $1.5 million.

And I found the letter from the Senate that explains the basis for the sanction:

Department of the Treasury
Washington
Aug 21, 1992
Order to Provide Information and Cease and Desist Activities

FAC No. 129405

Dear Mr Fischer:

It has come to our attention that you are planning to play a chess match for a cash prize in the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia (Serbia and Montenegro) (hereinafter "Yugoslavia") against Boris Spassky on or about September 1, 1992. As a U.S. citizen, you are subject to the prohibitions under Executive Order 12810, dated June 5, 1992, imposing sanctions against Serbia and Montenegro. The United States Department of the Treasury, Office of Foreign Assets Control ("FAC"), is charged with enforcement of the Executive Order.

The Executive Order prohibits U.S. persons from performing any contract in support of a commercial project in Yugoslavia, as well as from exporting services to Yugoslavia. The purpose of this letter is to inform you that the performance of your agreement with a corporate sponsor in Yugoslavia to play chess is deemed to be in support of that sponsor's commercial activity. Any transactions engaged in for this purpose are outside the scope of General License No. 6, which authorizes only transactions to travel, not to business or commercial activities. In addition, we consider your presence in Yugoslavia for this purpose to be an exportation of services to Yugoslavia in the sense that the Yugoslav sponsor is benefitting from the use of your name and reputation.

Violations of the Executive Order are punishable by civil penalties not to exceed $10,000 per violation, and by criminal penalties not to exceed $250,000 per individual, 10 years in prison, or both. You are hereby directed to refrain from engaging in any of the activities described above. You are further requested to file a report with this office with 10 business days of your receipt of this letter, outlining the facts and circumstances surrounding any and all transactions relating to your scheduled chess match in Yugoslavia against Boris Spassky. The report should be addressed to: The U.S. Department of the Treasury, Office of Foreign Assets Control, Enforcement Division, 1500 Pennsylvania Avenue, N.W., Annex - 2nd floor, Washington D.C. 20220. If you have any questions regarding this matter, please contact Merete M. Evans at (202) 622-2430.

Sincerely, (signed)
R. Richard Newcomb
Director
Office of Foreign Assets Control

- David Stein

Re:Sanction info

[stienman]

For those keeping track of world events, those are essentially the same sanctions against Cuba. Many people say that it's illegal to travel there, but that's false - travelling there is fine - you just can't spend any money there.

-Adam

Re:Sanction info

[falcon5768]

so right there in black and white, he took money therefore he is guilty...

Re:Sanction info

[WizzleWizzleWizzle]

This is interesting. The financier in Yugoslavia paid out $5.15MM USD to a couple of chess players. Two things to note as to why this should have been allowed:

1. $3.65MM would have come back to the US to be spent, taxed, etc. etc. Plus, it would have been easier to get that money once you let him back in!

2. I can't imagine that a chess event in that land of the Yugo is really that big of a money maker (I could be wrong), so I would assume that the promoter lost money on the event. If we had more of these contests where Americans win and the locals lose their shirt, we could drive foreign economies into the ground!

Long live Chess as Economic Warfare!

Re:Sanction info

[FussionMan]

Wow, Rumsfeld and the Reagan administration can go and sell intelligence, as well as condone chemical weapons use by Saddam against the Kurds and Iranians; but some guy can't make some money by playing chess.

A Senator or Congressman can do just about anything since they are exempt from the laws they pass. The traitor Ollie North is out there on every right wing talkshow making money left and right. But a citizen of the U.S. can have the government dictate where and when he can make money by playing an innocent game of chess.

We the people have to make some changes next election, but I doubt much will change. Most people won't even bother to vote. Most won't bother to get educated on the issues. Most can't stand it when the news interrupts their favorate soap opera or baseball game. Slowly the government will be taken alway from to people and put in the hands of the politically connected elite (jerks like Clinton and Bush), no one will even notice.

Sorry for the rant. I still hope the U.S. Constitution will protect my rights to express my views.

Re:Sanction info

[Aerion]

A Senator or Congressman can do just about anything since they are exempt from the laws they pass.

Congressmen are in no way exempt from the laws they pass!! While legislators DO hold full immunity in certain countries, the United States is, fortunately, not one of them. James Traficant (OH) and Bill Janklow (SD) are two Congressmen who have been convicted within the last few years for corruption and vehicular manslaughter, respectively. (Following their convictions, Janklow resigned and Traficant was expelled by the House.)

The only immunity that our U.S. Congressmen hold is the privilege that they may not be arrested for anything they say while on the floor of Congress.

Following the tradition of Paul Morphy (1837-1884)

[foobsr]

Of course FISHER is not the only chess genius having (had) a hard time, another US-example is Morphy.

Of course both are not alone ;)

After all, if one looks at this game (FISHER-BYRNE), one has to appreciate Fisher's chess playing capabilities.

CC.

Next Stop for Fisher, Guantanamo.

[Bob_Robertson]

Obviously an Enemy Combatant. Put the trator in irons!

But seriously, let the guy live his life as he sees fit. Has he hurt anyone?

Bob-

Oh please, way to pat yourself on the back...

[raehl]

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.

Re:Oh please, way to pat yourself on the back...

[evan_th]

I disagree. There is a lot of memorization involved in chess - attack and defensive strategies. I know that it takes a lot of improvisation and personal technique once you get farther into the game but being able to recognize these and utilize them during a game is very important to any serious chess player.

Re:Oh please, way to pat yourself on the back...

[Anonymous Coward]

But there are plenty of really stupid pro football players. I don't know any really stupid chess players. ... maybe in the COACHING aspect of it

Correct -- the intellectual aspect of American Football belongs to the 'chess players' up in the booth. The players are mostly just doing what they are told to do.

Also, the NFL gives IQ tests, and if someone is genuinely stupid, they probably won't be drafted. Big Dumb Guy is sorta an act for jocks.

Re:Oh please, way to pat yourself on the back...

[BootSpooge]

I don't know any really stupid chess players.
You've never played me.

Re:Oh please, way to pat yourself on the back...

[El Camino SS]

Also, the NFL gives IQ tests, and if someone is genuinely stupid, they probably won't be drafted. Big Dumb Guy is sorta an act for jocks.

Wrong.

I personally cover my pro football team a lot. Talk to them in the locker rooms.

They are some that I am certain have to concentrate to breathe.

Re:Oh please, way to pat yourself on the back...

[einer]

I don't think you give football players enough credit.

First of all, you can memorize chess (not all of it of course). The openings and closings are well documented. A chess game is like a story to a player, and rarely are great stories forgotten. I still remember the positions and outcomes of most of the drawn out games I've played with my roomate. When we started out, I could immediately fork his rook or queen with impunity. I haven't been able to do that since the first month we started playing. Why? Because he recognizes and remembers.

Quarterbacks have a short amount of time to read a defense. Reading a defense is a talent that improves with experience (much like reading a chessboard). There are the "low hanging fruit" indicators, like a linebacker hunching and lurching in time with your cadance (blitz coming), and there are much more subtle indicators, like feigned motions and confusing defensive shifts.

Punt returners must do real time vector analysis (on at least 10 simultaneous vectors no less) with respect to the kickoff teams tacklers if they want to reach the endzone. Young punt returners are able to perform well using speed, but older returners perform just as well even though they're slower. Why is that, do you think?

Warren Moon was FAR from a prototypical quarterback. He was slow, undersized and his hands were tiny, but he was still able to find success, because of his intellectual assets. He couldn't beat Bobby Fischer at chess, but I imagine that if he were to devote the same amount of time to chess as he did to football, he would certainly be a competative player in the game overall.

Still not convinced? Read up on Bart Starr. He was probably the last quarterback to also play the roll of offensive coordinator. His passing numbers eclipse those of J. Unitas. His accuracy was god like by today's standards (especially considering the lack of domed fields).

Linemen aren't stupid either (it's not a requirement for playing at least). Muscle memory is important (learning stock chess openings is also), but the surprising variations are what make those maneuvers so powerful. Your standard right arm swim and pivot across won't work against someone who is much wider than you (or nimbler on their cleats), but a feign and backpivot before the swim can put you in an advantageous position (just get your hips around and across the other guys and run). On the other hand, going to the well too often will surely get you pancaked.

Sure there are stupid football players. Clearly though, there are chess players that are equally stupid. In fact, I believe (and welcome corrections) that Fischer was a rabid anti-semite, and held some very strange beliefs about what should happen to the diaspora and Israelites (none of it good). Playing chess doesn't somehow excise stupidity. btw: There's a lineman on the Colts who is also a lawyer.

Here's an interesting experiment for you. Count how many times you can say a particular tongue twister in three minutes (for example "imagine an imaginary managery manager imagining managing an imaginary menagery"), then try it after you've physically fatigued yourself (three downs of football). Your performance will decrease dramatically (well, as predicted by my old Psy100 prof). What does this mean? Football players have to manage their exertion in order to leave themselves enough energy to think about what to do next. You can have all the physical talent in the world, but as a fullback, if you don't pick up a blitz, you've doomed your quarterback.

I guess what I'm getting at is that you're comparing apples to solar flares. Football is a coordinated team sport where several of the key players must be smart and experienced enough to analyze a situation in real time with difficult and complicated data. Often the overall strategy and direction is determined by the coach. Chess is much slower paced (disregarding blitz chess) much less physical activity, no more demanding however, i

Re:Oh please, way to pat yourself on the back...

[Unregistered]

actually, pretty much every pro football player is above average intellegance. I'm not disputing your point as chess players are brilliant while football players are just above average, but there aren't many dumb pro football players. It is a thinkin game after all.

Searching for Bobby Fischer

[Junior J. Junior III]

Great, thanks for ruining the ending of that movie. Next, I suppose you'll be telling me that Rosebud is his sled.

Welcome to Leavenworth Bobby

[clink]

Don't think you'll be playing too much chess here. Your dance card will be full when word gets out about your 9/11 comments. Bend over! Hahaha.

United Nations != International Court of Justice

[Rescate]

Who modded parent Insightful? The page linked to in the parent post talks about a ruling by the International Court of Justice at The Hauge, not the United Nations. The U.S. disagreeing with the International Court of Justice is not the same as disrespecting the United Nations.

The UN is mentioned in the article, however:

"It may complicate the process, it could distract from the political work at hand, I know there's been talk about taking this back to the UN," [US State Department spokesman Richard Boucher] said.

"We don't think there's a need for a General Assembly action at this point."

Meanwhile Arab governments are pressing for an urgent meeting of the United Nations General Assembly to call for the destruction of the barrier.

Isn't it obvious from reading the article that the action by the International Court of Justice is now prompting talk of action in the UN? Wouldn't it therefore follow that these are two separate institutions? Yes, very Insightful post by the parent.

Now, the question of whether the U.S. is doing the right thing in the Israeli wall/fence/barrier/whatever issue is a completely valid one. And, it may also be (most certainly is) true that the U.S. does indeed disrespect the UN. But please, site something relevant next time.

Cricket

[Illserve]

Cricket makes Baseball look like Tic-Tac-Toe in comparison.

Scruffy Says

[Greyfox]

Prison's not so bad. You can make sangria in the terlet. Of course, it's shank or be shanked.

He was already indicted

[dfurie]

12 years ago he was up for trial and lost his case. I don't think statutes of limitations applies here because he was already convicted of a crime, but he was not apprehended because he fled. Ignoring the fact that your supposed to go to jail doesn't make it go away.

Re:He was already indicted

[bigattichouse]

Ahh. I didn't know the whole story, thanks.

You know you're a nerd when....

[Vic]

And the hot-swapping of players while play is in motion adds a whole other dimension to the game

.....you refer to a "line change" as "hot swapping". I'll have to remember that one! ;-)

Cheers,
Vic

I don't get it

[amliebsch]

Are you trying to be funny, or are you serious?

Re:I don't get it

[mslinux]

Dead serious. Google for and read about the South African Chem/BIO weapons programs that were developed in an attempt to target certain subsets of the human race (Africans). It's common knowledge that they also had an active Nuclear Weapons Program... De Clerk (spelling?) got rid of six or seven nukes.

Also, read about the South African scientists that Washington was "concerned about leaving the country"... scientist that were brought to the US or kept in SA under watch and given cushy university jobs to keep them occupied.

There is no hard evidence of this... it's all circumstantial, but the truth will be known is a few hundred years. AIDS was engineered by SA and the US to kill blacks. Look at the continent today. It was a success.

"If you can measure what you speak of, quantify it, then you know something about your subject. If you cannot, then your knowledge is of a feeble and unsatisfactory type" -- Kelvin

Re:I don't get it

[Anonymous Coward]

There is no hard evidence of this... it's all circumstantial, but the truth will be known is a few hundred years. AIDS was engineered by SA and the US to kill blacks. Look at the continent today. It was a success.

Man, I feel so damn betrayed.

All that time, they told me we were working on a secret project to kill the fags.

Lying bastards.

Re:I don't get it

[amliebsch]

Did I miss something? Is there some evidence that AIDS is more lethal to certain races? Is there some kind of racial aspect to risky sex and unsanitary medical practices?

Re:I don't get it

[KjetilK]

I have a very hard time believing that. Our genome is simply too homogenous for anything like that to be feasible. Biologically, just using the term "races" is meaningless, we're much more similar than that.

In fact, it has been claimed that Isrealis have been able to kill Palestinians by using the same method.

That was the subject of a study, that concluded it was simply not possible to do either way. This study, which I can't find a reference to right now, created a lot of controversy, not because of it's scientific content, which was not disputed, but because that the author referred to the palestinian refugee camps he had visited as "concentration camps". The paper was withdrawn by the publisher for that reason.

This is in fact part of my anti-DRM rant. Even though the paper was withdrawn, it still exists, and the conclusions still stands. With DRM, it can be removed entirely. Nobody should have that much power.

Re:I don't get it

[mslinux]

That's not to say that AIDS turned out that way. They *tried* initially to engineer it that way. Google for some of their old researh efforts and you'll see what I'm hinting at. In the end, AIDS proved to be an effective killer that works equally well across all races and genders.

The homosexual angle came about when the US military did testing (in the states) on homosexual males. Who cares about them? Let's see how fast it spreads as they have intercourse, etc. Today, it is a known fact that more women are infected each year in Africa than men.

AIDS began as a heterosexual disease among blacks in Africa and as a homosexual disease in males in the US... that's simply shows the first sets of people who were apart of the initial tests.

"If you can measure what you speak of, quantify it, then you know something about your subject. If you cannot, then your knowledge is of a feeble and unsatisfactory type" -- Kelvin

Re:I don't get it

[cynical kane]

Yeah, and the same Jews who faked the Holocaust also faked the moon landing, right? No doubt related to the people who genetically engineered AIDS in 1959.

Re:I don't get it

[hambonewilkins]

Although the AIDS-developed-to-kill-Africans is complete horseshit, in many African countries the men prefer "dry sex", that is without lubrication or condoms, making infection FAR FAR EASIER. Truckers in Africa have dry sex with numerous prostitutes (without protection) and the disease spreads like wildfire. So, yes, because of sex practices it is far more lethal than necessary.

What does it take..

[AlexanderYoshi]

What does it take for a guy who is clearly exceptionally brilliant to fall into a life of globe wandering and legal evasion?

Re:What does it take..

[Detritus]

World chess champions have not been noted for their mental stability.

Re:What does it take..

[egomaniac]

Brilliant? The guy is a moron. He happens to be unbelievably good at chess, but in every other human pursuit he is a mental midget. He was barely passing his classes in high school, and it wasn't because he was bored or didn't care to do the work. He simply isn't that smart.

I am sick of the persistant "good at chess == smart" myth. Being good at chess no more translates into overall mental superiority than being good at acting translates into overall mental superiority. Sure, some chess players are geniuses just as some actors are geniuses, but the two are not interrelated.

Selective Enforcement

[goldspider]

I was under the impression that the selective and inconsistent nature of law enforcement here in the U.S. was a bad thing. Everyone, be they corporate executives or crackpots, should be held equally accountable when they break the law. Let alone that he violated a UN sanction, not a petty local ordinance.

Oh please...

[Getzen]

Who says we have been actively hunting him for 12 years? He used an expired visa in Japan and they shipped him out -- what's the problem? Where is there any evidence that anyone in the U.S. was busy hunting him down?

Re:am I reading this straight?

[looie]

The UN forbade people from playing chess in Yugoslavia?

the match had a multimillion-dollar purse. fischer walked off with several million dollars from the win. that's why it was considered a violation of the "economic" boycott instituted by the US at the time. his opponent, boris spassky, lived in france, and so had no issues.

also, to get there (because the US would not issue him a visa), fischer flew somewhere else (i forget where) and then bought another ticket into the match site. he was warned before he left, both privately and publicly, that the gov't would arrest him if he went there and then came back to the US.

evidently, he's fallen on hard times. the last i heard, he was living in hungary with his girlfriend. i can't imagine what would take him to japan.

mp

Well I sure hope they give him 'net access..

[SlashDread]

.. otherwise, who would Nigel play on ICC?

Academicchess

"/Dread"

Re:Well I sure hope they give him 'net access..

[dbretton]

Shredder?

How about a nice game of chess? :)

Statute of Limitations?

[sockonafish]

IANAL (such a filthy acronym), and that's why I'm asking this question. Does the UN have a statute of limitations on this offense?

Where is he going to be put on trial, anyway? If he broke a UN sanction, surely they can't try him in a US court. Are they really going to ship Fischer to the Hague for playing chess twelve years ago?

Re:Statute of Limitations?

[maduro55]

The federal indictment has no expiration date.

Re:Statute of Limitations?

[amliebsch]

He broke U.S. law in addition to UN "law," therefore he can be tried in U.S. courts.

Who's going to play Fisher in the movie?

[argent]

This reminds me of the whole cold-war artists-being-deported-to-Russia mentality brought to the screen in the White Nights. Baryshnikov got to play a thinly disguised version of himself in White Nights, but Fisher probably doesn't have the acting skill to pull the same trick off here.

Of course in the movie version they'll have Fisher passing secrets to terrorists in chess moves, and they'll haul him off to Guantanamo for questioning where a quirky hero-worshiping chess-playing chaplain will change Fisher's mind about jews and help him escape to Cuba...

Re:Who's going to play Fisher in the movie?

[rifftide]

Nicholas Cage. "Searching for Bobby Fischer II: Real stories of the Airport Security Patrol" will also feature Sandra Bullock as the American expat stuck in a crummy data entry job for the Japanese government.

Re:Who's going to play Fisher in the movie?

[Overzeetop]

I thought he just did movies involving Vegas.

Re:Who's going to play Fisher in the movie?

[argent]

Gregory Hines dances better then Laurence Fishburn.

And chess players live in the Matrix already.

Statute of limitations

[tepples]

But isn't there also a "statute of limitations" that limits how long after the alleged crime the state has to take action against an alleged criminal?

Not in the same way, no

[Smeagel]

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.

Mod me off-topic

[DrWhizBang]

IMAM (I Am A Mathematician)

Maybe so, but you're certainly not an editor. "am" does not start with the letter "M".

Of course, "IAAM" just looks stupid. I think I would like to declare open war on acronyms - especially when the acronym is followed by the entire phrase written out, and then never used again.

"Pardon me sir, but did I just catch you making up an acronym as a rhetorical device even though it does not increase the efficiency and clarity of your overall message? Yes?"

BLAM!!!

"That'll teach you..."

</rant>

Re:Mod me off-topic

[J-Piddy]

"That'll teach you..."

</rant>

While we're nit-picking, shouldn't you have begun with <rant>?

</rantback> :)

Re:Mod me off-topic

[DrWhizBang]

touché.

I thought about opening the tag, but I figured people would get my meaning. I didn't really want to give readers a warning what I was doing until I was done.

Re:Mod me off-topic

[J-Piddy]

Ahh, the double-edged sword of comedy. Make it funny, and you open yourself up to a riposte. Make it absolutely correct, and you lose the humor.

Life's full of tough choices...

Re:Mod me off-topic

[DrWhizBang]

Hey, you're all right. ... for a mathematician.

Re:Mod me off-topic

[J-Piddy]

We're not all as sane as Nash or as social as Wiles...

Some of us are real nutjobs.

...which proves the old saying

[Cryogenes]

Just because you're paranoid it doesn't mean they're not after you.

Fischer is definitely paranoid. For example, he said he believes that all of today's chess matches are rigged (the players have agreed on the sequence of moves beforehand). On a wider scale, he thinks the Jews are after him and his family, that the holocaust did not happen etc.

On the other hand, jailing a person because he played in a chess tournament? Have we all become mad?

Re:...which proves the old saying

[s0rted]

No not mad just American. USA is the biggest sanction buster of all. Deport the USA to...someplace. Anywhere but Cuba.

Re:...which proves the old saying

[Astrorunner]

I forget which player, but one of the Russians came out later and said "Yes, some of the games were rigged"

Some games were played to a draw on purpose, both to advance a favored player, and to ease them into the final rounds. Fischer felt, rightfully so, that this was cheating, as he had to fight and reason through every game, while others didn't. Its akin to letting some golfers use carts while the others have to walk.

No Law of Ex Post Facto

[joncarwash]

US Constitution - Article I, Section 9

No Bill of Attainder or ex post facto Law shall be passed.

This prevents any legislative body in the US from passing a law that can be enforced on actions that were taken prior to the passage of the law. This really doesn't have anything to do with Mr. Fisher, since he broke a current law - in 1992. He just has not been captured by the authorities until today.

By the comments Mr. Fisher has made about various events (Sept. 11, the Holocaust, etc.), it appears that his mental health is in a lot more jeapordy than paying a fine for breaking a US law by traveling to and doing business in the former Yugoslavia.

Re:No Law of Ex Post Facto

[xenocide2]

Uh, no. He broke a law of the day. That law is no longer in effect. Maybe you're contending he's a timetraveler who brought copies of laws not yet passed with him from the future to spit upon at the opening of the tournament?

Read the radio interview transcripts

[darrensiegel]

The abcnews article mentions a radio interview that Fischer gave some years ago. The transcripts are available. I found them by doing a google groups search for "Bobby Fischer radio transcripts". Read the first one that appears. If that really is BF, he is one messed up grandmaster.

[OT] [was: Re:Changed the view of the US?]

[X_Bones]

This is called supply-side economics; it's a nice concept, but it doesn't work. The problem is two-fold: people are greedy, and manufacturing techniques have made human labor more and more obsolete.

Having more money in the bank does not make one more likely to start a business; why risk throwing money down the toilet on a failed startup when you can save it for a rainy day? Likewise, having more money does not make one more likely to consume more. Everyone needs certain manufactured goods, but those can be produced without human labor; that doesn't create any jobs. But the big-ticket items, by their very nature, are only available to a limited market; a small demand would not create many jobs either.* The US tried this in the 80s and it didn't work, and there's no indication that it would work now.


* and don't think that an across-the-board tax cut would help the situation. Big-ticket items would rise in price accordingly, following the classic supply and demand rules.

Generalized Hatred

[Archangel Michael]

"The US rails against 'religious extremists' (Muslims) while a good number of their people (fundamentalist Christians) seem to be equally as extreme."

Please name a single Fudamentalist Christian who has blown themselves up with a bomb?

Please name a single Fundamentalist Christian who has flown airplanes into buildings

Please name a single Fundamentalist Christian Organization that has the express goal of eliminating any other people group.

Please give one example of a Fundamentalist Christian calling for the extermination of infadels.

The problem with people LIKE YOU, is that they don't realize that "fundamental christians" are at the core of many, many advances that provide YOU with many of the things that you enjoy, like the democratic republic of the US of A.

It is the very principles that these "Fundamentalist Christians" espoused that you are using to bash them. You obvoiusly don't have a clue as to the true impact of "Fundamentalist Christians".

Oh, BTW, I am a Fundamentalist "christian" who happens to be a Libertarian.

Re:Generalized Hatred

[Djinh]

The USA
The USA
The USA
The USA
The USA ...

Need I continue?

Re:Generalized Hatred

[Anonymous Coward]

The problem with people LIKE YOU, is that they don't realize that "fundamental christians" are at the core of many, many advances that provide YOU with many of the things that you enjoy, like the democratic republic of the US of A.

Thomas Jefferson, one of the great Libertarian minds, was a Deist who distrusted organized religions. I was raised Catholic until I had enough of the political rhetoric and decided to live out God's laws by living the best life I can and helping others independently of a church.

The other examples you provide miss my point altogether... but as an example, there are Christian organizations who advocate the slaying of doctors in the name of "saving children." See my other anon. post for more examples of what I was referring to.

I have to post anonymouly to preserve Karma-- while this is worthwhile discussion, it is offtopic, flamebait, and just generally outside of the usual slashdot commentary. :)

Re:Generalized Hatred

[Colonel Cholling]

First of all, the grandparent post was not expressing the view that American fundamentalist Christians are equally extreme; he was simply saying that that is what Europeans generally think. You have no reason to get upset with him.

Second, I can think of several fundamentalist Christian individuals and groups in answer to your queries, from those who bomb abortion clinics, to Fred Phelps preaching the extermination of all homosexuals. Of course, you can always argue that those individuals and groups don't "really" represent Christian fundamentalism, but then, that's what everyone's been saying about Muslim terrorists as well. Only by a kind of arbitrary ideological gerrymandering can you make it look like your religion is absolutely clean while the other guys account for all the murderers and lunatics.

Re:Generalized Hatred

[Anonymous Coward]

Archangel Michael, you are a nut.

Wasn't Tim McVay (oklahoma bomber) a christian?
Don't Neo-Nazis associate with fundamentalist christianity? Don't fundamentalists break laws and enact (decidedly un-christian) violence in their anti-abortion efforts?

Do you recall that the inspiration for our government comes not from christians but from pre-christianity greeks?

Your nonsensical views are rightly left at the fringe by our society. I urge you to consider a more tolerant world view.

Re:Generalized Hatred

[Archangel Michael]

Jeopardy questions to your answers.

Who freed the bastard French from the Nazi's?

Who are the French still Jeolous of?

Who defeated Nazism?

Who defeated Empirial Japan?

Who cause the Berlin wall to fall?

Please note, that the answers given did not actually answer the questions as asked. Typical dumbass liberal spin. D good, R bad.

Take a hint from me. Quit watching Michael Moore pieces and actually read HISTORY books. If it wasn't for the US of A this world would look more like a Concentration Camp or a prison in Siberia.

Re:Generalized Hatred

[Archangel Michael]

Thomas Jefferson also wanted every school to have a Bible in it. You still agree with TJ?

The problem is that you only pick and choose what you are looking at, and dismiss or exlcude or otherwise ignore the parts you don't like.

I don't care if he was a diest, that is between him and his god.

there are Christian organizations who advocate the slaying of doctors in the name of "saving children."

Name one. There are liberal organizations that advocate violence too, you want me to judge you according to a few extremists? But unlike you, I can name a few left wing extremists, some of which I suppose you support even tacitly. PETA, ELF, Earth First. Not to mention the Unibomber Ted Kazinsky (sp).

I don't post anon. I let it all hang out, while you hide yourself. You remind me of those idiots hiding behind masks as they cut the heads off the "infadels".

Re:Generalized Hatred

[Archangel Michael]

Perhaps I am a nut.

No. Some have tried to make that case.

Neo-Nazis associate themselves with Nazi Germany, hardly christian nation.

People claiming to be Christian do break laws. But a very few people do not speak for the OVERWELMING majority. If that were the case, would you like to be associated with the Likes of PETA, ELF, and Earth First, because you are a leftist (if you are)? You see, pointing to a few wackos does not prove your point at all, no matter how much you would like it to.

Our government was inspired by BOTH, doesn't mean that it is mutually exclusive. You know the main reason the Bill of Rights was 10 in number? You know why there are three branches of Government right?

As for my views of Righty lefy are at the fringe. I fully admit it. I don't believe in Right wing / left wing like MOST have been taught. I believe in freedom and responsibility of the individual. Government's SOLE purpose, is NOT to provide welfare, PROVIDE SECURITY. Look at the Preamble to the US constitution.

IMHO all laws should be weighed against its stated goals.

We the people of the United States, in order to form a more perfect union, establish justice, insure domestic tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general welfare, and secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.

BTW I am against the Patriot Act, don't like GWB or his skull and bones brother JFK. Both are the same. Republicrat and Demican. I am a Libertarian.

Re:Generalized Hatred

[Anonymous Coward]

Dear Archangel Michael,

But unlike you, I can name a few left wing extremists, some of which I suppose you support even tacitly.

I post as LookSharp when my commentary is relevent to the thread, and I thought I identified myself as such. I have never voted for a liberal politican, or even someone who runs as a Democrat. For the record, in my 10 year voting history, I have voted exclusively for moderate Republicans or Libertarians. I find PETA and Eco-Terrorists not only useless, but counter-productive to the evolution of an informed and rational society.

I say things for the sake of discussion... and because we use an inherently limited discussion forum, where we can only give/take a few lines or points at a time, it is hard to understand someone's full system of beliefs. That does not stop YOU, however from jumping to easy conclusions, attacking your completely off-base and incorrect assumption of my politics and dogma.

Lastly, it's spelled INFIDELS, and welcome to my FOE list, you bloody idiot.

Re:Generalized Hatred

[LookSharp]

Thomas Jefferson also wanted every school to have a Bible in it. You still agree with TJ?

This one I can attach my name to. I absolutely agree that every school should have a Bible in it. Several copies in the library, with many other great books from history.

Even if you do not subscribe to the theology presented, the Bible provides a reference to a great many philosophies and historical persons and occurances that have relevance throughout cultures of the world, and across teh span of recorded history. Why in the world WOULDN'T such a book be in a school?

The problem occurs when the book is opened by an authority figure and presented as undeniable dogma to a group of children whose families choose to raise them how they want to. The core of Church and State. I don't understand why people do not understand why having a secular state is a bad idea!

Re:Generalized Hatred

[Overzeetop]

"Please name a single Fundamentalist Christian Organization that has the express goal of eliminating any other people group."

Does the KKK count?

Re:Generalized Hatred

[Archangel Michael]

Welcome to my friends list, buddy.

Re:Generalized Hatred

[Archangel Michael]

Secular State is a bad idea, because then you have no core value system. With everyone having different views on things, which view point is common?

Why is ONE groups views favorable over another? And, who gets to decide?

Personally I don't think the government should be educating our children, because I don't agree with much of what is being taught (especially as fact when it is NOT).

The problem is, whose values do you want taught. Mine, yours, taliban, Peta, Nazi, Communist, Secular Humanists? Do we just go to the lowest common values, and which ones would those be?

The governments of the world are the greatest sources of evil. All men are created equal. Life, Liberty etc, remember? Not Health Care, Education, or Welfare (which are goods and services, not rights) Rights exist apart from money, goods and services.

Re:Generalized Hatred

[Archangel Michael]

Welcome to my friends list.

Re:Generalized Hatred

[wwest4]

> Secular State is a bad idea, because then you have no core value system. With
> everyone having different views on things, which view point is common?

You're begging the question: why is a core value system necessary?

> I don't agree with much of what is being taught (especially as fact when it is NOT).
> Mine, yours, taliban, Peta, Nazi, Communist, Secular Humanists?

All the groups you list share the sentiment you state - what's being taught isn't in line with what I "know" to be fact. Here's an idea - how about teaching what you know, and disclaiming it as your version?

> The governments of the world are the greatest sources of evil.

What are your units of measurement? Individuals, corporations, terror groups, political parties, cults, churches, malevolent volcano gods - these are all sources of evil too. Can we abolish them? Should we?

> All men are created equal

Some men have breasts and vaginas then. Seriously, people are not really equal. A lot of us desire liberty, and some even go so far as to afford it to other people with an expectation of reciprocation - this is the benchmark of free civilization, but by no means is it an innate characteristic we all share, but rather, a philosophic tenet. Governments, services, and organization are the present means by which this has been realized to varying degree of success. Maybe it is possible to shed the overhead of governments everywhere and still maintain liberty, but it doesn't make sense to do it solely on the principle that "government is evil."

> Rights exist apart from money, goods and services.

Yes. They are abstract constructs, while goods and services are quite tangible. You can live without liberty (though many agree that it's not worth it), but you cannot live without resources.

Re:Generalized Hatred

[ceswiedler]

Fundamentalist Christians would be blowing people up if they were living in Palestine under Muslim rule in Jerusalem.

Re:Generalized Hatred

[Blastrogath]

Just because someone says they're (muslim|christian|whatever) that doesn't mean their professed religion is responsible for their actions because nobody can stop someone from claiming to be (christian|muslim|whatever) and attributing their actions to that religion. Most nutjobs try to justify their hatreds.

Sane enough

[rumblin'rabbit]

He was once sane enough to write one of the best instructional books on chess ever written (Bobby Fischer teaches Chess). It's a pity he didn't follow it up with books on other aspects of the game than just play along the back rows.

I'm starting a revolution!

[lacrymology.com]

FREE BOBBY!

Anyone? Anyone? Bueller?
-m

Re:whose freedom did he remove?

[qeveren]

*laugh* Uh... yeah.

So... the United States pays for every other nations' enlightened rehabilitative justice system, sure.

You DO realize that the prison industry in the United States is exactly that: a private industry? It's in their best interests to have as many people as possible in jail at any given time. That's how they get paid, silly.

Re:whose freedom did he remove?

[reidbold]

Number of U.S. executions Value
Year 1999 98
Year 2000 85
Year 2001 66
Year 2002 71
Average per year since 1976 29
Total executions since 1976 820http://www.religioustolerance.org/executd.htm

Where

[metalhed77]

Where do you think government money goes? Does tax money just evaporate once it's in the government's hands? Does it just automatically get transported overseas?

A better argument is that we can continue to create jobs, sure, but that doesn't necessarily lead to actual wage and quality of life increases for bottom tier jobs as Ehrenreich's "Nickel and Dimed" has shown.

Maybe the problem is that their's too much money at the top, and not enough at the bottom, and maybe our capitalist system isn't good at this (ok, I kid, it obviously isn't). I'm not advocating communism, but I AM advocating increased wealth redistribution.

Fischer vs. Kasparov!

[Apostata]

Screw jail time, let's trot that little paranoid pony to Madison Square Gardens and sit him down with Gary Kasparov (that is, if the the venue could possibly hold their egos).
Quick, somebody start a petition! I'll stand here and criticize from afar!

you sound pretty fucking paranoid

[gelfling]

Mr. Fischer I'm sure could have called any US embassy in the world these past 10 years and asked to get it all straightened out. Instead he knowingly hid and travelled on a revoked passport making the case against him worse.

Would you propose that people you personally like should jump bail just because no puppies or Chomskyites were hurt in the process?

Re:you sound pretty fucking paranoid

[mdecerbo]

> he knowingly hid and travelled on a revoked passport

You sound like someone who goes spouting off without knowing the facts of the matter. According to the Seattle Times, Bobby's passport was revoked without his knowledge before its expiration date.

When you consider that the US government itself massively violated the UN sanctions by shipping arms to the Bosnian Muslim separatists, Fischer certainly seems to have a moral leg to stand on if not a legal one.

Correct. Further...

[mindstrm]

not all such savants are mathematically inclined... sometimes it's music, sometimes it's memory, sometimes it's bizarre abstract math, etc.

Re:George W Bush

[east coast]

Fischer referred to George W. Bush during one of his radio interviews as "borderline retarded."

If you knew anything about Fischer you'd realize that he'd probably call you borderline retarded too.

Arabs are semites.

[Anonymous Coward]

I hadn't heard he was anti-Arab. Anti-Zionist , yes, (and I can respect that, at least while Sharon's in charge over there) and Anti-Jewish (I'm American, and believe in freedom of religion, so I can't agree with him on that one) but not anti-semitic .

Equating anti-zionism and anti-judaism with anti-semitism is just a way to dehumanize the non-Jewish semitic peoples. They are real and they deserve just as much recognition as Jewish semites. Don't fall into the trap... especially if you are North American; remember, we're supposed to be the Good Guys! (TM)

Re:Arabs are semites.

[ahdeoz]

Claiming Arabs are semitic means a priori accepting the 19th century Christian belief that the Jews and Arabs are both descended from Abraham, thus accepting the veracity of the Bible. Are you willing to do that?

I don't know that many Jews or Arabs subscribe to that particular dogma, and I doubt that there is any genetic evidence of it.

Anyway, "anti-semitic" means anti-jewish, and only in a racist sense. I apologise if your first language isn't English.

Re:Arabs are semites.

[Anonymous Coward]

Semite != Jewish

Re:Arabs are semites.

[Anonymous Coward]

I hadn't heard he was anti-Arab. Anti-Zionist , yes, (and I can respect that, at least while Sharon's in charge over there) and Anti-Jewish (I'm American, and believe in freedom of religion, so I can't agree with him on that one) but not anti-semitic.

The whole thing involves all sorts of semantic word games. Whilst ignoring that some of the strongest critique of Zionism (in the period of just over a century that it has existed) comes from Orthodox Rabbis.

Equating anti-zionism and anti-judaism with anti-semitism is just a way to dehumanize the non-Jewish semitic peoples.

These people's being better known as "Arabs"...

They are real and they deserve just as much recognition as Jewish semites.

These are also known as "Oriental Jews", "Sephardic Jews", etc. Yet are a minority of Jews. The largest group, the Ashkenazi, are not Semitic in anthropological terms. Yet are seen as "Semitic" according to Zionism because of speaking a "Semitic language". (N.B. the Zionist definition of "Semitic language" excludes the most widly spoken Semitic language though.)

Don't fall into the trap... especially if you are North American; remember, we're supposed to be the Good Guys! (TM)

That is known as "trying to close the stable door after the horse has bolted and died of old age".

Re:Arabs are semites.

[Anonymous Coward]

Having spent many years studying natural science and taxonomy, I can assure you that semites are a racial group, like caucasians or negros.

Not all followers of the Jewish faith are semites, but all Arabs are semites. Not all followers of Islam are Arabs.

I have spoken english all my life, and I have discussed matters of race with taxonomists from many countries, and I can confidently state that "anti-semitic" means "opposed to semites".

Judaism is a religion that is often followed by semitic people. Others are Islam, christianity, and Drusism, for example. In proper English, to be opposed to Judaism is to be "anti-Jewish" and to be opposed to Israel is to be "anti-zionist".

I thought computer people were supposed to value logic and precision? Using "anti-semitism" when you mean "anti-zionism" or "anti-judaism" is politician's NewSpeak.

Re:Arabs are semites.

[Probashi]

Actually Arabs are descendeds from Abraham. From a religious point of view, muslims consider Muhammad, their prophet, to be direct descent of Abraham's two sons Ishmael and Issac. So, it is not merely a Christian belief.

Re:Arabs are semites.

[Probashi]

Pushed the submit button too fast. Meant to say muslims believe Muhammad to have lineage all the way back to Abraham. Arabs and Jews are two tribe came from two sons of Abraham - Ishmael and Issac.

Re:Arabs are semites.

[banzai51]

Except Science has already come out and concluded that there are no genetic distictions for race. Race is a a social distiction, not a scientic distiction.

Re:Arabs are semites.

[Fnkmaster]

This is a stupid semantic game and we are all sick of it. Words change meaning - deal with it. Yes, we all know that Semitic is an ethnic designation that includes not only Semitic Jews, but also Arabs. Nonetheless, the word anti-Semitic has come to mean anti-Jewish in the common English parlance. There are plenty of other illogical expressions in the English language. The point of language is not always to be logically accurate, but to be a means to communicate what we mean. Since we all know what anti-Semitic means, and we can look it up in a dictionary if we don't, these repeated posts on the matter are a waste of everybody's time.

Zionist, by the way, has a very specific meaning - not all Jews are Zionists, in fact most Jews are not ardent Zionists in the sense that some people intend. Many Jews would say the the Jews have a right to a homeland based on our experience as an ethnoreligious group in the 20th century, but this is not "Zionist" in the negative sense that has become bandied about by a bunch of light-in-the-shoes European-style liberals who go about slandering Jews on message boards all over the net, because they believe that the Palestinians are the oppressed underdogs, and that sympathizing with the "underdog" always makes you right. In short, when you say Zionism, what you mean is radical, militaristic Zionism, people who support continued occupation of Palestinian lands and so on. This is a very small minority of Jews, just like a survey in the New York Times today showed a large majority of Palestinians (83%) in Gaza want both sides to declare peace and stop fighting (unfortunately, this excellent article points out that the Israeli military keeps coming back into Gaza primarily because Hamas keeps launching rockets at Israeli). I'm pretty sure the number supporting a peaceful two-state solution is at least that high on the Israeli side based on other poles I've seen.

So please stop lecturing us about falling into linguistic traps. The word "anti-Semitic" does not dehumanize Arabs. It's just that it's use in another sense has pre-existed common feelings of racism against Arabs that have come about from the modern phenomenon of Muslim extremism. We can still use other words, like "anti-Muslim" or "anti-Arab" depending on what exactly we mean, and everybody will understand us just fine.

Re:Arabs are semites.

[XunilOS]

Except Science has already come out and concluded that there are no genetic distictions for race.

I find this hard to believe. I'm not a racist mind you, I just don't understand how there could *not* be some DNA marker that makes someone have dark brown skin, or almond-shaped eyes, just like there are genetic markers that make you have blonde hair or red hair or freckles or a big nose.

Are you saying then that there isn't a chunk of DNA that equals "asian" or "native american" or whatever? That what we perceive as a "race" is just a collection of physical traits (asians tend to have a specific eye shape, frequently have dark, straight hair, etc.)? If this is your statement, I agree with you, but if you're saying that DNA doesn't dictate what you look like, I'm very confused.

Re:Arabs are semites.

[UserGoogol]

Inflammable means flammable!?

Re:Arabs are semites.

[Fnkmaster]

Okay, I'll assume that the confusion here is the result of linguistic differences and lack of education, because you are definitely confused here.

Just because you choose it to change meaning, doesn't change the base meaning of the word:

Yes, it does. That is Linguistics 101. Usage changes do create meaning changes over time. I don't get to choose the meaning changes, they occur within communities and spread to broader usage within a language. Ultimately, people who compile dictionaries come up with consensus opinions about when a word's usage has become common enough to enter the accepted, defined usage for the language. Don't take my word for it - see here for example. The usage has shifted over the years to primarily imply bias against Jews. Yes, it can also mean prejudice against other Semites, including Arabs, but that usage is a secondary, and somewhat confusing, meaning in light of its primary, common modern usage.

Language shifts happen - changing them because you disagree with them is very difficult to do, because you have to convince millions of people to change their usage - witness the hacker/cracker language confusion on Slashdot. If you took a basic college linguistics class you would understand that this is how language works, and we just have to deal with it.

As for this snide comment:


Not all Arabs are Muslims, but given your previous slip up, we'll just let this one slide.


I'll just assume you aren't a native English speaker (since you describe yourself as an Arab, this may or may not be an accurate assumption). If you parsed my sentence properly, you'd realize I never said that all Arabs are Muslim, nor that all Muslims are Arab (obviously). I had a friend in college who was a Coptic Christian from Egypt, in fact. However, most Arab countries are overwhelmingly Muslim, and the undeniable fact that I was referring to is that fear and hatred of Muslim extremism has resulted in much anti-Arab ethnic bias that never really existed before, at least not on a large scale, in the US. Jews, on the other hand, have been victims of bias in Europe since the middle ages (again, thus the linguistic shift in the meaning of "anti-Semitism").

Re:Arabs are semites.

[killjoe]

By the same token the word "jew" has no meaning either. Sometimes being a jew is about religion, orther times about race and other times it's being a resident of israel.

This is very handy because that way anybody that's against the policies of israel can be accused of being an anti semite.

That's why people nitpick.

Re:Arabs are semites.

[Fnkmaster]

Very nice, I'm glad you have studied natural science and taxonomy for many years. You are still wrong, probably because you have not spent even a modicum of time studying linguistics. Language is not a logical puzzle, and words change meaning over time. That is how language evolves. Another poster posted the time-honored example of inflammable and flammable - your very logical, taxonomically organizing brain may tell you inflammable means "not flammable", but it would be wrong. See here or click on a few of the definitions here. Linguistics teaches us that language is a living, changing thing - in English speaking lands, bias against Jews has been around much longer than bias against Arabs or other Semitic peoples due to the historical presence of Jews throughout Europe, and then in America. It's thus hardly shocking that the word "anti-Semitism" has come to mean anti-Jewish bias. This isn't Newspeak at all, if you see the Wikipedia entry, you'd know that in fact the word derives from German racial science usage in the 1800s, and for over a century, referred exclusively to hatred of or bias against Jews. So in fact, the "Newspeak" is the attempt to broaden the word, or rather to muddy the semantics which were previously clear, with another definition.

Anti-Zionism is a strange one - since Zionism, historically, arose as a response to anti-Semitism. This is such a confused, muddied term, I'd stay away from it entirely, since it tries to collapse complicated political issues into a jingoistic phrase. Lots of people, Jews included and Israelis included, don't support parts of current Israeli government policy, ongoing occupation and so on. The word "anti-Zionist" could mean almost anything, and even Wikipedia seems befuddled by this issue since the page on it is currently locked as a result of editorial disputes.

Anti-Judaism is a pretty awkward sounding word, as is "Anti-Islam". I'd stick to "anti-Jewish bias", "anti-Muslim bias" or "anti-Arab bias" if you're worried about being misunderstood. But the hubbub against anti-Semitism needs to stop now - you can't expect people to change the meaning of words to accomodate your political agenda, and if you go around flapping your arms when people use perfectly clear dictionary English words, you're going to end up marginalizing yourself and your viewpoint.

Re:Arabs are semites.

[Fnkmaster]

As far as I know being a Jew is always about either religious practice or ethnic background. The equation of Jew with Israeli is one I've never heard made, except by Hamas and similar terrorist organizations when they speak of "Zionists" and equate them with Jews in general, and don't seem to distinguish between Jew, Israeli and Zionist.

Being against the policies of the state of Israel is different from being against the right of the Jewish people to have a homeland. I think most rational people would say you have a right to disagree with the policies of a government, as long as you don't spew racially bigotted vitriol in the process. The problem is many who criticize Israel do it in such a one-sided fashion that it leads to the rational conclusion that their only possible motive could be anti-Semitism. If you blame the Palestinian-Israeli conflict entirely on the Israelis, then yes, you are being an anti-Semite because you holding Israel to a standard that is substantially different from that which you hold the Palestinians, and that which you hold every other government in the world.

Re:Arabs are semites.

[Bishop]

There is no chunk of DNA that determines race. There is a study that found that the DNA variance amount a particular race was just as great as the variance amoung all humans. Given the DNA of a random group of people you would not be able to sort the individual DNA according to race. The study went on to show that given a random white guy, their DNA was just as likely to more similar to a random black guy's then to another random white guy's DNA.

This is akin to trying to determine what a house will look like when all you are shown is a big pile of lumber.

Re:Arabs are semites.

[killjoe]

" As far as I know being a Jew is always about either religious practice or ethnic background."

Doesn't it seem odd to you that a jew could either be a race or a religion? It seems odd to me.

"The equation of Jew with Israeli is one I've never heard made"

I get it every time I critize israel. Eventually I'll be called an anti semite because I think that occupation of 3.5 million people is immoral. It's not just hamas it's also americans and israelis that do that.

"Being against the policies of the state of Israel is different from being against the right of the Jewish people to have a homeland."

Mmmm what an odd statement. Nobody has the "right" to have a homeland let alone to establish one where people have been living for generations.

"The problem is many who criticize Israel do it in such a one-sided fashion that it leads to the rational conclusion that their only possible motive could be anti-Semitism."

Again why? This is non sensical. If I critize communism am I a hater of white people who live in russia? If I critize the policies of north korea one sidedly do I hate the oriental race. Why does israel get such dispensation?

"If you blame the Palestinian-Israeli conflict entirely on the Israelis, then yes, you are being an anti-Semite because you holding Israel to a standard that is substantially different from that which you hold the Palestinians, and that which you hold every other government in the world."

BINGO!. You have just called me a racist because I critise israel. Even if I held the state of israel to a higher standard (and I do, just like I hold america to a higher standard) that does not mean I hate semitic people or that I hate jewish people.

What you don't relize is that by trying to smear people of being anti semites and playing the race card you are feeding the "zionism is racism" meme.

Re:Arabs are semites.

[satans_advocate]

This is a stupid semantic game and we are all sick of it.

Well, if you are sick of stupidity, why did you write the next sentence?

Words change meaning - deal with it.

Words do not change meaning. Words are abstract visual/auditory symbols used by homo sapiens to communicate meaning. They cannot change thier meaning anymore than a rock can change itself into a chicken.

Human beings change what is meant by those abstract symbols known as words. This is sometimes done by accident, but more often by a small number of people with a specific agenda.

There are people who want to change the meaning of the word semite, and quite frankly I'm sick of it, and won't be brow beaten into accepting it's new meaning by someone who anthropomophizes words.

Re:Arabs are semites.

[Fnkmaster]

Your knowledge of linguistic development is beyond underwhelming. And your assertion that I anthropomorphize words is absurd. A word has no meaning whatsoever without a group of people and a shared language, so a word can only change it's meaning within a language spoken by people.

Nobody is trying to surreptitiously change the meaning of the word Semite on you, so you can go get your panties out of a bunch. Anti-Semite and Semite are not antonyms - Anti-Semite is a specific word derived from German racial scientists in which it meant, essentially, Jew-hater. So ironically, in this particular case, Anti-Semite has never really changed meaning at all until people recently decided that it would be more politically correct and logically sound if it meant somebody who hates all Semites.

The dictionaries tell me that Semite is a broad racial and ethnic category that includes many groups from the Middle East. Nobody disputed that here. I object to the semantic legerdemain performed by Jew-haters (just to be perfectly clear who I'm talking about) who claim to _not_ be anti-Semitic because they say that to be anti-Semitic you must hate all members of the Semitic ethnic groups, which they claim they do not. Now who the hell is trying to subvert the language here? And how dare you come at me with your snide ad hominems?

Re:Arabs are semites.

[Bravehoptoad]

Claiming Arabs are semitic means a priori accepting the 19th century Christian belief that the Jews and Arabs are both descended from Abraham, thus accepting the veracity of the Bible.

Not necessarily. You could, for instance, make the classification based on the language similarities, since both Hebrew and Arabic are Semitic languages, along with a few others. In fact, that's the first definition of "Semitic" in the dictionary.

As for "anti-Semitic", what it *should* mean is "against Semites." That its dictionary definition is "anti-Jewish" isn't entirely an excuse, since any word is going to evoke both its denotation and its connotation.

Speaking personally as someone who grew up in a place where there are neither Jews nor Arabs, I was mightily confused the first time I heard someone call the U.N. "anti-Semitic." What? The U.N. hated most of the Middle East?

What's the big deal about using "anti-Jewish", anyway? Why use instead a word that's so etymologically messed up?

Re:Arabs are semites.

[haruchai]

Well, I'm sure that is because we don't know enough about DNA. While there is a great amount of variance within a given "race", there are still a number of physical characteristics, which are genetically determined , that is extremely unlikely to be found in that particular set of human beings. If we know what is/are the genes for red hair, I'm pretty certain that, based on that criterium alone, you can eliminate all the non-caucasians.
While some cultures are highly mixed, there are enough traits that appear in certain groups of people that one can reasonable distinctions based on their genetic profile

Re:Arabs are semites.

[nnappe]

You could clasify by the genetic data of the traits commonly associated to a race. But the study grandparent cites suggest that doing so would give different races for one person, or even that a child of two members of the same race does not belong to that race. And that is way different from the meaning we usually assign to race.

Play chess, goto jail!

[CatGrep]

Our new get-tough, anti-chess policy.

Re:Sanction info / trivia

[frostman]

On September 30, Bobby Fischer began his rematch with Boris Spassky in Sveti Stefan, Yugoslavia.

Interesting. I was just down in Montenegro for some vacation (in Kotor) and had a look at Sveti Stefan from the road. (It's in Montenegro.)

Sveti Stefan is basically a little island covered by a big classy hotel. It's the most exclusive tourist spot in Montenegro, and possibly the most exclusive in the former Yugoslavia.

Quite nice. There are some pictures here.

Other trivia: Fischer was hanging out in Budapest for I don't know how long (but a good while), being secretive and paranoid and anti-semitic and all those other nice BF things. A friend of mine claimed to have gone to repair his computer, and to have swiped a copy of his work-in-progress (a giant anti-semitic and anti-US paranoid rant, surprise surprise).

I offered to post it on the Net but the friend was afraid he'd get in trouble. I never did read it.

There's an interesting, if weirdly-formatted, article on BF in the Atlantic - a bit old though.

And here's a site almost as weird as the man himself, with radio interview downloads.

Re:whose freedom did he remove?

[Dogtanian]

all you other countries who get money FROM US

The great fallacy; many of those "donations" are actually loans, and of the remainder, many are dependent on implementing privatisation of the receiving country's industries and opening up the free market in a manner that happens to be beneficial to US industry. (That was a great success in Russia)

And what about all the "generous" donations for AIDS programs which are required to promote a particular agenda (e.g. abstinence-based programs) instead of using it in the manner that is likely to be most effective?

And I'd agree with the other replies that basically said: "Uh, I don't believe that you *are* supporting most other countries' jail systems."

By the way, I'm not going to say that all US aid money is bad; the Marshall plan after WWII was one of the best examples of enlightened self-interest in recent times. The recent stuff I'm not so impressed with.

we only kill mass murderes, and serial killers, and even then maybe 5 a year at most....

Your last sentence makes absolutely no sense. Do the executed criminals come back to life after five years or something?

I've experienced the complete opposite

[rd_syringe]

I visited France one time. We went to a restaurant, and my wife ordered something on the menu, doing her best to pronounce the word. The waiter actually made fun of her "American perversion" of the French language and mocked her pronunciation. When she reached the point where she started to cry and I was up in his face about it, he started apologizing profusely.

It's been my experience that most countries out there just hate Americans because it's the thing to do. Somehow you're enlightened if you dislike the big guy (an attitude I sense in most liberals). Obviously there is meaningful criticism, but for the most part, people are just jealous because we really are the #1 superpower in the world, and as a result we're put in the position of policing parts of the world, much to the chagrin of those who already despise us. It's cool to hate America. You're somehow an intellectual if you do, because you think you're going against the grain or something. I find it all rather silly. We're all just stinking human beings on the same planet.

Re:I've experienced the complete opposite

[SideshowBob]

I'm sorry to hear about your wife's experience with the French waiter. What your story demonstrates is that every corner of the globe has it's share of jackasses.

In my experience, the French are wonderful, warm, friendly people. Especially the French that don't live in Paris. When I made the effort to speak in French, didn't expect any special treatment, and took the time to smile and say 'bonjour' before asking for something, I was treated very kindly. At that time I spoke conversational French somewhat well (having taken 8 years of it in school), but even just looking up what you want to say in an English->French dictionary *before* occupying someone's time will do wonders.

Even in Paris this is true, but of course you do run into more rude people there (just as you do in NY City - it isn't hard at all to imagine a NYC waiter making fun of someone's accent)

I'm a liberal and I love the USA, btw. I hate stereotypes based on political persuasion. As a liberal I want to export what's best about our country, and not what's worst. I can't imagine that the conservatives would disagree with that?

Regarding policing the world, I don't consider that our job or jurisdiction. That's what the U.N.'s for. Of course the U.N. needs our support to do that job, but police actions should be done through the U.N. to give them the multilateral flavor that eases the world's concern about U.S. imperialism. Just imagine how Americans would feel if Russia or China were to start sending troops into Central America to 'police' them.

Americans are safer!

[kmankmankman2001]

Proof once again that Mr. Bush is making America safer! Sure, maybe we can't find Osama (guess that might take 12 years?) but we've finally located Bobby Fischer (thanks, Japan!) and all Americans can sleep better, no longer having to fear a mentally ill 61 year-old recluse. I know I feel better.

This time, get him some help

[amightywind]

Fischer has been a man without a country for over 10 years. The people who have been harboring him are doing him no favors. He is a paranoid schizophrenic and needs help. He has needed it for a long time. I hope that the dickheads at the justice department understand this and don't try to ruin his life anymore than it is.

Re:Sanction info / trivia

[Nick of NSTime]

(a giant anti-semitic and anti-US paranoid rant, surprise surprise).

I offered to post it on the Net but the friend was afraid he'd get in trouble. I never did read it.

It would appear that you have been caught in a lie.

Chess a crime?

[Facekhan]

His eccentricities aside I really don't see how playing a chess game can be a crime. Or for that matter how traveling to another country that wants you to visit can be a crime. Perhaps they will try to convince a jury that he was aiding Yugoslavian war strategists with his chess skills.

Re:Chess a crime?

[rguiu]

Thinking may be a crime, western media is ready to accuse Iran of banning chess after the revolution. Chess was allowed again some years ago in Iran, and a Iraning chess players got qualified for the world championship in Las Vegas. He was not allowed to enter the US, the us inmigration office didnt gave him a visa to play the world championship...

At long last someone actually answers

[some1somewhere]

I was reading all along why he thought the Russians were cheating... now you have explained it.

Mod up!

Fischer's opinion on Judaism

[Von Rex]

Check this out. He wasn't very cordial.

A letter he wrote to a Jewish encylopaedia that said he was a Jew

Re:Fischer's opinion on Judaism

[s0rted]

He's quite mad, what do you expect?

Re:Fischer's opinion on Judaism

[proberts]

Did anyone else find the saluation "Truely yours" funny?

Paul

Amnesty?

[Tlosk]

When wars end isn't it generally the practice to provide amnesty so that people can move on with their lives as opposed to having strong incentives to continue fighting/subverting/undermining?

Last I checked the Cold War was over.

Granted he was mentally ill before all of this happened, but all this doesn't help I'm sure. Like that saying goes, just because you're paranoid doesn't mean they aren't really out to get you.

Reganomics doesn't work

[Laz10]

Let us all read up on some history and see where Reagonomics got you guys last time:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_the _United _States_(1980-1988)#The_recession_of_1982

The difference between Reagan and Bush seems to be that Reagan thought that a huge budget deficit was a bad thing and tried to control it by cutting gov. spending.
Bush don't even seem to think that the deficit was a bad thing at all.

Re:Reganomics doesn't work

[EJ V]

I'm thinking you didn't read the article that you linked. Just an aside, what were the mortagage interest rates before Reagan? Yup, you guessed it. Mortgage rates reached a historic high of 18 percent. (1980) Prior to this, Nixon was fighting Inflation (price freezes, etc., when that ended, inflation shot even higher.)The recession was starting prior to Reagan, the Iranian invasion? etc. Lot's of causes. Reaganomics helped to bring things into check. What should we all believe? This is intersting too: (the Wikipedia article) Yet, the recession stretched well back into 1970s, well before the Reagan economic program. Moreover, the performance of the U.S. economy under Reagan compared favorably to Margaret Thatcher's Britain, which had been consistent in its application of a monetarist regime (a tight monetary policy and a tight fiscal policy, which resulted in deflation in the midst of depression).

Re:am I reading this straight?

[pclminion]

the match had a multimillion-dollar purse. fischer walked off with several million dollars from the win. that's why it was considered a violation of the "economic" boycott instituted by the US at the time.

Let me get this straight, then. The US wanted to sanction Yugoslavia to put the pressure on. So Bobby Fischer comes into the country and walks out with several million dollars worth of Yugoslav wealth, and the US considers that a bad thing? The guy just removed several million dollars from the Yugoslav economy.

What a way for the US government to treat those who help them to the tune of millions of dollars...

Propaganda?

[joeytsai]

Every time I sit at my computer, I think, "Where do I want to go today?" When I exercise, I'm tired and sore, but I just do it. Jared Fogle lost a fucking lot of weight by exercising and Subway! I want to try the new C2, but with Pepsi I play for a billion!

Ack, I got to the get the door. It's Dominos.

Now if only they would find Osama...

[Coppit]

Gee, what a big win for the US. Found an aging chess player who was on the run for an act of civil disobedience.

If he were Martha Stewart, he would have gotten a slap on the wrist (and would have still appealed). As it is, I bet he was on some FBI shit list.

By the way, this same sort of thing happened recently with the IEEE and other professional organizations with respect to embargoed axis of evil (TM) countries. They reasoned that if you edit a paper submitted from Iran, you are providing a service to that country. A couple professional societies gave the Treasury Department the finger. In April they finally recently fixed that part of the law so that the organizations are in the clear again.

Government shouldn't block chess or science... Or crypto while I'm at it. :)

Taxes (Offtopic)

[Experiment 626]

If Bush Jr really wanted to encourage the economy, a tax cut for the poor would have made a much better and longer lasting impact to many more people... He could have given people living on or near the povety line the opportunity to pick themselves up off the floor and make something of themselves. That would really help the economy. But instead he just gave the rich more of what they already have too much of.

It's been pointed out by other replies that the poor pay no taxes, so your argument that they should somehow pay less is illogical. Another fallacy here is that you break people up into "the poor" ("on or near the poverty line") and "the rich", who are "only a small percentage of the population", with these being the only social classes. You make your case based on a feudal social order (teeming masses of starving peasants, small number of wealthy elites, nothing in between). In America, however, the majority of people fall into the middle class, whom you have forgotten about completely. The middle class get money from Bush's tax cuts, and can definitely put it to good use for exactly the types of things you say a tax cut should go for (pay off debts, better education, more time with kids, start a business). Once you factor them in, the tax cuts makes more sense.

Re:Correct. Further...

[SquadBoy]

The point, which is correct, is that most autistics are simply retarted and not in any way shape or form gifted.

That's nothing. . .

[Fantastic Lad]

Yep. Everything is normal and sane with the world.

It's just that Chess Players Liberation Front might be plotting to take out the Statue of Liberty.

It could happen. . .

She looks sort of like a big chess piece, right. . ?

-FL

"You have been lied to since birth. The thing they are terrified you might learn is that it is possible for everybody to be happy and well provided for without misery, fear or ignorance."

Let me get this straight....

[DarkMantle]

was detained in Japan for an apparent passport violation and will be deported to the United States.

So they stopped him from going home, so they could then send him home???

Re:Let me get this straight....

[BlacKat]

RTFA... He was trying to go to the Phillipenes on an expired US Passport.

That's why they detained him and are deporting him back to the Unites States.

Bobby Fischer on September 11, 2001

[Jack Zombie]

(from everything2.com )

Within a few hours of the attacks on the United States, chess genius Bobby Fischer called frequent contact Pablo Mercado on Filipino radio to express his thoughts on the tragedy. This is the transcript of the interview:

Mercado: We have on the line one of our friends we used to interview every now and then for the past several years, uh,
I think for the past two years already. We have a chess grandmaster,
the World Chess Champion Bobby Fischer. He's on the line right now and
would like to give some thoughts of his own opinion, his global commentary on what happened at the World Trade Center just about a few hours ago, including attack of the White House and I think the Pentagon too, right? In fact, right now, Bobby, good day. It's evening right here.

Fischer: Yeah, how are you doing, Pablo? Yes, well, this is all wonderful news. It's time for the fucking US to get their heads kicked in. It's time to finish off the US once and for all.

Mercado: Of course, everybody knows how you... uh... how you...

Fischer: You know, I heard on the BBC a few months ago a very profound, but simple, statement. It really stunned me, I couldn't believe that guy was saying, you know, talking about some of the crimes of the US. You know, of the horrible behavior that the US is committing all over the world, and there the
BBC guy just said it! I couldn't believe my ears! This just shows you
that what goes around comes around, even for the United States. That is what has happened tonight. What goes around comes around, even for the United States.

Mercado: Mmm, you are saying you are... you are happy at what happened?

Fischer: Yes, I applaud the act. Look. Nobody gets... the US and Israel have been slaughtering the Palestinians, just slaughtering them, for years. Robbing them and slaughtering them. Nobody gave a shit. Now it's coming back to the US. Fuck the US. I wanna see the US wiped out.

Mercado: Heh heh. All right. The US is a superpower, how could...

Fischer: Well, apparently it's not as powerful as everybody thought. They hijacked all these planes, and they had no intelligence on this. This is a major operation, Pablo. Probably hundreds of people were involved in this. How is it possible "the great US" didn't know about it?

Mercado: Yeah, that's what people were asking here in the Philippines. Considering the technology that they have right now, wouldn't they be able to, you know, notice these things...

Fischer: What I am really hoping for now, Pablo... did you ever see that movie Seven Days in May ?

Mercado: Yes, yes.

Fischer: That's a movie about a general who tries to take over the US. Do you remember that? I think it was dark Burt Lancaster; it was based on a book. I saw that years ago. I was rooting for the generals, you know, but in the end the

Re:Correct. Further...

[Buran]

In one Anne McCaffrey novel I read, the local idiot savant was really good at remembering details about horse races -- he could not only remember every race a particular horse had won, but he could track the horse's lineage back over many many decades, which would be useful for breeding purposes. He was not able to function in normal society, so he'd been put to work for a stable that bred race horses.

It always seemed to me (though the novel never specified) that the man was likely autistic.

So where is the sweet spot?

[clary]

I should not have brought up Reagan at all, I guess.

All I was really trying to point out is that there is some optimum set of tax rates (possibly not always the same depending on the specific economic situation) that will produce the most revenue. It is clearly not zero percent or 100 percent.

So, smarty pants, what should our tax rate structure look like, if producing maximum revenue is your goal?

Re:So where is the sweet spot?

[default luser]

No, you shouldn't have brought up Reagan if all you wanted to say was taxes have an "optimal" level based on current economic conditions. This goes without saying.

Thus, it shouldn't surprise you when I say I don't know what our tax structure should look like. Nobody does.

You can bring all the curves and theories you want to the party, but you'll still end up performing a cheap party-trick while trying to convince the partygoers that it was something more significant. Economics is still touch-and-go percisely because we can never adjust a single variable at a time in the big-picture, so the best historical evidence and experience we have to go on is automatically flawed.

No, I don't have the answer. I just get extremely upset when people claim ANYONE has "the" answer when it comes to fiscal policy...and more often than not it's some foolish Reaganomics zombie. The way you made your statement, I got the impression you were combinining the two.

Isn't this guy Carrie Fischer's father

[hypertex]

y'know...Princess Leia

Re:Correct. Further...

[tntguy]

Basically, patterns. My stepson is somewhat autistic and has an amazing memory, especially with numbers. But he's also very good at remembering patterns. Chess isn't my thing, but I'll have to teach him and see how he does. He's only three and has trouble with complex actions, but we'll see.

Re:am I reading this straight?

[looie]

Let me get this straight, then. The US wanted to sanction Yugoslavia to put the pressure on. So Bobby Fischer comes into the country and walks out with several million dollars worth of Yugoslav wealth, and the US considers that a bad thing? The guy just removed several million dollars from the Yugoslav economy.

not exactly. i think the prize money was put up by some local millionaire. i believe it was basically a propaganda move on his part (they could have gone a few miles down the road and been in italy, if they had wanted to). but the crux of the biscuit was that fischer & a host of others (fellow chessplayers, chess groupies, journalists) spent a lot of money there -- hotels, meals, travel and so forth. so, it was a propaganda poke-in-the-eye for the US, as well as somewhat of an economic gain for the local economy.

remember that the whole boycott/embargo was controversial at the time, and not honored by the europeans. spassky, for example, took home something around a million $$ as the loser, and he just went back to his chateau in france. fischer went to hungary and then i think to south america. i dropped out of the chess scene years ago, and haven't followed any of that news since.

mp

Re:lotto money

[bobv-pillars-net]

Do you know where lotto money goes? In New Jersey, it is split 36/56 between a mostly educational fund and the prize pool ... Is that really a bad way to spend money?

Considering that public education already spends twice as much (on the average) per child than private education, and achieves comparatively poor results, yes, I consider it a very bad investment.

There are a lot of poor parents who could send their children to a good private school for what they spend on lottery tickets. Instead, they send their children to inner-city slum schools and create another generation of dependency on public assistance programs.

Idealism vs. Reality

[lysium]

The more money and power the government has, the more people rely on it, the more it will control our lives. Once the government gets too large and people become too reliant then not even democracy will help since those in power can simply use that reliance to defeat anyone who wishes to change things.

Massive countries that contain hundreds of millions of interconnected people are going to need a higher level of collective organization than a neolithic village (like celluar organisms, come to think of it). Small government is pure fantasy in this modern age, unless we want to turn back the clock on all progress, as certain fundamentalist groups advocate...

We stand with two choices. A big and nasty government, or a big and pseudo-considerate government. Please, stop pining for Utopia.

===---===

Re:Idealism vs. Reality

[ahdeoz]

Who's not living in Reality? Are you just joking about the choice? If we realize the government is nasty, then we can turn back the clock on progress and live in happy little neolithic villages with cell phones and penicillin. The other option is to believe in the pseudo-considerateness of the government, which you admit is not really considerate. But I live in reality. Everyone is blind and my eyesight is going. Ba-a-a-a-a!

Eddie Fisher.

[gregarican]

Good guess though...

Fischerandom Chess

[lseltzer]

Incidentally, in the wake of this story I noticed that he's been promoting something called "Fischerandom Chess" in which the first row pieces are places semi-randomly. See for more on this game.

Re:Fischerandom Chess

[Black Perl]

Incidentally, in the wake of this story I noticed that he's been promoting something called "Fischerandom Chess" in which the first row pieces are places semi-randomly

Yes, I play this way. I put all my pawns on their row in random order.

Re:Fischerandom Chess

[Thingummywut]

Fischer's Random is not something new. It has been around for years and is due to Fischer being out of chess theory for so long that playing normal chess would give him a significant disadvantage against Grandmaster opponents.

Re:Fischerandom Chess

[bas148]

It's a matter of perspective. I thought it was funny, because when I saw first row, I was thinking the same thing he was; ie, the front phalanx of each side's army.

Try looking at it from a different angle if you don't get it...

Re:Fischerandom Chess

[RedCard]

>>>Yes, I play this way. I put all my pawns on their row in random order
>>Um, that'd be the second row... unless you're counting from zero?
>It's a matter of perspective. I thought it was funny, because when I saw first row, I was thinking the same thing he was...

You guys are really splitting semantics here.

If you want to split them even more, realize that there is no such thing as "random order". (Randomness here precluding the notion of order, it would be more correct to say "in a random fashion" or "at random")

Pro athletes are smart...

[El Camino SS]

Hey I know you are making the argument that Pro Athletes have some dim bulbs in their ranks, but honestly, think about these scenarios where they look like geniuses: ...could you stab a man to death in the back of a limosine and get away with it? You'd have to be pretty smart to do that... ...or run a cop over the hood of your car and never spend a night in jail? Genius! Legal genius! ...or deal cocaine while you are a high profile face and making a million dollar salary in the NFL, and get away with it for a few years... now that takes brains to pull off.

Face it, in the NFL and other pro sports, it is not the same kind of intellectualism that normal people have. But they are intellectuals. So I would ask you this again. How many people have you stabbed to death and gotten away with it? You gotta THINK TO GET OUTTA THAT. You just CAN'T be stupid and get out of that! Admit it. They are superstars for a reason. We all just can't be that incredible, with that kind of intelligence, and a burning lack of impulse control. Not every person on this planet is going to be a superstar, and admired around the world for pulling off those Knievel like violence stunts like OJ Simpson, Mike Tyson, Ray Lewis, and our new fav, a boy that is already outmaneuvering the competition, Kobe.

Look, they are legal superstars as well as athletic.
They focus all of their mental energies on the court that counts... the county courts. And they do it with a style that no one can match.

Sad, but true

[Buran]

So if you need to go there to spend time with your dying father/grandfather BECAUSE HE'S DYING, they expect you to not eat anything while there, not stay anywhere, not get from the airport to where he's hospitalized, etc. etc. And the airlines are asshats and suddenly lose any recognition of the words "bereavement fare" and "family emergency" and "I cannot wait, I have to GO NOW" simply because of where you are trying to go (which is sadly typical of their behavior, I think, and a lot of why they're having money/image problems lately) just because of where your family happens to live.

That seems to me rather cold-hearted and discriminatory on the part of the airlines/government and unfairly passes judgment on those who just happen to be from a particular part of the world and immigrated here for whatever their reasons might have been. Those people haven't done anything wrong and yet they're being fined and thrown in jail for trying to do the same thing anyone else would do... like visit their family, send money back home from wages earned fairly, not necessarily their immediate family (yes, really, there's a law telling you who you have to send money to and how much) ...

Discrimination doesn't have to be about skin color to be discrimination -- it can be ethnic, too. I can't believe these crazy laws are still on the books after literally half a century. Why hasn't Congress repealed this? I'm sure the families of immigrants (and immigrants themselves) can be heard if they want to, and I can't see why they wouldn't want to.

Re:Sad, but true

[SEE]

In the sole case where it's actually been enforced for "literally half a century" - Cuba - "the families of immigrants (and imigrants themselves)" are being heard, and the loudest voices among them don't want to repeal the sanctions.

The Cuba sanctions are supported by the most powerful Cuban-American political groups, and by Cuban-American congressmen - like the two Diaz-Balarts (who are Fidel Castro's nephews). That's why Congress hasn't repealed this.

You can call it ethnic discrimination if you like, but it's the ethnicity itself that supports the discrimination.

Jimmy Hoffa found

[qseep]

In related news, Jimmy Hoffa was detained in Malaysia, attempting to organize a Nike workers' union.

He was discovered by the same breadth-first, alpha-beta pruning algorithm that found Fischer. The algorithm is called "Deep Thicket".

Run and burn

[Zapdos]

If he hadn't ran, there was a good chance he would have gotten off.
Run and you are:

1. Giving up your ability to defend yourself.
2. Committing the crime of running away, which is a serious crime.

My bad

[michaelggreer]

My bad: I thought this took place a while back. This refers to the massacres in 1992. Call me stupid.

Re:Correct. Further...

[krunk7]

Actually, autistics are arguably not "simply retarded", but suffer from perceptual and motor impairment not directly linked to intelligence. An extremely interesting article covering this very topic (autism and the long established presumption of retardation) appeared in Scientific American last month.

Funny how hypocryt people are

[SmallFurryCreature]

All the people against the iraq war was saying america wasn't giving the UN and its sanctions a chance. Now the UN is going after a sanction buster and the same people are crying foul.

Sanction like this have been used before against south-africa. Put the country into total isolation and hope that this will become to big a burden to bear.

Does it work? Well it doesn't for cuba and north-korea (wether it is right or not is another discussion) but it worked in South-Africa.

But if a sanction is going to work it got to be complete. It is sorta like any law. You can have a speeding law but let person X speed because going after just one guy isn't "nice".

There was an embargo, he broke it, he goes to jail. That is was "merely" a chess game is exactly the point. This was a cultural embargo. The entire point of it is to make it very clear to the people inside the embargo that they are no longer welcome in the world unless they learn to behave.

There are just three choices to deal with countries that are "misbehaving", ignore/santion/war. All of them been tried and all failed and succeeded. If you can come up with a better one be sure to tell the world. But at least be consistent. You don't want embargo/santions and don't want war. Then don't whine ever again about something nasty happening to population X by population Y.

Doesn't help this guys case that he is a nutter. There won't be much of a public outcry cause as soon as he opens his mouth people will be on the opposite side. Oh well couldn't have happened to a nicer person.

What about this?

[El Camino SS]

B) More importantly, in my opinion, is the fact that the more money the government controls the more powerful it becomes---and a government which is too powerful is something to be feared. IMHO, most of the posters on Slashdot lack a healthy fear of the government. The government is the ultimate monopoly---one that can arbitrarily increase its income, has a large standing army, and can come in at any time and take away your freedom.

The more money and power the government has, the more people rely on it, the more it will control our lives. Once the government gets too large and people become too reliant then not even democracy will help since those in power can simply use that reliance to defeat anyone who wishes to change things.

So what would you say about the hegemony of twenty or so multinational corporations, all of them having cash flows in excess of many, many governing bodies of the world, and each one being run by a single board that had nothing but expansionists plans and a dictated statement that said that "morals don't ever come into the equation when profit is on the line." What would you say about that? Wouldn't you say that it was a bit of a power struggle at the top, and the little man just works the machine?

Would that also qualify that corporations are, in a sense, something that "will control your lives"? And NOT A GOOD THING (TM)?

Would you also agree that said economic power could, in fact, in your own words, simply use that reliance to defeat anyone who wishes to change things.?

Corporations, as they stand right now, and their current track record of using unscrupulous, unfair, illegal, and anti-competetive practices are not doing ANY BETTER WHATSOEVER THAN THE US GOV'T AND ITS CURRENT ATTACK TIRADES.

I would prefer the power be vested in the people, instead of the protected institutions, thank you very much.

Saying that we must get rid of the governments influence is not even addressing the core issue.

Fisher's Antics

[corngrower]

He was the only american that when he went against the Soviet champ, the rest of america rooted for the Soviet.

The guy was totally unlikable as a person. A worthless POS.

Re:Here's your answers, chucklehead.

[LookSharp]

There are around 700 hate groups active in America and the majority of them are fundamentalist Christians; when's the last time you heard of agnostic racists burning a fucking question mark on somebody's lawn?

That is, quite possibly, the funniest line I've read on slashdot in over years years here. COMEDY GOLD and right on the point.

Thank you for that! :)

Re:lotto money

[Politburo]

Typical drek.

Considering that public education already spends twice as much (on the average) per child than private education, and achieves comparatively poor results, yes, I consider it a very bad investment.

This link backs your assertion, but does indicate that the stats are misleading. Also, if you followed my lotto links, you'd see that New Jersey Lottery actually sends money to private schools to the tune of $57 million a year. Another good link.

As to performance, I think you're being tainted by the media. Are there bad public schools? Yes, that's clear. These are the schools covered in the media all the time. Are there good public schools? Yes. This is frequently glossed over.

Another crucial, crucial element that is frequently forgotten in the private v. public school debate is this: Private schools qualify their students. Public schools get the rest. If a private school doesn't want a bad student, they're out. Real easy for them. You can't throw a student who is having problems out of public school, you have to deal with the problem. When you get to pick and choose who you are going to teach, your students are going to be better. Duh.

There are a lot of poor parents who could send their children to a good private school for what they spend on lottery tickets. Instead, they send their children to inner-city slum schools and create another generation of dependency on public assistance programs.

You think there are people spending 5-10 grand a year on lotto? When their annual income, if they're lucky, is 30k? You have a seriously distorted view of how the poor live in this country. Maybe you should try living on some of the public assistance programs and see how much fun it is "freeloading" off of everyone else.

Re:Correct. Further...

[ahdeoz]

He's only 3. Most people that age seem slightly retarded, and not particularly good at 'complex actions.' Give him the benefit of the doubt.

Isn't it rather....

[Kjella]

deported to the United States - that's new!!

...very very old? "Between 1614 and 1775 some 50,000 English men, women, and children were sentenced by judicial process to be sent to the American colonies for a variety of crimes."

Or maybe I just missed the irony here, ah well.

Kjella

Oh alright I will bite

[SmallFurryCreature]

Embargo's are used when you want to convince someone to stop doing something by limiting their access to something. You use them when direct force is not an option.

It is "popular" to use against nations that aren't very nice to their own people or other people if for what ever reason war is not an option. Note how many of the "america is so evil" crowd say that the UN should have had more time to use santions to get Saddam to behave.

There can be various forms of sanctions, goods travel and cultural. Goods is easy, close the borders and stop them importing and exporting. Except medice cause that would be inhumane and the resources they need to export to pay for the medicine imports and farm equipment cause you can't have them starving. And food exports to pay for the farm equipment, to process they food they need chemicals etc etc etc. Pretty soon the goods embargo is merely on paper and trade happens as before. Either you have a complete ban or you don't have a ban at all. A complete ban means going after any breaking the embargo no matter how small or how big.

Travel is the same but in the modern world travel is not really needed. After all most of these "bad" countries would like their people not to travel.

Cultural however is really hard, cause it is a propaganda war. Having a country effectivly banned from sports, arts and entertainment affects the local population far more directly (people can do without imported clothes if the country is any size, but having the national soccer team banned from the EK can cause riots). Sanction busters like this Fisher asshole are also used by the local goverments as propaganda tools. So a guy like him is way more damaging then a fuel truck slipping by.

Either you enforce an embargo or there is no point. Of course the world could have just ignored yugoslavia except most people where saying that the world should do something.

So yes it is a big deal. Tell me would you be as big hearted if say exxon sold some oil to the serbs? Chess players don't play for kicks, they get paid big bucks to even show up. More if they win.

Anyway I wonder what fishers excuse is against the muslims killed in yugoslavia by his hosts or is that the jews fault as well. His kind somehow manages to blame everything on someone else.

One HUGE difference here...

[The12thRonin]

It's not the players are smart enough to get away with it. They are paid enough to allow them to rent people who are smart enough help them get away with it.

See O.J. for a prime example....

Finally, we are safer...

[DynaSoar]

...now that Osama bin Fischer has been caught.

Re:Correct. Further...

[SquadBoy]

You will notice that while the defination of the terms in question refer to IQ they also refer to symptoms that have nothing to do with intelligence. My point was that most autistics are not also savants but are just slow (not this is not only intelligence and you simply point out another way in which they are slow.

http://www.m-w.com/cgi-bin/dictionary?va=retarde d
http://www.m-w.com/cgi-bin/dictionary?book=Dict ion ary&va=retardation

Having said that I think that autism is often misdiagnosed. An example from my life. As a child I did not speak for a very long time. In fact I was nearly 5 before I started using English words (within weeks I was speaking at a normal level for a 5 year old) But prior to that I had been diagnosed as autistic. The county wanted to send me to the "special" school and all that. Luckily for me my Mom fought *very* hard to keep that from happening. By about halfway through kindergarten it was clear that I was not retarted at all. Although if I had been sent to a school where I was treated as if I were I certainly would have become so. Knowing that I was nothing special except for having very dedicated parents I often wonder how many kids in very similar situations are misdiagnosed and damaged for their whole lives by a system that does not give a shit about them. So on some level when I say they are "simply retraded" what I mean is that for some reason they have "been slowed up, especially by preventing or hindering advance or accomplishment". I personally think that in more cases than we dare think about that it is because society threw them away.

Either law is enforced or there is no law

[SmallFurryCreature]

It is not like anyone sane would deny that some nasty stuff happened in Yugoslavia. Embargo/santions were put in place to try to stop it. Do they work? Ask Nelson Mandella or Fidel Castro. Yes and No they will probably answer.

BUT unless you want to use the two other options (ignore or war) then you got to enforce embargo's/santions. Even 12 yrs later. Just as you got to prosecute war crimes 10 20 50 100 yrs later if you can.

What you are saying makes some sense except the law of santions still is effect, it just doesn't apply to that area of the world anymore. It is kinda like you getting out of speeding ticket because the temporary speed limit is no longer in effect on the day of your trial. I suggest you don't try this cause you will be laughed out of court.

Also the point is hardly moot. Sanctions are in use today and will be in use in the future. Unless you want to remove the existince of santions and leave only ignore and war as the UN options you can't let sanction busting going on.

jackhole ?

[geekoid]

You must listen to Kevin and Bean.

Sucking a dick isn't intercourse with a person?

[rd_syringe]

If you can't go by the judge's definition of a term then what can you go by?

How about society's common sense definition of what sexual relations are? Oral sex is sexual and it is an act performed in relation to another person. Come on.

Re:Sucking a dick isn't intercourse with a person?

[cardshark2001]

How about society's common sense definition of what sexual relations are?

It wasn't Clinton's job to help the prosecution. The judge (actually the prosecutor) defined the term narrowly and Clinton used that to his advantage. It's what you do in court. Court is not about using "society's common sense definition[s]". It's about winning.

If you should be in that situation, you should press every advantage. Otherwise don't take the stand. It's your right (as it was Clinton's right) under the 5th amendment.

In Soviet Russia...

[mi]

Stalin killed ~27 MILLION people, 4.5 times the amount Hitler killed and we don't have a /. axiom about him yet.

It is a bloody shame we don't. While swastikas are frowned upon and "nazi" a dirty word, the term "Soviet Russia" produces only a smirk, Che Guevara T-shirts are considered sexy, and the horrible Hammer-and-Sickle emblem is used for Vodka commercials (just imagine Swastika used to advertise Riesling)...

Re:In Soviet Russia...

[Evil Poot Cat]

That's because communism is still viable in large portions of the population, and when push comes to shove, they'd rather kill another 27 million, if it reduces the chance for (other) people to be wealthy.

Ultimate (was Re:Changed the view of the US?)

[alanh]

I play ultimate with a team that has been a contender to win US and World championships and am on the Standing Rules Commitee of the Ultimate Players Association. At the elite level, teams have multiple, sophisticated offensive and defensive strategies, numerous set plays, individual tactics, and several learned skills, in addition to raw athleticism and intensity.

In addition, since ultimate is self-officiated at all levels, there are ethical imperatives to uphold your personal and team conduct to a higher level. Knowing the rules well and ability to argue a call convincingly are also useful skills.

Saying ultimate is only about "getting in the open" is equivalent to saying soccer is just kicking the ball. As you said, "every sport involves deep strategy" when played at a high level. Playing at lower levels, not so much, but that's true with all sports as well. The sophistication possible grows with the skills, athleticism, and intelligence of the participants.

E.g. If you're playing ultimate at your family reunion, simply completing a pass is going to be difficult enough in and of itself. When you've got 14 players on the field who can huck the disc consistantly 70+ yards and run a 40 in 5", adopting some strategy is going to make the game much better.

-alan

Re:Ultimate (was Re:Changed the view of the US?)

[reidbold]

Yeah, I know.
I goofed.
Addressed here.

He should have castled.

[CFD339]

Man, he must be getting old. Any really good chess player in teh situation would have castled! Suddenly, he "Rooks" the Philipinos and is himself in Thailand! ..One town, is very like another when your head's down over your pieces, bother.."

Who Writes These Sanctions?

[meplaysocr]

I wanna be the guy that writes into sanctions: "...and any who shall play chess in this country under sanction, who are not citizens of this country, shall face the penalty of treason and shall be subsequently shot on sight for violations of said sanctions..."

Granted Bobby Fischer was a bit of a loon, but it is kind of funny to read about. Who'd have thought you could get in trouble for playing chess....(will never look at a chess board the same again).

My bad...communication problem...

[clary]

My fault for posting hastily...which I am doing again right now. ;-)

My point was that the same groups always seem to argue for the same thing (tax rate cuts, tax rate increases especially for upper brackets, etc.). None will commit themselves to a scheme. It is always "taxes are too high" or "the rich don't pay enough taxes."

Of course we don't know the exact optimal tax rate, but I'd vote for a politician with enough balls to make an estimate and stand by it. Instead of always crying "tax cut," he should say "I want to cut tax rates to X" and then I will be satisfied and won't ask again. Let's face it...the tax rates are going to be set at something. We should hear what each candidate thinks that something should be.

As I write this I realize I am probably showing my ignorance again. Some of the flat tax guys and consumption tax guys have given actual rates, I think. But I don't hear anything like that from the mainstream candidates.

Re:My bad...communication problem...

[default luser]

Unfortunately, that will never happen. Ever since the Kennedy tax cuts of the 1960s, the federal income tax has forever become a tool of politics.

It would take a very gutsy candidate to make taxes flow directly with economic conditions, but you bet your ass I'd vote for him. Think about it: when it comes down to it, all the Federal Reserve is is a bunch of members who try to do exactly that, except they deal with interest rates.

Hell, I wouldn't be all that opposed to taxation by committee...THEN we might just see taxes that approach optimum levels. I believe that the tax system in this country will remain skewed so long as it continues to function as slowly as it currently does. The Fed works because it responds quickly to signs in the economy, and usually doesn't over or under-shoot too severely like a politically-driven tax cut. But as I said above, taxes have become too powerful a political tool to be given up for the greater good. Too bad.

So, there you have it...as I said, I don't know the answer, but I do know a real-world example of a system that has come closer to optimum fiscal performance than Congress and the President ever have...we'll just never see anything like it for taxes.

Wich poor yugoslavians?

[SmallFurryCreature]

There were 3 sides I remember all happily killing each other. Serbs kroats and muslims. There really wasn't a right or a wrong side except that this is not how the media likes it so it pretty soon became "poor muslims" and "bad serbs" with some "slightly poor kroats but not as bad as the serbs" thrown in. The reality was that they all were trying to exterminate the others and the serbs were just a little bit better at it. (being natural allies of the russians (russians don't like kroats == nazis and muslims (I can't help but feel the russians are rolling on the floor laughting at americas problems in iraq and aghanistan))

The kroats have recently admitted that they too killed muslims and the various investigation around the dutch "protected" muslims enclaves showed that this enclace (wich fell and where thousands where slaughterd) was also used by muslims warriors (making it a legal military target (not legal of course to slaughter captured muslims) to the serbs and convincing the serbs the UN was really not an unbiased outsider seeking to restore peace but their enemy.

And in all this trouble someone goes to play a game of chess (for big bucks) creating endless propaganda oportunities? His hosts where committing genocide and you don't think his actions were criminal?

God I like to see the world when guys like you are in charge. Provided I can be a safe distance away. Like the next galaxy. People like you are the people who said we should protect the kurds from saddam by sending in troops and imposing santions, then that the santions were harming iraq and should be lifted, then that the lifted sanctions didn't stop iraq from going after the kurds and then that no troops should be used.

I think I spotted what you really want. You want to whine. You are a woman. You just want to whine about the world troubles. Not have them fixed.

Re:Wich poor yugoslavians?

[Scudsucker]

...or maybe he just has some priorities. Like being worried about all the killings you mentioned, or a fucking chess game. Hmm, whats more important here....

Re:lotto money

[ahdeoz]

A cheap private school will run you $10,000 if you live very far away from the smell of money. Nobody spends that much on lottery. $2 a week comes to approximately $100 a year. Not bad, considering you spend that much in two weeks on frivolous things they can't afford, but are just as stupid as lottery tickets. That $4 a day pack of cigarettes only comes to half of your 'spending money', athough if they quit, they could afford cable.

Re:Here's your answers, chucklehead.

[Archangel Michael]

First off, I find it funny that you call me a chicken when you hide behind the "Anonymous Coward" title. Can you say hypocrite?

How about all the racist messages in the mainstream media and educational system? HMMM. Just because it isn't a swastica on a synagogue or a cross in a front lawn (Two pagan symbols btw). The left is just as racist as the right. They just couch thier racism in PC terms like "quotas", and with groups like the NAACP.

Tim McVie may or may not have been a christian. He was crazy. If you were a environmentalist, would you like me to compare you to the Unibomber?

None of the groups you menition in your long list are really "christian", anymore that PETA speaks for animal rights groups, or ELF and EF speak for environmentalist. Except that most environmentalists secretly applaud those groups, while most fundamentalist christians DENOUNCE the racist pigs you cite.

"Richard Butler, Bob Mathews, William Gale" ... Never heard of them. Not really mainstream fundamentalist christians are they? Or do you really equate all christians fundamentalists as these ultra fringe crazys (assuming that they are).

So when people say Pat Robertson and the like are "fundamentalist christians" do you lump them into the crazies you list? Or do you correct them. The problem I see, is you equate WACKED OUT CRAZIES as fundamentalists, while not correcting those who call normal people "fundamentalists".

Perhaps what you need to do is really think about what fundamentalism means before you start makeing charges that Tim McVie and the like are "Fundamentalist Christaians".

I am a Fundamentalist, in the true sense of the word. I believe that there are fundamentals to my faith. Love your neighbor as yourself, Love the LORD your GOD with all your being, strength and mind.

This does not have any exceptions for race, color, creed, religious affiliation, denomination, left wing, right wing, chicken wing (attempt at humor).

You can pray for me all you want. But unless you believe in a supreme being (as a fundamentalist, perhaps?) it does no good.

Re:KKK most assuredly are Christian

[Archangel Michael]

If they truly believed in a god, and in a jesus, then they would know that jesus was not racist. They would know that one of the first converts was an Ethiopian (black man).

I would be happy to show them the scriptural reference if they need it. They don't, which is why they are not christian, anymore than I am a black man because I have a great tan.

Care to try again?

Interesting article about Fischer

[beforewisdom]

---
From:
http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/national /apasia_stor y.asp?category=1104&slug=Bobby%20Fischer
---
ASIA

Friday, July 16, 2004 Last updated 10:40 a.m. PT

Checkmate: Fischer detained in Tokyo

By ERIC TALMADGE
ASSOCIATED PRESS WRITER

Former world chess champion, America's Bobby Fischer is pictured in this August 10, 1971 file photo at an unknown location in the USA. Fischer has been detained in Japan by immigration authorities, officials said Friday, July 16, 2004, capping a more than decade-long hunt by U.S. authorities for the elusive chess legend. (AP Photo)

TOKYO -- In a bizarre end game, Bobby Fischer - the chess world's most eccentric star - was taken into custody after trying to fly out of Japan with an invalid passport. Checkmate.

Wanted at home for attending a 1992 match in Yugoslavia despite international sanctions, the American former world champion had managed to stay one move ahead of the law by living abroad and being sheltered by chess devotees.

It was not immediately clear if Fischer would be handed over to the United States under its extradition treaty with Japan. But his detention gives Japan a chance to show its cooperation with the United States just days before officials plan to bring an accused U.S. Army deserter, Charles Robert Jenkins, to Tokyo for urgent medical treatment - a case Japanese officials want Washington to overlook.

Jenkins, whose Japanese wife was kidnapped by North Korea in 1978 and returned home in 2002, is wanted by Washington on desertion charges for allegedly defecting to North Korea in 1965. He is suffering from complications after abdominal surgery in North Korea.

Fischer was detained at Narita Airport outside Tokyo after trying to board a Japan Airlines flight to the Philippines on Tuesday, according to friends and airport officials. The U.S. Embassy on Friday confirmed Fischer was in custody but refused to comment further.

Fischer "didn't know that his passport had been revoked," said Japan Chess Association member Miyoko Watai. "He had been traveling frequently over the past 10 years, and there was never a problem. I don't understand why his passport was revoked."

Watai told The Associated Press she had talked to Fischer in custody. She said he was told he would be deported and was planning to appeal.

Considered by many the best chess player ever, Fischer, now 61, became grandmaster at age 15. In 1972, he became the first American world champion and a Cold War hero for his defeat of Boris Spassky of the Soviet Union in a series of matches in Reykjavik, Iceland.

The event was given tremendous symbolic importance, pitting the intensely individualistic young American against a product of the grim and soulless Soviet Union.

It also was marked by Fischer's odd behavior - possibly calculated psychological warfare against Spassky - that ranged from arriving two days late to complaining about the lighting, TV cameras, the spectators, even the shine on the table.

Fischer was world champion until 1975, when he forfeited the title and withdrew from competition because conditions he demanded proved unacceptable to the International Chess Federation.

After that, he lived in secret outside the United States. He emerged in 1992 to confront Spassky again, in a highly publicized match in Yugoslavia. Fischer beat Spassky 10-5 to win $3.35 million.

The U.S. government said Fischer's playing the match violated U.N. sanctions against Yugoslavia, imposed for Serb leader Slobodan Milosevic's role in fomenting war in the Balkans.

Over the years, Fischer gave occasional interviews with a radio station in the Philippines, often digressing into anti-Semitic rants and accusing American officials of hounding him.

He praised the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks, saying America should be "wiped out," and described Jews as "thieving, lying bastards." His mother was Jewish.

He also announced he had aba

Not according to the judge

[geekoid]

If in the context of a case, a judge will determine what something in regards to that case.
The Judge said 'Sexual intercourse'. Within that context Clinton did not lie under oath.

Courst cases are very complex, and thats why the judge has the last word on a definication in his court.
In Some states oral sex is not sexual intercorse, it falls under sodomy.

The government is opportunistic

[JimmytheGeek]

The Feds put a bunch of crap they'd wanted for years into the Patriot Act, because those pesky civil liberties that take the fun out of being a cop. 9/11 was like one of those contest promos where you get to fill a shopping cart in a certain time limit, or the cages with money blowing around - grab while you can!

Now that the War on Terror is here, it is trotted out any time the admin's polls sag. Press conferences without a scintilla of evidence that the threat environment has changed. And a trial balloon over delaying elections...whew!

Hell - even tax cuts were hyped as part of the war on terror.

The fact is, spooks are by nature consiprators. And they are not drawn to the field by their love of untrammeled civil liberties.

"There ought to be limits to freedom." - G.W. Bush
(actual quote related to a parody website - my sig is just a paraphrase)

Book recommendation - speed of dark

[JimmytheGeek]

sci fi from an author who has an autistic son. Nice balance between differently abled and autistic. Posits some huge gains in therapy and compensatory strategies.

Most of those look like the work environments of software companies in the late 1990's.

Wait a minute...

Define "invest"

[fluxrad]

Youre understanding of the market seems a bit skewed to me.

Assuming Bill goes out and buys 50,000 shares of, say XMSR then in all actuality, the folks at XM Radio won't see a penny of that. We buy stocks from other people, not from the companies themselves, excepting an IPO, in which case, the price remains rather low to begin with. But this is just an infusion of cash, not a continuous stream.

Now, you could be talking about corporate bonds, in which case you'd be right. But AFAIK, most investors aren't looking for high-risk bonds like those of small cap businesses. They're looking for large-cap investments to shore up whatever it is they're doing in the market. This will create a few new jobs, but nothing on the scale of what you're talking about.

In reality, if you want to grow the economy, the best practice is to infuse money directly into the hands of consumers. Most people (unlike companies and the majority of the wealthy) don't stick their cash in a drawer somewhere; they spend it. And when they buy more goods, corporations' earnings go up. When corporate earnings go up, they hire more people, etc.

But this all goes back into the argument against supply side economics. The money at the top of the economic foodchain has a wicked tendency to stay at the top.

Re:Define "invest"

[CoolToddHunter]

Assuming Bill goes out and buys 50,000 shares of, say XMSR then in all actuality, the folks at XM Radio won't see a penny of that. We buy stocks from other people, not from the companies themselves, excepting an IPO, in which case, the price remains rather low to begin with. But this is just an infusion of cash, not a continuous stream.

This is true, but simplistic. A company won't sell all of it's available stock in an IPO. Also when they feel the stock price of their company is low (and they have cash), they will buy stock back at market prices. The upshot is that a company will have a supply of stock that they can sell back to the market to get cash when they need it. So in your example when Mr. Gates buys XMSR, some of that may actually go to the company, but probably not. It will drive up the price, however, allowing XM Radio to make a greater amount of cash should they choose to sell their reserve of stock.

Re:Define "invest"

[fluxrad]

I didn't particularly feel the need to go into the topics of dilution and options. But you do have a point.

That being said, the point of the post was that the stock market does not inherently create jobs, and as far as job creation goes, there are about 50 better ways to do it. Especially since the market is a product of the economy, not a catalyst.

economic stimulus is greater from consumption

[JimmytheGeek]

the poorer you are, the greater the proportion of income that goes to consumption

Money that goes to investment...well, at some level there is "enough". The pool of investment capital will be allocated to more and more marginal areas as it increases.

With an economy experiencing lots of demand, because, say, unemployment benefits were extended, the capital to supply goods to meet that demand will be found.

Selective "recognition" of UN rulings legitmacy

[scupper]

It's interesting how the US, and many of it's citizens, selectively "recognize" UN authority and legitmacy, as in this case with the "UN Sanctions against Yugoslavia" and Bobby Fisher's case. When it's convenient politically to the US government, the UN is a righteous body of nations whose sanctions are tantimount US law. When it's not convenient, and the UN members don't please US leaders, it's inferred they are incompetent, scammming third world tour guides trying to screw the American People.

Re:Selective "recognition" of UN rulings legitmacy

[jlanthripp]

Actually, I'm a US citizen, and I've never thought of the UN as anything other than scammers bent on screwing the American People.

They're not exactly incompetent though, as they've managed to get the US to foot the bill for pretty much everything of consequence they've ever done. And the US, despite providing quite a bit of the most expensive real estate on planet Earth for the UN's office space, despite providing virtually all the manpower ever used to enforce UN policies, despite paying in blood for the UN's fuckups, still owes UN dues!

The only reason I don't want to see the US withdraw from the UN (and cease all foreign aid to banana republic dictators, etc. etc.) is because at this point in the game it would just make matters even worse.

Re:Selective "recognition" of UN rulings legitmacy

[scupper]

So am I!

A response to everyone...

[Anita Coney]

Everyone who responded negatively to my posting argued exactly the same thing: What Bobby Fischer did was against the law, he knew it was against the law, so he should be punished for violating the law.

While that is technically true, none of you stopped to consider that maybe, just maybe, the law was wrong.

For example, imagine if there was a law that stated that anyone wearing plaid would be shot on sight. The next day thousands are shot dead for wearing plaid. It was the law, they knew it was the law, and they were punished. Would any of you agree that justice was served?! I sure in hell hope not!

Re:A response to everyone...

[echucker]

Never happen. Dead men don't wear plaid.

income taxes aren't the only taxes

[JimmytheGeek]

Poor people pay more tax as a proportion of income than the rich do.

Payroll and sales tax and state/local taxes more than make up the difference.

http://www.ctj.org/html/whopays.htm

You pay $33k/year in *payroll* tax? Not income tax? I'm not familiar with your finances - could you clarify or confirm? There could certainly be a pariah industry singled out by the tax code for the reverse cashmir producer treatment, but it sounds odd.

Re:income taxes aren't the only taxes

[danheskett]

You pay $33k/year in *payroll* tax? Not income tax? I'm not familiar with your finances - could you clarify or confirm? There could certainly be a pariah industry singled out by the tax code for the reverse cashmir producer treatment, but it sounds odd.
Payroll tax is everything that the government takes out of your paycheck: Federal Income Tax, State Income Tax, Local Income Tax (yes, my city has an income tax!), FICA, Social Security, Unemployment insurance, etc. It is, excluding voluntary contributions, everything that is the difference between net pay and gross pay.

Poor people pay more tax as a proportion of income than the rich do.
I know, and it's shameful. However, two points. When you make little money, any amount of tax will be a big amount of your income. Sales tax, excise, use taxes - even small ones - will be a big percentage. Obviously when you make more that $5 use tax isn't so big, or that toll isn't so big.

If you read my original post, I am talking specifically about income tax. I agree that the myraid of other taxes we have should be better structured. It is my opinion that if you are in poverty or below the poverty line, you should pay zero taxes on essential things. No income taxes, no sales tax on non-crap (ie, clothes no tax, designer clothes, yes; healthy food no, beer and red bull, yes), no excise tax, etc. As that person rises out of poverty that taxes they must pay can be layered in one at a time.

Re:lotto money

[jadavis]

Another crucial, crucial element is choice. Why can't we allow people to take their money out of a public school in the form of a voucher and go elsewhere? If public school are so great, it shouldn't matter, right? Some voucher programs only allow you to take a fraction of the average per-student cost, and we can't even have that as a choice.

Why can't we give students a choice?

A better basketball analogy

[Pac]

A basketball game akin to random chess pieces stating places would be to randomly choose the place for each the basket just before the game starts. It would prevent the same things Fischer wants to prevent, the use of long established defence and attack formations. Imagine a basketball game with the two baskets side by side at the middle of the court.

Re:A better basketball analogy

[k4w0ru]

That would be awesome!

I'd probably then watch a game if that's how it would be played,.....maybe.

inflationary 1970's was due to oil shocks

[JimmytheGeek]

when the cost of a large component of the economy (energy) quadruples, inflation results.

The deficit spending related to Great Society programs + Vietnam War were quite small compared to the Reagan deficits. The Reagan deficits weren't hugely inflationary. They didn't come at a time of full employment, which would affect the degree of inflationary pressure, but the example/comparison is useful.

Government spending is a piece of the economy. Some studies believe it is less effective a stimulous than consumer spending. I haven't reviewed them, but I'm willing to believe that.

Oh, and Fisher was a genius! I saw this movie where they were comparing a kid to him! (now we're back on topic...)

Re:Changed the view of the US? - REAGAN spent???

[winwar]

Uh, huh. Time to feed a troll...

And the poor guy just had no choice but to sign the budget... Oh, and if you SIGN the budget, you do APPROVE it. In other words, Reagan (and Bush) APPROVED all of those budgets.

Oh, and lowering tax rates did not double tax revenues within a few years (unless of course your few years is different than mine..). Fiscal year revenue for the government in 1981 (current dollars) was about 599 million. In 1989, 991 million. You do the math.

In other words, you are wrong. But remember kids, never let the facts get in the way of your beliefs.

Babies and Bathwater.

[h4rm0ny]

Bobby Fisher is an awe-inspiring person. He may be considered mentally ill in some terms, for example his irrational anti-semitism, perhaps even more unusual in a Jewish person.

However, only a small proportion of the world's population even have the ability to really comprehend how good he is, let alone rival him.

The scary thing is that in the modern US (and increasingly in the UK), if a child like him emerged he would probably be treated with drugs and counseling to make him 'normal.'

I wouldn't recommend listening to his views on politics, but I'm glad nothing was done to deprive of us him as he is.

Re:Babies and Bathwater.

[jnicholson]

A good point, but possibly selfish. Maybe he would've been happier if he had been 'treated'. It's a point worth considering.

(OTOH, maybe he's happier as he is. There's no way of knowing.)

many more mistakes than that

[JimmytheGeek]

They cover a wide area:

math: Claiming X - Y (where both X and Y are > 0) = X in a televised debate. "Fuzzy math! Fuzzy math!" The topic was privatizing social security. Gore said, correctly, that diverting payments that go to current retirees to private accounts leaves a shortfall.

biology: doesn't believe in principle of evolution

statecraft: squandered goodwill after 9/11: went from state much sympathized to pariah state much feared.

statecraft 2: got in a land war in asia. They'll trade 2-10 for every one until we're done. We'll win every battle until we quit.

statecraft 3: didn't finish potentially winnable war in asia because of elective war in iraq.

governance: did not prevent torture from being used on those whose hearts and minds we're trying to win.

governance 2: did not anticipate any problems in Iraq. Every expert did. Went in cheap and sloppy.

character: lacks the humility and curiosity necessary to avoid the above mistakes. Leads to worse. For example, should have known that unsupervised, untrained 18 year olds will abuse authority. Or should have hired folks who knew that. Instead, encouraged abuse.

at a certain point, being an optimist equates to being a dumbass. We're long past that point with W.

Re:whose freedom did he remove?

[XunilOS]

To say this all in a much shorter form:

Capitalism works. QED.

Re:KKK most assuredly are Christian

[Probashi]

By the same logic you have used, muslims are not supposed to kill anyone other than in self defence, they are not even supposed to destroy properties or kill non-combatants while in a war. But, look the so called "Islamic Terroists" are doing just that. So, by your logic any old muslim can claim these are not "real" muslims!

read the article - he is a jew

[freddie]

you forgot to mention that since he is jewish. he must know what he is talking about.

Why

[Sloppy]

Why did we give government the power to outlaw a chess game? What did we get out of this?

Skewed distribution of neurons

[Atario]

Clearly, he used up most of his brain's neurons for the chess-playing portion, thus leaving too few for the not-being-crazy portion.

Misdistribution of neurons is a terrible thing.

They do too

[Atario]

Governments do play to a draw sometimes. Korea, anyone?

Not for playing chess but for making money

[Anonymous Coward]

The sanctions were about doing business there, and in my book a $3.3 million dollar deal constitutes big business. Nobody would have minded if he went there to play chess for free.

Hes not mentally ill.

[Adolph_Hitler]

The guy has a right to be paraniod, why don't you read his life story and see some of the stuff hes been through. Hes been running from the gov for over 10 years so of course hes going to be hating the USA. The USA wants to put him in prison with killers and rapists, wouldnt you hate the USA too?

The stuff about Jews, hes just using them as a scapegoat. The Jews happen to be successful at the game of capitalism and monopoly, plus they were his chess rivals all his life.

Wealthy capitalists kill too.

[Adolph_Hitler]

Look at what capitalists did to Africa, destroyed the whole country.

Capitalism only works for European countries. Asian countries like Japan lucked out, China is communist.

Name some countries which arent European which are successful at Capitalism, even Iraq is under our control now.

Re:Wealthy capitalists kill too.

[mi]

Look at what capitalists did to Africa, destroyed the whole country.

Africa is a continent, not a country. But I am talking about things done by a regime to its own, rather then foreign people.

Name some countries which arent European which are successful at Capitalism

India? Chile? Quatar? Costa Rica? Enough?

No? Ok, South Korea? Singapore? Taiwan? Oh, yes, they "lucked out" (whatever that means). New Zealand, Australia? Turkey?

Hypocrite US gov't violated the sanctions itself!

[mdecerbo]

It's really hypocritical that the US government can go after Bobby Fischer for violating the UN sanctions on the former Yugoslavia, when that same government was violating them on a massive scale.

And while Bobby was just playing a chess match, the Feds were shipping huge amounts of arms to their favorite players in the region, the separatist Bosnian Muslims. As the Guardian newspaper in England documented :

...the Pentagon had incurred debts to Islamist groups and their Middle Eastern sponsors. By 1993 these groups, many supported by Iran and Saudi Arabia, were anxious to help Bosnian Muslims fighting in the former Yugoslavia and called in their debts with the Americans. Bill Clinton and the Pentagon were keen to be seen as creditworthy and repaid in the form of an Iran-Contra style operation - in flagrant violation of the UN security council arms embargo against all combatants in the former Yugoslavia.

The result was a vast secret conduit of weapons smuggling though Croatia. This was arranged by the clandestine agencies of the US, Turkey and Iran... Initially aircraft from Iran Air were used, but as the volume increased they were joined by a mysterious fleet of black C-130 Hercules aircraft.

Just as the trial of Slobodan Milosevic is exposing the fact that most of the claims used to justify the US's Kosovo war were bogus, maybe poor Fischer's inevitable trial will expose the lies told to justify the Bosnian war.

Now that it's been revealed that al-Qaeda members were fighting for the Bosnian Muslims, maybe the USA will acknowledge their mistaken policy, apologize to poor Bobby, and let him go.

Yeah, right. Being an Empire means never having to say you're sorry.

Pat Robertson is a hate mongering slaver

[JimmytheGeek]

When he agreed with Falwell that 9/11 was the fault of the targets of his bigotry, that was hate-mongering. Why does he preach against homosexuality while giving Skippers and Long John Silvers - both notorious purveyors of shellfish - a pass? God hates shrimp!

I'm not sure its fair to equate the Aryan Nations and the 700 Club, but it is fair to denounce the 700 Club for its own sins.

By the way, Robertson supported Charles Taylor in Liberia, one of history's Bad Guys. Jesus wouldn't weep, he'd puke.

Re:Pat Robertson is a hate mongering slaver

[Archangel Michael]

God hates shrimp!

No, HE doesn't. He just called them what they are, bottom feeders, and told us not to eat them. Eat them if you want, but I won't.

And you are quite correct, Messiah would puke at the state of the church today. They have no idea what HIS teachings were.

They claim to want the Ten Commandments, but only believe in nine commandments and one legalistic suggestion, that if you do are denying the grace of GOD.

There are plenty of problems to go around. There are NONE without sin. None are perfect. Not even .... me.

But you see, the enemy has you focused on what is wrong, so much so that you cannot see what is right. By your own standards, you fail. But Grace allows for redemption beyond what you can fathom.

Re:Pat Robertson is a hate mongering slaver

[Archangel Michael]

You are giving yourself too much credit with your half evolved monkey's line. ;-)

Sports, Chess, Movies, Music

[PerpetualMotion]

Without the recreational activities that people have come to depend upon, society would collapse under each individuals' stress. We could pour ten times the amount of money from all those things into drugs and it would not make up for the simple pleasures that let people get through the day, and keep the world turning. Cancer is nothing compared to stress.

Its called the Laffer Curve

[darth_zeth]

http://www.investopedia.com/terms/l/laffercurve.as p

it basically says that at a certain point, rate increases equal revenue decreases.

of course, the economy is more complex then just that picture, so if you happen to move closer to the T rate, other economic factors might mean a decrease in revenue, or vice versa.

Re:Here's your answers, chucklehead.

[Archangel Michael]

The New Testament repeatedly stresses that no human being can judge who is and who is not a Christian

One verse theology, well it is a start.

Gal 5:19 Now the works of the flesh are manifest, which are [these]; Adultery, fornication, uncleanness, lasciviousness,

Gal 5:20 Idolatry, witchcraft, hatred, variance, emulations, wrath, strife, seditions, heresies

Gal 5:21 Envyings, murders, drunkenness, revellings, and such like: of the which I tell you before, as I have also told [you] in time past, that they which do such things shall not inherit the kingdom of God.

Gal 5:22 But the fruit of the Spirit is love, joy, peace, longsuffering, gentleness, goodness, faith,

Gal 5:23 Meekness, temperance: against such there is no law.

Or how about this on Hate.

Mat 5:43 Ye have heard that it hath been said, Thou shalt love thy neighbour, and hate thine enemy.

Mat 5:44 But I say unto you, Love your enemies, bless them that curse you, do good to them that hate you, and pray for them which despitefully use you, and persecute you;

Mat 5:45 That ye may be the children of your Father which is in heaven: for he maketh his sun to rise on the evil and on the good, and sendeth rain on the just and on the unjust.

Mat 5:46 For if ye love them which love you, what reward have ye? do not even the publicans the same?

Mat 5:47 And if ye salute your brethren only, what do ye more [than others]? do not even the publicans so?

Mat 5:48 Be ye therefore perfect, even as your Father which is in heaven is perfect.

(See also Luke 6)

All of the groups you mention don't live according to the words of the Messiah, they hate. I can judge them for scripture tells me exactly what to look for. The problem is, that claiming faith doesn't make it so.

Mat 7:15 Beware of false prophets, which come to you in sheep's clothing, but inwardly they are ravening wolves.

Mat 7:16 Ye shall know them by their fruits. Do men gather grapes of thorns, or figs of thistles?

Mat 7:17 Even so every good tree bringeth forth good fruit; but a corrupt tree bringeth forth evil fruit.

Mat 7:18 A good tree cannot bring forth evil fruit, neither [can] a corrupt tree bring forth good fruit.

Mat 7:19 Every tree that bringeth not forth good fruit is hewn down, and cast into the fire.

Mat 7:20 Wherefore by their fruits ye shall know them.

Mat 7:21 Not every one that saith unto me, Lord, Lord, shall enter into the kingdom of heaven; but he that doeth the will of my Father which is in heaven.

Mat 7:22 Many will say to me in that day, Lord, Lord, have we not prophesied in thy name? and in thy name have cast out devils? and in thy name done many wonderful works?

Mat 7:23 And then will I profess unto them, I never knew you: depart from me, ye that work iniquity.

Why do YOU feel qualified to judge them - do you remember what Jesus said about judging others' sins?

I don't judge sin, not my place. I judge the works and the fruit it bears. I know it is confusing to people like you who actually think those two are the same thing. But life is a little more complicated that the distillers of truth want it to be. They would much rather come up with catchy WWJD phrases, not actually doing what He did.

Care to try again?

Re:Here's your answers, chucklehead.

[Archangel Michael]

What damages to society do you think I advocate? I am pro life, anti death penalty. I am against murder, hate.

However I will stand for Truth, willing to die (not kill) for my faith. What do you believe in so strongly that you will die for it?

You know nothing about me or my faith. But you are partially right. I am not normal. I am not crazy except by the worlds standards, and if that is the basis of my judgement, I will be happy on that day. Let it be know that I am a peculiar person.

Re:Changed the view of the US? - REAGAN spent???

[2short]

"Need I remind you that the Executive Branch does NOT approve the budget"

Need I remind you that, in reality, the Executive Branch DOES approve the budget?

"Everyone also knows that lowering tax rates during the 80s doubled tax revenues within a few years"

Everyone who "knows" this is smoking crack. It is not true. Tax revenues under Reagan increased only very slightly. I would attribute that increase less to his tax cuts and more to his spending (by which I mean the spending he both proposed in the first place and signed into law.) In any case, Reagans policies did not pay for themselves; they drove us into debt faster than anyone before by an order of magnitude.

GWB is now trying to best Reagans fiscal-irresponsibility record, and it looks like he'll succeed. It boggles my mind that seemingly inteligent people can advance the notion that his tax cuts will make the economy grow faster and make up for his spending. If we keep his tax and spending rates, the economy will have to start growing faster than it ever has before, and keep doing so forever. It's not going to happen.

Re:Here's your answers, chucklehead.

[Archangel Michael]

Mat 7:20 Wherefore by their fruits ye shall know them.

I guess you are assuming a Once Saved Always Saved Theology of modern churchianity. I don't make that assumption. I don't believe a one time profession of faith gets anyone anywhere, let alone into the Kingdom.

There is no "Raise your hand, goto heaven" verse in scripture, yet it is taught from the pulpits all the time.

No, on the other hand there is plenty of passages that speak to enduring till the end, obedience in faith etc, none of which is preached in mainstream churches.

Instead they preach prosperity doctrine of grace onlyism, with Pretrib Rapture theology thrown in. It is a simple case of one verse theology and bad prophecy interpretation.

If you are curious, I will point you to my website. But only if you ask.

same reason for gladiatorial combat; Blood

[Anonymous Coward]

the violence and competition in sports and the mindlessness of rooting for a champion. what you think human nature has changed much in only a paltry 1000 years? especially after that little setback we call the dark ages...

Re:Here's your answers, chucklehead.

[Archangel Michael]

Pro-Life, as in ALL human life is sacred, unborn and abortionist.

Mat 25:40 And the King shall answer and say unto them, Verily I say unto you, Inasmuch as ye have done [it] unto one of the least of these my brethren, ye have done [it] unto me.

Who are the least except those that have no voice? I pity abortion doctors. They are sad, and in need of redemption. Redemption is impossible when they are dead.

Re:Correct. Further...

[LordLucless]

That would be Moreta, Dragonlady of Pern. I don't think he was necessarily an idiot savant; he just had perfect recall. McCaffrey seems to have a little bit of an obsession with perfect recall - half of her characters seem to have it. All the crystal singers and all the prime talents were supposed to have perfect recall. I like some of McCaffrey's stuff, but after a while, it all ends up being the same. I think she only has two or three distinct characters in all her works; most of the time you could transplant people from one series to another and not notice any difference.

Re:lotto money

[bobv-pillars-net]

... New Jersey Lottery actually sends money to private schools ...

Thereby turning them into public schools, with all the attendant disincentives to excellence.

... Private schools qualify their students.

Students qualify themselves. Or if you prefer, their parents do. I'm an individualist, not a socialist. I don't believe that "society" is a sentient being, with responsibility for caring for its poor. Allow people to fail and some will choose to succeed. Remove the possibility of failure and none of them will succeed.

You think there are people spending 5-10 grand a year on lotto?

Not before working at 7-11, I didn't.

Maybe you should try living on some of the public assistance programs and see how much fun it is "freeloading" off of everyone else.

I'd rather starve. I came close, once.

Result: you (all) got owned

[RoboProg]

This is so off topic, but...

Yes, CEO money recirculates through the economy, directed as the "great ones" will direct it.

However, it is *their* money, and lending it out or buying up shares just means the rest of us, or the new companies are started, are indebedted / flat-out-owned, by them. If that does not bother you, good. Some of us are more ill socially adjusted, though, and resent being indentured servants. :-)

Re:Correct. Further...

[Buran]

Wow, someone recognized the book! Great! :)

You do have a point about the fact that many of her characters have perfect recall, which makes me think, as I write this, of how common eidetic memory (or heightened memory) really is in the general population, and whether it's really tied to autism and Asperger's as I've seen other commenters say. (I'm not doubting them; I just don't know the answer.) Next time I read the book, though, I'll pay more attention to whether the man seems autistic or might have Asperger's (I know someone who was diagnosed with it and he's described the symptoms/effects to me before.)

I've always thought that Moreta herself was modeled after Amelia Earheart. I've seen a painting of her in a book called "People of Pern" and she's the spitting image of Amelia even down to the leather jacket and aviator's cap and flying goggles ("Curse you, Red Baron!") from WWI and the 20s-30s. And they both did disappear after round-the-world flights (on the last leg of the trip, no less) after overextending tolerance levels too far, and no trace of either was ever found. (There are plans, though, to search for Amelia's Electra on the ocean bottom near Howland Island.)

I didn't think all of McCaffrey's stuff ended up being the same ... not too much so ... though sometimes it did seem like some of the premises of some of the series were being stretched a little thin. Putting it all down and coming back to it some years later seems to have helped out, though I still prefer the earlier Pern books over the newer ones. (That's not considering the fact that there's still a problem of "the war is over, what do we do with the soldiers?" that makes later Pern books just not as ... compelling. Frankly, it's always going to be more interesting to write about going to war than it is to write about the relatively boring stuff that happens once everybody goes back home and there's no need for a large military anymore and there are no battles).

Her son Todd is now writing some Pern books (Dragon's Kin was interesting, if not as engrossing as some of the other books, and now he's writing one called Dragon's Eye, which I'll check out from the library when it comes out.)

Re:whose freedom did he remove?

[maxpublic]

By the way, I'm not going to say that all US aid money is bad; the Marshall plan after WWII was one of the best examples of enlightened self-interest in recent times. The recent stuff I'm not so impressed with.

It's too bad I'm not President then, because if I were I'd put an end to all foreign aid of any kind, for any reason. Not a single U.S. tax dollar would be spent on foreign aid during my administration.

If private U.S. citizens wished to VOLUNTARILY donate to charities and npo's of their own accord, then more power to them. But forcing people to donate whether they wish to or not, at the point of a gun, is spitting in the face of personal liberty and choice.

Of course, I'd just LOVE to see what the rest of the world would say once the U.S. gravy train came to a dead halt....

Max

OT: Um, no, you're the biggest idiot...

[Big Sean O]

If you read his sig, you would notice he's invoking us to impeach bush. Methinks he's no fan of the Republicans.

You're a fool for thinking that every American thinks like Bush/Cheney/Rumsfeld. You owe him an apology.

Is transhumanism the art of being belligerent and paranoid? If so, you are indeed a master...

Re:OT: Um, no, you're the biggest idiot...

[Master of Transhuman]

I don't owe anybody an apology who can't clearly communicate what he means. I read the post as straight forward. If it was intended as sarcasm or satire, let him say so.

I don't think most Americans think like Bush - I know they do. That, however, is not ALL Americans. Since I happen to be one, that fact is proven.

HAHA

[PixelRebel]

Don't we all...

We're veering way off topic - carry on!

[JimmytheGeek]

I don't believe that humans can transmit the word of God perfectly, any more than they can do anything else perfectly. Both old and new testaments were assembled in a process startlingly similar to that used to create modern day Mission Statements - and we know how unholy those are. So a literal interpretation of any text is, for me, a non-starter. I don't actually think it's logically possible, leaving aside various contradictions in the text. Words have such flexibility, ideas such nuance, that a "literal" interpretation is inherently "that which accords with what I think anyway" much of the time. It's like the flap about "activist" judges: a strict constructionist is one that supports a strong executive in the years 1980-1992, and 2000-2004. It has no other, operative meaning. So a fundamentalist relying on a "literal" basis in the text is actually being naive or disingenuous.

I'll grant that it's pedantic to dispute the literal meaning of "love your God", but there's a lot of doctrine coming out of a lot of people's mouths, and I'm sure they're not prophets. So what are they doing telling me what's on God's mind? Urge me to seek to know that mind, sure. Presume to speak on God's behalf? The recent exhortation of the U.S. VP to Sen. Lahey come to mind.

statute of limitations on this "violation?"

[MMHere]

This was 12 years ago; many infractions have a statute of limitations of 10 years.

Does this?

How about this?

[quintessent]

If we're going to fight terrorism, let's fight terrorism. Unfortunately, most of the U.S.'s resources are tied up in Iraq. "Terrorism" has become a buzz-word to justify attacking whatever nation happens to be on the president's shit-list.

If we had concentrated on Bin Laden for more than 5 minutes, we would have had him a long time ago. Military specialists who were tracking him were transfered to Iraq.

Re:Correct. Further...

[LordLucless]

My brother was one of the first in Australia diagnosed with Aspergus; the doctor he went to read the original notes in German, before they were translated into English and widely disseminated into the medical community. That said, I myself am not much of an expert on the disease. He does have a better memory than average, but I think that is partially in compensation for lack of literary skills; he cannot read or write to any great extent, and has trouble with symbols and abstracts; anything he remembers, he remembers by analogy to concrete things, not as an abstract system. He's not an eidetic by any stretch.

When I talked about McCaffrey's stuff being all the same, I was talking mostly about her characers - especially her female characters. For a writer who took a stand against over-stereotyped women in science fiction (which was what Restoree was supposed to do), her own characters are very similar to each other. Look at Killashandra from the Crystal Singer trilogy, Lessa and Moreta from Pern and Rowan from the Tower and Hive - they're all strong-willed, all looking for a strong man, all mercurial, quick to anger, quick to take action. Then there's Brekke, and Menolly from Pern, Goswina from Tower and Hive, Ruth Horvath from the Talents; they're all submissive, loving, gentle, kind, etc. As I read her books, I can't help but think that Killishandra is really Lessa with a name change. Her concepts are usually pretty good, although I found the "Freedom" books fairly ho-hum. I love the Crystal Singer trilogy though.

Checkmate...

[Dark Coder]

Need we say more?

Wikipedia reference

[zyche]

Here is the definition of semitic. Seems to support the fact.

WHAT!?

[NidStyles]

Yeah, because us average people can afford to even fly.

Re:Back to the USSRA

[fordboy0]

It's like the "DUI Checkpoints" that we have here in OH. On one fairly recent weekend, a small suburb of Cincinnati pulled over 2500 cars. Out of the 2500, they got 3 DUIs and "hundreds" of other infractions ranging from expired tags to possession of mary jane. Oh, and one "wanted" individual (bench warrant). Nice to see that they are keeping the streets safe.

If you are in line for one of these checkpoints, you do not have the capability of turning around and going another way, as you will be followed and pulled over.

Right at the moment, they have to announce the location and timeframe of these checkpoints on local media. It's not a far stretch to say that a rash of alcohol-related accidents (a statistical blip) would be enough for the state to change that law.

It's scary to think that people don't see the wrong in this type of behavior.

-FB

We are going to be ruled over either way.

[Adolph_Hitler]

Would you prefer to be ruled by some communist psychopaths or some capitalist psychopaths? It doesnt make a difference because its the same damn people running your life no matter what economic system you use.

The only difference is the capitalist system before it turned global was benefiting at least some of us. Socialism is the key, without it capitalism is no better than communism.

Re:We are going to be ruled over either way.

[mi]

Would you prefer to be ruled by some communist psychopaths or some capitalist psychopaths?

Neither system is necessarily psychopathic. In a capitalistic democracy, however, changing the government is entirely possible. Capitalistic democracies also tend to exist because people prefer them, while communist regimes have to rely on constant indoctrination and suppression.

Socialism is the key, without it capitalism is no better than communism.

I escaped socialism, which I was born into. Before I see it imposed on me again, I'll fight it -- including, if need be, hanging its advocates on lamp posts, where they belong.

And before you start on the "but the rest of civilized world is socialistic" road, here is a quote for you:

When we get piled upon one another in large cities, as in Europe, we shall become as corrupt as Europe.

Thomas Jefferson

Re:whose freedom did he remove?

[Dogtanian]

It's too bad I'm not President then, because if I were I'd put an end to all foreign aid of any kind, for any reason. Of course, I'd just LOVE to see what the rest of the world would say once the U.S. gravy train came to a dead halt....

I'd assume your definition of aid included (for example) military support of your allies, Israel, Saudi Arabia, etc. If not, why not?

As for the rest, I think the rest of the world would say "Mmm.. no. I don't think that we *will* let them use our airspace to invade XYZland", "No, we won't implement those pro-capitalist reforms, fuck off Haliburton and friends", "Let's resume our nuclear weap... I mean power program after all", etc.

What makes you think we have a democracy?

[Adolph_Hitler]

We have a republic/plutocracy. Capitalism rules over democracy right now. The government is run by special interests.

The only way you can control this government is with money, not votes.

"I escaped socialism, which I was born into. Before I see it imposed on me again, I'll fight it -- including, if need be, hanging its advocates on lamp posts, where they belong."

Why the hell would someone leave Canada or Europe where you can get paid even when you don't have a job and get a free college education, healthcare, etc to come to this country where you won't get shit for free and most likely have to struggle and work twice as hard? I don't see your point. Maybe you are thinking of communism under a government like China, which is basically no better than a plutocracy capitalist government like this one. To me they are both run by the same individuals.

What I'm saying is socialism and populism are both better than Communism and Capitalist Plutocracy,

Capitalism and Communism reward psychopaths while other systems like socialism play a robin hood and rob the people in power to support the people who arent. This means socialism benefits the majority.

If you are against public schools, free healthcare, and other free stuff, you are insane or you are a psychopath.

Re:What makes you think we have a democracy?

[mi]

We have a republic/plutocracy.

Sorry, I disagree with the "plutocracy" part. Republic is the best system currently known to me, where the ills of "straight" Democracy and monarchy (strong executive) are mitigated by the rule of law and the general "checks and balances".

The only way you can control this government is with money, not votes.

The same is said just as often about your favorite socialistic heavens of Canada and Europe.

If you are against public schools, free healthcare, and other free stuff, you are insane or you are a psychopath.

And I vote.

We are plutocracy.

[Adolph_Hitler]

Why isnt marijuana legal in the USA? It's legal in Europe and Canadian socialist countries. Why? Because the companies who sell pills which do essentially the same thing would go out of business if we could grow our own medicine.

This country is run by money, every decision the president makes has to do with some special interest group, some lobby group, or some money issue.

Yes Europe and Canada are corrupt too, but not so corrupt that the citizens come second after the special interest groups like in this country. In Canada the laws are better and allow more freedom, and in places such as the netherlands theres more freedom. In this country the government actually decides its laws based on who gives them the money.

Filesharing is legal in Canada, Marijuana is legal in Canada, everyone gets free healthcare in Canada. The government is spending money and doing things which benefit the people instead of things which benefit some company or industry. That is the difference.

So enjoy your over priced medicines, enjoy your wars with middle eastern countries, and enjoy losing your freedoms one by one all in the name of protecting capitalism or some stupid industry.

Republics are better than no democracy at all but don't confuse this with true democracy. Do not assume that the popular vote means anything and that the people matter. If you run an important business and you have a lot of pull,then you matter and you can help design laws.

This country is not the most free, we don't treat our people as good as other countries with less money, and we do stupid shit just to protect industries and established businesses. This is our problem, we rank capitalism higher than human life, we rank it higher than education, freedom, everything.

Re:We are plutocracy.

[mi]

So, your argument for socialism is the legality of marijuana and "free" healthcare?

Marijuana is only legal is Holland -- and with plenty of strings attached. The healthcare is never free, the money is taken from taxes -- the work, which can pay for its own healthcare, is being taxed to console the idleness -- you end up with less work and more idleness -- inevitably. This is exactly the opposite of how I like it, and this is why I live here now.

If you run an important business and you have a lot of pull,then you matter and you can help design laws.

And I think, this is a great feature of this country's political system (others have it too, BTW). This is not "plutocracy" -- plutocracy implies illegality.

This is our problem, we rank capitalism higher than human life, we rank it higher than education, freedom, everything.

Because without wealth, there is no |"education, freedom, everything" -- not for long, anyway.

Re:We are plutocracy.

[Adolph_Hitler]

"Marijuana is only legal is Holland -- and with plenty of strings attached. The healthcare is never free, the money is taken from taxes -- the work, "

Poor use of words by me. Healthcare is never free, but everyone has healthcare because its universal. Taxes should pay for stuff like this if anything. The right to good health is just as important as national security. Why the hell should we spend a fortune on the military to protect ourselves if we can't even protect ourselves from illness? You think the average homeless American gives a damn about Al Qaeda?

Marijuana is legal in Holland, in Canada its decriminalized to the point where no one goes to jail for it so its practically legal. Yes there should be some type of regulation. Marijuana should be legal but regulated.

"And I think, this is a great feature of this country's political system (others have it too, BTW). This is not "plutocracy" -- plutocracy implies illegality."

How is it a good thing when capitalism influences and corrupts democracy? That's basically what happens. The public interests vs the special interests and usually the special interests win.

"Because without wealth, there is no |"education, freedom, everything" -- not for long, anyway."

That's where you are wrong. Plenty of people do not have wealth yet manage to educate themselves, manage to have more freedom than you do, and some of them live in the USA(people like me.)

You have freedom? Yeah you have freedom on the weekends. What you have is freedom with strings attached. Wealth is not really important in life, wealth will not make a person happy, money is not more important than time, and you have to eventually make a choice. Do you want to spend your life worrying about making money? Or do you want live stress free and spend time with people you care about doing the things you enjoy?

Most of the time, capitalism actually seems to restrict a persons freedom. Jobs consume lots of our time and tie us down, most jobs arent all that great and they don't pay much money. There's no motivation at all for a person such as me. What do I get out of that investment?

Socialism is required because some people don't want to live just to make money and people like us should have a right to live in that way just like the psychopath CEO has a right to live to make money. Socialism simply allows two possible lifestyles and under socialism if you havent noticed theres less crime, less gangs, less people in prison, etc.

There should be basics that everyone should have as a right. The right to food and water, the right to shelter, and the right to other essentials like an education, healthcare, etc. Taxes should pay for this stuff and it should be a priority.

There's no way we can ever have full employment and even if we did have full employment theres no way everyone could have a good job they'd be happy with, so we need at least a floor on capitalism so people who simply arent in the game of trying to get rich can still live a peaceful life without having to do illegal stuff or hustle to make ends meet.

Re:We are plutocracy.

[mi]

Why the hell should we spend a fortune on the military to protect ourselves if we can't even protect ourselves from illness?

We do spend on health care and we do protect ourselves from illness. But we don't channel this money through the government to be "redistributed" back to us. And that is how I like it -- whatever the government does, it does poorly. Some things simply can not be done outside the government (kernel if you know operating systems) -- like armed forces. "For everything else, there is" free market (user-space). Most (all?) ills you can point at in the current sub-free market's health care are attributable to the government's meddling -- done at the insistence of the demos like you, mostly...

An "average homeless" may not care about al Qaeda, but I, frankly, don't care about this faceless average homeless. It continues to puzzle me greatly, how can anyone continue to have any sympathy for the people, who -- despite being born and raised in this country -- stay in the gutter, while others -- including the truly poor fresh immigrants -- manage to acquire substantial wealth through industry and frugality.

And if you do feel sympathy for the "average homeless" -- fine, great. Just don't force me to pay for his food, shelter, healthcare.

Plenty of people do not have wealth yet manage to educate themselves, manage to have more freedom than you do, and some of them live in the USA (people like me.)

Only because the rest of the society is wealthy enough.

Sorry, your "I have to work, therefore I'm not free" argument has been beaten to death in many other discussions over the decades -- I don't have patience to spend the weekend arguing with a spoiled American, who values not the greatness of his/her own country nor the wealth of opportunities it presents him.

Socialism is required because some people don't want to live just to make money and people like us should have a right to live in that way

No law nor government is stopping you now from working less... Whereas with socialism, I will be obligated (by tax code) to pay for your healthcare, because you chose to work less.

What lamp-post would you prefer?

Deviant of Oscar Levant Quote

[dbretton]

-At least acknowledge it.-

Re:whose freedom did he remove?

[Discoflamingo13]

Most foreign aid is done because it is in the best domestic interest of the US. Example: We'll pay for a school in the Middle East so that students don't go to a madrasa (so they don't become terrorists).

Engineers paid more than athletes

[mec]

I believe the 1,000 highest-paid engineers in the United States make more than the 1,000 highest-paid athletes.

At his peak, Michael Jordan made about $30 million per year.

David Filo owns $1.3 billion of Yahoo stock. That's 40 years of Michael Jordan's peak earnings. Jerry Yang owns $2 billion of Yahoo stock. That's 60 years of Michael Jordan's peak earnings. And that's at todays prices, not the bubble prics.

And there's a lot more Filos and Yangs out there than there are Jordans.

I think the mistake here is to compare "rich famous athlete" with "average engineer". Try comparing "rich athletes" with "rich engineers".

"... who contribute NOTHING to society ..."

Oh, are you talking about John Carmack?

It's not your place to decide whether other people are getting value for their money when they CHOOSE to watch Michael Jordan or buy stuff with his name and picture on it.

Re:lotto money

[jadavis]

...but the school would lose money and lose a student, so the per-student money the school has would be the same.

In fact, most voucher systems would actually only take a part away, meaning the school would actually have more money per-student.

I don't believe that giving the failing public schools more money will fix them. California has just about the highest per-student funding in the world, and just about the lowest test results. I haven't seen much evidence that spending more money causes a better education.

I say it's time we let students take their money elsewhere. Not only will the students who leave benefit (after all, why would they leave if the public schools are so great?), but also the remaining kids at the public school. The public school would have more money per-student (or at least the same), and would then be forced to shape up to compete with the private schools.

"Most free"?!

[empaler]

I'm not even going to go into that. Shit.
Except one thing (which predates recent amendments to the US constitution):
I can say "Wouldn't it be fun to see our prime minister get shot", and no federal agents would come knocking on my door.

What I will get into is this:
I gladly demonize the wealthy - I demonize everyone I see as morally fucked up. I mean, there are human beings who are starving to death while we're writing this, but if I look out my window, I'll see cars that cost more than two dozen Sudanese families make in five years. That really pisses me off.
I live in one of the most heavily taxated countries in the world - and I feel fine about it. If I break my leg? No problem! My health insurance is included in my taxes. If it turns out that my knee has become useless, and I can't work? I get disability and benefits. If I get terminal cancer? No fuss with the insurance company about how much my insurance covers.

And oh yeah, what made America rich is imperialistic war, just like the old european countries before. Jeez. You should study history and other political isms more closely before just letting the propaganda-machine rip.

Oh, and get an account.

Geography

[dolmen.fr]

"The sanctions were imposed on Yugoslavia for provoking warfare in neighboring Bosnia-Herzegovina."

I hope one day, US journalists will learn geography...
FYI, Bosnia-Herzegovina is a part of former Yugoslavia. Not a neighboor.

In the other side....

[jotaeleemeese]

.... I was witness of how the Cuban goverment can be.

I was taken a Java programming course in Mexico with a Cuban born instructor, she had the misfortune that her father, still living in Cuba, died while she was on exile.

One day she started crying for no apparent reason (that was the size of her pain), then she apologized and explained to us that the Cuban goverment had not allowed her to go to Cuba for her father's funeral.

The US blockade is an unspeakable, unnecessary crime, morally, politically and economically (we know how much the US goverment cares about human rights and communisms when dealing with China) but that does not mean that cold hearteness is limited to one side.

Intellectual sport? US football?

[jotaeleemeese]

You must be joking.

If you don't have the smae height and weight as your opponents you may be grat technically and tachtically, but any mediocre team with bigger players will roll over you.

Very intellectual.

Is Spassky USian?

[jotaeleemeese]

I firmly believe he is not, but I may be mistaken, but most likely he was not at the time of the game.

Please note that many countries do not impose stringent sanctions on their nationals for undertakings of the goverment (like economic sanctions).

Probably a stupid question, but:

[tobar mersa]

How are Unionized workers bad for an economy?

Re:Probably a stupid question, but:

[Smeagel]

Because in a society where supply and demand are truly working, the value of a worker will be set by the demand for him. In such, if there are too many workers, they will not get paid like they wish, but if they unionize then that doesn't mean that all the workers will get paid more, what it means is that many workers won't get jobs, because the same amount of money has to go to less people. In the end is it truly profitable that now the government has to take more taxes off of your union job so that it can give money to those who currently can't get a job? Unions kill supply and demand, and kill jobs. On top of that Unions offer security to a point where they can foster laziness. Sometimes it's good to have fear for one's job (it certainly makes me work harder, and in turn I usually get rewarded for that hard work). Though there is one indeniable fact, if you can join a union: do it. All economists that I've had to study agree on this. If you're purely out for your own good, and you can join a union, you will indeniably profit from being in one.

Re:Probably a stupid question, but:

[orin]

One of the reasons for the booms last century was that there was a sense that once you had a job, there was a fair chance of keeping it. Now, for example, having children is a risk - how can you responsibly care about the upbringing of a child when you can't be certain that you'll even be employed next month?

I wonder if you'll be peddling the same line in 15 years. Job insecurity below 35 is fine - but you can't build a stable civilisation when people of child bearing age don't settle down because they are unsure where the next paycheque is coming from.

Supply and Demand doesn't and will not ever "truly work" because it rests on a whole lot of unattainable assumptions.

Yes Batman....

[jotaeleemeese]

... but are you doing exactly the same job? Or are you bossing around Robin and Batgirl?

It does not make any sense to sense "yeah I earn loads more" if your position changed from toilett cleaner to CEO on the intervenieng time....

ME: rolls eyes on disbelief...

[jotaeleemeese]

I have worked in 7 different countries and visited many more, I have worked with muslims, xians, atheists, jews, budhists, hinduists and even a few animists.

I can confidently say that what you need is to meet more people and to fine tune your selectivness when stereotyping people, since one could easily change jews for any other group of people in your little tirade and you would find somebody agreeing with you.

Re:ME: rolls eyes on disbelief...

[MarcQuadra]

Hmm. I just read my post and realized that it didn't sound AT ALL like I meant it to.

What I meant to say was that the guy may have had the stereotype confirmed for him in a way that set him off and closed him off.

Another important thing is that I KNOW I don't have the authority to make sweeping generalizations, as evidenced by my: ...I don't have a big-enough sample, I can say that my experience so far...

It's just been my experience, two-for-two in a set of five. Whatever, it's not like I'm about to shave my head and strap on boots, just prefer to work for christians (based on experience so far). I prefer to live with women too, because I've had good experiences so far compared to living with men, it doesn't make me sexist though.

As for the comment about the 'socially acceptable slurs', every culture has people who run around doing that. I lived with Indians for a while and they wouldn't stop cursing Pakistanis, my Armenian relatives still curse Turks, etc. What bothers me is that the climate in America right now tolerates the stereotypical Jewish contempt for Arabs, nobody bats an eye.

So I hope I cleared myself up a bit. I came off very different than I intended, and I was feeling a bit angry when I posted that.

I probably scared Jared real good too. (coworker, reads my posts sometimes)

The only obvious thing is your ignorance.

[jotaeleemeese]

To be extradited there needs to be a treaty between two countries and a set of rigurous conditions is stablished (for example some countries would not extradite people to a place where the person in question may face the death penalty for the alleged crime).

A deportation does not require any treaties since it is a country just deciding one person is not fit to travel for whatever reason and the normal procedure is to send that person to his country of origin.

Don't be idiotic.

[jotaeleemeese]

Any treaty signed between country becomes international law.

You don't necessarily need a supranational govement to recognize a body of mutually recognized legal principles.

Israel in practice can do pretty much whatever they want, but this is only allowed by the uncompromissing and unquestioning support of the US that almost never puts objections to the motives and morality of Israel's policies; but pretty much any legal hawk versed in international law will tell you that Israel is breaking more international laws that would be practical to cite here.

You win by K.O..

[jotaeleemeese]

The straw man you punched is throwing the towell. It is a shame you id it after putting so much love building it.

Why are people so dense?

[jotaeleemeese]

Now, correct me if I'm wrong, but sexual relations (the legal def as intercourse or otherwise!) by a boss with an underling is essentially the essence of sexual harrassment right?

Since you ask, you are wrong.

Only in the mentality of the US Christian Ayathollas it is comparable to have a blow job and try to hide it to sacrifiying thousends of lives based on false pretenses.

I know which politician did something about peace and combating terrorism (Clinton in Northern Ireland, or pushing the Middleast peace process, that only failed due to the pigheadness of ARafat and his cronies). And I know which one has worsened things (great, we now have another unestable country leaning towards fundamentalism with a hurt pride to avenge).

No brainer honestly.

Re: Your .sig

[beforewisdom]

For the historically challenged such as myself:

http://www.crystalinks.com/romeculture.html

" One Roman writer said that the imperial government kept the Romans contented by "bread and circuses." Other societies have relied on the same strategy, but never to the same degree. The Roman emperors provided free food to hundreds of thousands and sponsored an endless series of games. For two centuries the government managed to avoid food shortages or the discontent that would endanger the rule of the emperors."

you're kidding me with this

[Shakezoola]

it was 12 years ago, who gives a fuck anymore? Besides, if he had any balls he would have come out of his self imposed exile to play Kasparov.

Re:Changed the view of the US? - REAGAN spent???

[clary]

Not to beat a dead horse on a dead thread, but you seem to think that tax rates under Bush are too low. Well, step up to the plate then, and tell us what tax rates should be in the current economic situation, and why.

If his tax cuts were bad, then should he have pushed for higher rates? How much higher? How much is enough?

Security comes through one's own worth

[Smeagel]

By the time I'm 35, I can guarantee you that I will be of value to the point where they won't want to fire me with my experience. At my current age I'm already about there, and I'm quite a ways away from 35. I know as long as I work hard and don't screw up, I'll be fine.

The type of firings that unions protect you from in our current day world is almost solely firing from incompetence. They don't really add any protection for those who are competent; in fact those who are competent use their weight to keep the incompetent on. By the time you're 35, you should have acquired so much experience that you are VERY in demand, making supply and demand work very favorably for you. Go check out job listings, most want 3-5 years experience, if you have 15 years experience, you are perfectly fine.

Supply and demand still governs the large majority of our workers in this country; there are many unionized workers, but not nearly as many as those who seem to be doing perfectly fine settling down without unions. That's a ridiculous logical fallacy of yours to attempt to say that security is required for a family, and unions provide security, so you must have unions for a family. Wrong. You must have security for a family, and there are MANY ways to attain it without butchering our economy.

Re:Security comes through one's own worth

[orin]

[i]By the time I'm 35, I can guarantee you that I will be of value to the point where they won't want to fire me with my experience. At my current age I'm already about there, and I'm quite a ways away from 35. I know as long as I work hard and don't screw up, I'll be fine.[/i]

I can guarentee that you won't be. There are very very very few people in the world that are truly irreplaceable. Irreplaceable people have unique skills that no-one else in the world has. Does that describe you? I'm almost certain that it doesn't. I'm sure that a quick search of the resumes on Monster.com would show that there are many people who can do what you do and likely there are a few that can do your job even better. Some of those people might not even be in the USA. Perhaps there is an Indian or a Russian Ph.D that could do your job for a fraction of the cost. Are you absolutely positive that you are safe?

As you get older you will realize that you are not. But hey, if you want to believe that you are irreplacable, go ahead. Pride goeth before the fall and claiming that your job will always be secure is like daring God to piss on you.

Don't assume that your employer will always be around. Buyouts happen. Almost all companies eventually go bust or are bought out. Are you sure that under management your comfortable and secure position will be safe?

Unions at least are more likely to get you retraining and ensure that your entitlements are met than pursuing your former employer for years through the courts.

As for the experience issue - going through the job board forums should be enough to show you that a lot of people here the phrase "I think you have too much experience" when going for a job. Even if you are willing to take a pay cut just to stay in work, many organizations are cautious about employing someone that is overqualified for a position. No one says that it is rational - but if you have a look around in IT, once you hit that magic 35 years old you will be treated a lot differently. If you'd read some of the stories on /. over the years about highly qualified and experienced IT professionals being thrown on the scrapheap you as they approach your 40's you might be a little less certain about your continued employment prospects.

Re:Changed the view of the US? - REAGAN spent???

[2short]

I do not say that tax rates are too low. In fact, I reject any statement about what the correct tax rate is that does not mention the spending rate.

The tax rates under Bush are woefully incompatible with the spending rates under Bush.

I would like government spending to be consistant with revenue. The Bush administration does not seem to realize there is even any connection.

So, if we were to first stipulate that government spending would not significantly exceed revenue, I'd be happy to discuss what the absolute rate ought to be. IMO, slightly higher taxes, which would still imply dramatically lower spending. I'm of the (perhaps radical) opinion that there are legitimate things that are best done by government, and even that a limited amount of straight out wealth redistribution is good for society. Many people disagree with these opinoions, and I see where they are coming from and respect that. Other people think taxes should be lower regardless of how much the government spends. These people I have no respect for; they are idiots.

If we're going to live in the Bush fantasy world, where you can spend as much as you want regardless of revenue, then obviously the tax rate should be zero. He'd probably propose that if he didn't think people would cath on. So instead he just proposes zeroing the taxes that cheifly effect the wealthy.

Re:Yes, you should go show the KKK their errors.

[Archangel Michael]

Ooooh, nice comeback. No specifics, no generalities, just a witty retort. Shows me!

Re:The AC is right, according to my understanding.

[Archangel Michael]

Since you were "ordained" by men, that is who you answer to, just like the pharasees.

As for who is and who isn't a chrsitian, I haven't a clue. Never claimed to. What I have said, which you either have missed, or otherwise ignorned, is that I CAN judge the fruit. In fact it is only a responsible believer's duties to judge the fruit.

The enemy has corrupted the church by allowing the rotten fruit to invade, and permiate it, with the whole judge not thing.

Re:Here's your answers, chucklehead.

[Archangel Michael]

I haven't read that doctor. But having read a brief bio on the guy, I think he is as wrong as you are for suggesting I agree with him (you did, right?).

The moment you classify some humans as "More desirable" than others, you end up with Nazism and guys like Hitler. Actually anytime one can DEHUMANIZE another, we are all diminished.

Whether it be Nazis, Muslim terrorists or Planned Parenthood.

I couldn't agree less

[Smeagel]

I have lots of on-the-job experience. I work with lots of people who are 35 and over, a ton in fact. Most of them are irreplacable. I work for a company that produces a very complex product, and actually knowing the product and how to write it in their proprietary language itself makes you VERY valuable. On top of that there are CONTRACTS with your employer, so that if you do get laid off you will get paid for a year or so.

Do I believe I am perfectly unique in my abilities? Absolutely not. But what I do know is that the honing of my skills is quite unique, my particular subsets of skills to my main professional skills are also quite good. Do I feel untouchable? Of course not. But I do know that my boss, my bosses boss, and my bosses bosses boss all like me -- and in the business world that's a big part of keeping your job. The only point you made that negates that would be is if my company went under, which unions aren't going to do much for anyway. Your training theory isn't sound by any means, there are many ways to train without a union. For instance a temp agency will train you and pay you while you're looking for a new full time job.

Finally I have read LOTS of slashdot complaints. You know the one thing I've noticed about those slashdotters? They want to be paid what they were before the bubble burst, they all have a dilbert "I'm smarter than those idiot management" mentality, and they openly admit they don't have the "bull shittin" skills but refuse to learn them. Well guess what, if you don't want to play the game of getting a job the way it's played, then you're not going to get a job. As for people becoming valueless at a certain age and getting laid off, that's funny. I have 4 family members in that age group right now, they're constantly turning down headhunter job offers to go to other company's, mainly because they're so happy with the respect and security of their current job. huh. Sounds like you picked some bad companies...