Slashdot Mirror


Chess Grandmaster Kasparov Versus President Putin

An anonymous reader writes "The Times of London has an article on how Garry Kasparov, former world chess champion, is using his fame and intellect in an attempt to defeat President Putin at the presidential elections in March 2008. Kasparov believes that Putin is virtually a dictator who is dismantling democracy and returning Russia to an authoritarian regime. Some high-profile Putin critics, such as Alexander Litvinenko, have been the victims of unsolved murders, and Kasparov is aware of the dangers: 'I can calculate the possibilities as a chess player and I have to be honest and say that our chances are not high. But I take this as a moral duty, and when you do something out of moral duty, then who cares?'" From the article: "[Kasparov] will not be a contender for the presidency but [his political umbrella group] The Other Russia aims to create the conditions under which an anti-Putin candidate can win. It appears, however, to be an uneven contest against a man who enjoys 80 per cent approval ratings. Most Russians want Mr. Putin to overturn a constitutional bar on a third term in office. Many will back whomever Mr. Putin endorses to succeed him."

416 comments

  1. Dear Kasparov by neuro.slug · · Score: 5, Funny

    In Soviet Russia, Putin checkmates you!

    1. Re:Dear Kasparov by arivanov · · Score: 1

      AFAIK russian constitution does not allow more than 2 presidential terms. While Putin can go the blunt way and alter it, I suspect that he will try a more refined approach and use a puppet instead. Russian politics have a long history of this. Suslov pulled Brezhnev strings from behind the scenes for nearly 20 years. Considering the number of people Putin put in the right places he can do that with ease. 80%+ of the government is from his KGB department.

      So while it can be a checkmate right away, it is more likely to be a prolonged Alekhine style combination with quite a few major figures sacrificed on the way (something like the famous game against Fletcher where Alekhin sacrifices a Queen, a rook, a bishop and a few other to finish with a "choke" checkmate).

      --
      Baker's Law: Misery no longer loves company. Nowadays it insists on it
      http://www.sigsegv.cx/
    2. Re:Dear Kasparov by Simon+Garlick · · Score: 1

      In other news, Gary Kasparov was discovered this morning to have accidentally brutally stabbed himself in the stomach while shaving.

    3. Re:Dear Kasparov by crossmr · · Score: 1

      This is the first one of these I've seen on slashdot which actually follows the spirit of the actual joke and isn't some random attempt at karma grabbing.

    4. Re:Dear Kasparov by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Nice reference.

    5. Re:Dear Kasparov by revolu7ion · · Score: 1

      President to E5

      --
      Jesus Saves
    6. Re:Dear Kasparov by hereyago · · Score: 1

      lol, funny article. if you would like to discuss more about this with a community, then join www.houseofpolitics.com

  2. Hmmmm by cp.tar · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Ever since I read Bill Gates was a rather good Go player, it explained a lot to me about his business strategy.

    A brilliant chess player like Mr Kasparov should not only be able to calculate the odds, but also devise some ways to alter them.

    If he's really getting ready to battle Putin, he really should apply his best tactics to politics.
    Which he might do, too.

    Let's see what happens...

    --
    Ignore this signature. By order.
    1. Re:Hmmmm by kassemi · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Strategic games like Go and Chess are great exercises for the mind, but outside the benefits in reason and patience you receive from practice, I don't see them helping calculate the odds of a political statement reaching an audience. In terms I know we'll understand: programming skills != social skills, just as chess skills != political foresight.

      --
      What the hell's a "gewie?"
    2. Re:Hmmmm by cp.tar · · Score: 2, Insightful
      Strategic games like Go and Chess are great exercises for the mind, but outside the benefits in reason and patience you receive from practice, I don't see them helping calculate the odds of a political statement reaching an audience. In terms I know we'll understand: programming skills != social skills, just as chess skills != political foresight.

      Of course not.

      However, I do believe he knows his strategy... in this kind of games, without strategy, you're nothing.
      I should know; I play rarely, have no strategy whatsoever and suck colossally.

      So no, he won't be able to calculate the odds of a single political statement or whatever, but he should be able to plan an interesting strategy... although what should be the real life equivalent of sacrificing chess pieces, I really don't want to know.

      --
      Ignore this signature. By order.
    3. Re:Hmmmm by FasterthanaWatch · · Score: 1

      I should know; I play rarely, have no strategy whatsoever and suck colossally. Post Hoc Ergo Propter Hoc Much?
    4. Re:Hmmmm by egr · · Score: 1

      I totally agree with you, the argument that Kasparov is good in chess is just dumb, besides, everyone knows all Russians play chess.

    5. Re:Hmmmm by CNeb96 · · Score: 1

      Just because he's good a chess doesn't mean that he is good at general purpose strategy. The article below is about what makes a person an expert at chess. While it doesn't discuss how transitive skills are to any depth, it does state that winning at chess does equal = tons of domain knowledge in chess and the discipline to refine and broaden that knowledge through practice. In short, it's possible that chess skills may not transition to other fields at all.

      "Studies of the mental processes of chess grandmasters have revealed clues to how people become experts in other fields as well"

      http://scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?chanID=s a006&colID=1&articleID=00010347-101C-14C1-8F9E8341 4B7F4945

    6. Re:Hmmmm by nomadic · · Score: 2, Interesting

      In terms I know we'll understand: programming skills != social skills, just as chess skills != political foresight

      Only chess was a political institution in the USSR. As Kasparov came up the ranks he became intimately familiar with the government, and had to deal with the people in power frequently. Furthermore, the Soviet chess machine was very much a political organization too. Kasparov was just the face of Soviet chess, he had many players who basically subordinated themselves to advancing his game, in terms of developing strategies, etc.

    7. Re:Hmmmm by cp.tar · · Score: 0, Flamebait
      Just because he's good a chess doesn't mean that he is good at general purpose strategy.

      Well, he's extremely good at chess.
      While he needn't be any good in general purpose strategy, I should think a mind like that could adapt to real world problems as well.

      It's not that much of a leap.

      --
      Ignore this signature. By order.
    8. Re:Hmmmm by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Much of the performance of the better chess players stems from visual memory and memorizing sets of openings and closings. This is essentially how computer simulations of chess are augmented to increase the efficacy over a minimax approach. It largely has no correlation with 'strategy' in general. You are, for whatever reason, presenting us with the idea that Unreal Tournament players would make good Navy SEALs, even though there is little that is the same between a simple game with simple rules and real life.

    9. Re:Hmmmm by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Speak gibberish much?

    10. Re:Hmmmm by BeaverCleaver · · Score: 1

      Remember the James Bond book/film From Russia with Love? The KGB's top strategist was the national chess chamion. Life imitates art?

    11. Re:Hmmmm by anaesthetica · · Score: 1

      In chess and go there are defined rules, and each actor starts with the same amount of pieces and capabilities.

      In Russian politics, there are no rules and there is a vast disparity between the capabilities of the head of state and the capabilities of a former chess player.

      No one in Russia thinks Kasparov will amount to anything, and the truth is he won't.

    12. Re:Hmmmm by LurkerXXX · · Score: 1

      Idiot Savants (Rainman) are extremely good at some things.

      Being great at those things doesn't mean their minds adapt to other real world problems...

    13. Re:Hmmmm by thesandtiger · · Score: 3, Insightful

      That's hardly "insightful" - you're assuming that the strategic thinking that works in chess (a game where there are a finite number of pieces, fixed rules for how those pieces can move, and in which play-order is determined) is somehow going to transfer over into "real world" strategic thinking (a "game" where there are an unknown number of pieces, unknown rules for how those pieces can move, and not only is there no play order, but an unknown number of players, and they can switch sides at any time).

      In fact, I suspect that Kasparov's incredible skill at chess would actually hamper his abilities in politics - his mental reflexes were trained for much of his life to focus on ways to think in terms of a fixed set of rules, while politicians tend to make up new rules as it suits them and they are VERY good at that. So Kasparov might fail at having to deal with such an incredibly unpredictable environment, while politicians often fail at grasping the concept that maybe some rules ought to apply to them.

      I'd say the comparison that was made of technical skill != social skill is a very very good one. Many of the attributes necessary for real mastery technical material seem to be in opposition to attributes necessary for real mastery of social environments.

      --
      Since I can't tell them apart, I treat all ACs as the same person.
  3. Actually... by TrisexualPuppy · · Score: 5, Insightful

    You may not be so far off.

    There is a great controversy over this man whom Putin may have personally had murdered. Or it could be someone framing Putin. Or it could be Putin making it look as though he was framed. Russia is a grim place. I don't expect Kasparov to live much longer...whether those "approval ratings" are truly 80% or more like (1/80)%, either Putin has the power to make it look as though he has the people's support, or he does have the people's support, obviously making him powerful.

    1. Re:Actually... by ShieldW0lf · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Putin has popular support and appears to have established a sustainable, balanced economy over there, speaking relatively, of course. The man has a great deal of respect, and people are prepared to be guided by his views when they vote.

      Basically, these poisonings and their possible consequences on peoples opinion of him are the only thing that could screw it up for him. And, with all the political situaions he's faced, he is the sort of man who knows it.

      Therefore, he didn't do it, and neither did anyone with a vested interest in his success.

      Clearly, these poisonings aren't co-incidence, and just as clearly, they're not in Putins best interest.

      It's obvious that you need to look among those who have an interest in seeing his political agenda fail if you want to know who did these poisonings.

      I'm inclined to think this is a frame up put together by the CIA. Historically speaking, anytime you see a popular socalist leader being democratically elected, the CIA are there trying to install a puppet dictator that plays ball with foreign capitalists. Happens every time.

      --
      -1 Uncomfortable Truth
    2. Re:Actually... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful
      I'm inclined to think this is a frame up put together by the CIA. Historically speaking, anytime you see a popular socalist leader being democratically elected, the CIA are there trying to install a puppet dictator that plays ball with foreign capitalists. Happens every time.
      Putin does play ball with foreign capitalists. He's not some Allende-like figure; this guy is part of the global elite, not one of their targets.
    3. Re:Actually... by statusbar · · Score: 4, Informative
      Of course the most recent news:
      ...Litvinovich said the officers made copies of all documents they found of interest and she was told the search was connected to suspicions that Kasparov's group was involved in extremist activity...

      --jeffk++

      --
      ipv6 is my vpn
    4. Re:Actually... by ShieldW0lf · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Yes, he plays ball, but so does Chávez. They're similar political figures, and they both have right-wing capitalists gunning for them.

      --
      -1 Uncomfortable Truth
    5. Re:Actually... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Are you some kind of nut case or what? Putin's enemies being murdered not in his best interest? Damn, Bush and the CIA are at it again. Here they go helping out Putin by killing his enemies to make him look bad. It's not like his enemies might be more effective ALIVE! This has been standard Soviet practice in the past, why not now?

    6. Re:Actually... by ShieldW0lf · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Are you some kind of nut case or what? Putin's enemies being murdered not in his best interest? Damn, Bush and the CIA are at it again. Here they go helping out Putin by killing his enemies to make him look bad. It's not like his enemies might be more effective ALIVE! This has been standard Soviet practice in the past, why not now?

      Because he doesn't need to kill his enemies. They pose him no threat, politically. Nothing they can say or do is going to remove popular support or his power.

      His enemies were not effective alive. However, the means of their death throws suspicion on Putin. They are more effective dead.

      Now do you get it?

      --
      -1 Uncomfortable Truth
    7. Re:Actually... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Berezovsky did it. Well, I don't know that for sure :)

      But he certainly is capable.

    8. Re:Actually... by Shihar · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Putin's approval ratings are mostly real. Russia's transition to democracy (well, it isn't one any more) was rough. The people went from full bellies and empty souls to being hungry and confused. Russia was pillaged in its transition to a market democracy due to some awesomely bad economic policy (which the west does indeed share some blame for). By the time Putin came to power the people just wanted stability and anything other then a rapid economic plummet. Putin has given that to them, and they love him for it.

      The problem is that in stabilizing Russia Putin also gobbled up all the power he could find and has set Russia on course to look more like Russia of old then Europe of the US. Hell, Putin calls the Russian style of government "managed democracy". Putin has pooled all of the power of the state into his own hands. Russia suspended elections for governors and now simply appoints them with an old skool nod to the USSR. Russian TV is now almost entirely state and blatantly used for propaganda, making campaigning against Putin and his allies all but impossible. The government, while not throwing people in Siberian slave labor camps Stalin style, happily detain activists by the thousands before any attempt to hold a protest.

      Russia hasn't caught up with their old Soviet ways yet but they are headed that way. Russia still maintains a relatively free printed press, and Putin has so far refrained from writing himself as dictator into the constitution. That said, the direction Russia is headed isn't pretty, and I really doubt that Putin is going to appoint a successor who is going to be a champion of liberalization and democracy.

    9. Re:Actually... by orzetto · · Score: 4, Insightful
      whether those "approval ratings" are truly 80% or more like (1/80)%[...]

      I would strongly suggest you to reconsider this statement. Just because you are an autocrat and govern for the benefit of a restricted circle of oligarchs, it does not mean the people will not like you. The bulk of the people can be made incredibly stupid when you control enough of the media.

      The classical instrument to make the people love you even when you are actually screwing them is finding a scapegoat: Hitler had Jews, but he certainly did not invent the tactic, nor anti-semitism itself (he was instead special in that he actually believed that crap). It runs all the way back to the Romans (who blamed, say, Christians) and beyond. It has to be a small minority without an actual capability to politically fight back, yet recognizable enough. Putin has Chechen rebels, Ahmadinejad has Americans and Israel, Bush has terrorists, Berlusconi has Communists, Le Pen has immigrants.

      --
      Victims of 9/11: <3000. Traffic in the US: >30,000/y
    10. Re:Actually... by ShieldW0lf · · Score: 1

      Interesting how he's financially involved with Neil Bush and hangs out with George W Bush. I wasn't aware of those connections.

      --
      -1 Uncomfortable Truth
    11. Re:Actually... by vakuona · · Score: 5, Interesting

      No Chavez is just a loud mouth. Putin is the real deal. He has real leverage over here in Europe. Europe has this thing with gas, and Putin has almost all of it.

      So even if they found evidence that he did personally authorise the murder of Mr Litvinenko, they will probably rebuke him publicly, ( after giving a call telling him that they are going to di it of course, to keep their voters happy), but they know their voters do not like their winters messed with, so they will not do much else.

      I mean, he may not have power over the US, but in Europe he is pretty much top dog. You think US has a dependence on middle east oil, nothing like Europe's dependence of Russian gas. He is actually playing the EU presidents against each other because of that.

      You got nothing on Russia, and yes, Soviet Russia does check mate you.

    12. Re:Actually... by Daniel+Phillips · · Score: 3, Informative

      he doesn't need to kill his enemies. They pose him no threat, politically. Nothing they can say or do is going to remove popular support or his power

      What utter rubbish. Viktor Yushchenko for one was in the process of displacing a pro-Russia regime in Ukraine at the time he was poisoned by dioxin. In what way did losing control of Ukraine pose no threat to Putin's power?

      --
      Have you got your LWN subscription yet?
    13. Re:Actually... by Cyberax · · Score: 1

      Believe me, Putin has actual popular support.

      He stopped downward slide into chaos in the end of 90-s. You should have lived here to understand it.

      PS: I live in Russia and I didn't vote for Putin. But Putin's popular support is quite evident.

    14. Re:Actually... by paeanblack · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Putin does play ball with foreign capitalists.

      He plays ball. He plays hardball. He plays dirty. He's the reason post-Soviet Russia is no longer getting raped by foreign capitalists.

      At this rate, history will probably remember him as the most effective Russian leader since Catherine the Great. From the perspective of a Russian citizen, the Soviets sucked, the Soviet collapse was worse, but now we're getting the best of both worlds and it's still improving. Putin can do whatever he wants if he keeps this track going.

    15. Re:Actually... by dusanv · · Score: 0, Flamebait

      Amen to that. And why is this modded a flamebait? Don't like to hear a discerning opinion? Oh, I forgot, this is /.

    16. Re:Actually... by smittyoneeach · · Score: 5, Insightful

      I'm thinking that if someone set up a PayPal account, we could chip in $2 apiece, and send ShieldW0lf to Russia for a couple of years, to see whether a reality check alters the expressed opinion.
      My wife has been to St. Petersburg on business, and the first-hand experience didn't sound like one she'd care to repeat. One colleague carrying an El Salvadorean passport, for example, had to be fished out of customs with bribes.
      Russia is a mafia state. Get over it. Socialism models the human spirit poorly, hence its historically mixed results.

      --
      Get thee glass eyes, and, like a scurvy politician, seem to see things thou dost not.--King Lear
    17. Re:Actually... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0


      Ever lived behind the iron curtain? Do you know what it means to have electricity rationing -- in a country that has more energy reserves than anyone else? Do you know what it means to have stores -- which are empty? Why do you think have millions of Russians and other Eastern Europeans immigrated to the West?

      You're right though. Socialism is an attempt -- a failed attempt.

    18. Re:Actually... by Bloody+Troll · · Score: 1

      Yeah, sure. He also may have murdered little kittens and children on Saturdays, too.
      Now, as to your "democratic" president W...

    19. Re:Actually... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      Clearly, these poisonings aren't co-incidence, and just as clearly, they're not in Putins best interest.

      I got a strong sense of "Clearly, I could not choose the glass in front of me!" reading that sentence...

    20. Re:Actually... by Cyberax · · Score: 4, Informative

      Have you ever tried to get a business visa to the USA? It's the ultimate evidence that USA is run by some fascist-maniacs.

      I live in Russia. Yes, it's sometimes bad here. And yes, it's MUCH BETTER now than in 90-s. Hell, we had mafia in our town walking with AK-74 in broad daylight!

    21. Re:Actually... by goldenpanda · · Score: 1

      Thank you. This is the most eloquent argument about socialism I have seen anywhere.

    22. Re:Actually... by Bloody+Troll · · Score: 1
      Basically, these poisonings and their possible consequences on peoples opinion of him are the only thing that could screw it up for him.
      You're being delusional. Consequences? On people's opinion? Due to a Berezovsky's minion being "poisoned," most likely, on Berezovsky's orders? I'm laughing my arse out.
      On the other hand, the oppression he and his mostly alien elite have brought upon the Russian people, that's another matter. But not in favour of a Jew-Azeri Kasparov, no way.
    23. Re:Actually... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      ...On Nov. 15, the Russian Interior Ministry and Gazprom, the state-controlled energy giant, announced three new senior appointments. Oleg Safonov was named a deputy head of the ministry. Yevgeny Shkolov became head of its economic security department. And Valery Golubev was appointed a deputy chief executive at Gazprom.
      All three men had something important in common beyond the timing of their promotions: backgrounds as KGB officers and experience working directly with President Vladimir Putin when he was a KGB operative himself in Germany or later, when he was a rising presence in the local government of St. Petersburg, his home town.
      In Russia, A Secretive Force Widens


      About 4/5 of Russian elite is involved with FSB (new KGB).

    24. Re:Actually... by Bloody+Troll · · Score: 0, Troll

      Are you a nutcase or what?
      What Putin's enemies? The first time I heard Litvinenko's name was from the Western controlled media when he "fell ill." That was the guy who wrote for Chechenpress; the guy who accused Putin of being a paedophile; the guy who accused Putin of 9/11, Madrid and London bombings. You're a bloody idiot if you fell for that media spin that some schizophrenic is an "enemy of Putin" or matters in any way. There's one more "dissident" (coincidentally, Jewish as well), Valeria Novodvorskaya, who is as mad if not madder.
      And no, it hasn't been "standard Soviet practice" in the past.

    25. Re:Actually... by golgotha007 · · Score: 4, Informative

      They pose him no threat, politically. Nothing they can say or do is going to remove popular support or his power

      What the hell is everyone smoking?

      Putin, now being in his second term (2 term max limit), loses power at the next election. He cannot run for president in the next election.

      Yes, I live in Russia.

    26. Re:Actually... by goldenpanda · · Score: 1

      ever lived in mafia-run russia? ever been a bosnian in a serbian camp? ever lived in usa occupied iraq, in daily fear for your head? have some perspective. not everything is life is about hoping to drive a bmw. try to have something to say other than hostility and anger.

    27. Re:Actually... by Bloody+Troll · · Score: 1

      So did he carry something other than a Salvadorean passport? Like, contraband? And do you think he could've been "fished with bribes" out of non-mafia US customs in similar circumstances?

    28. Re:Actually... by goldenpanda · · Score: 1

      All the hostility to your thoughtful comments just confirms my dislike for many Americans. Get over yourself USA. Sit quiet a moment to think about 100,000 iraqi dead!

    29. Re:Actually... by goldenpanda · · Score: 0, Troll

      You're wasting your breath on crusader Americans. If they can't discredit the reality of Putin's popular support, they'll put down the intelligence/priority/human worthiness of his supporters. They've decided to not like your system, and will not stop disliking you until you bark under the American tree.

    30. Re:Actually... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I'm inclined to think this is a frame up put together by the CIA. Historically speaking, anytime you see a popular socalist leader being democratically elected, the CIA are there trying to install a puppet dictator that plays ball with foreign capitalists. Happens every time.


      So, how does your pretty little theory explain the fact that most of the Europe has currently democratically elected socialist leaders, and the CIA doesn't seem to be swarming all over the place?
    31. Re:Actually... by Bloody+Troll · · Score: 0
      ever been a bosnian in a serbian camp
      Ever been kidnapped by mutant ninja turtles from outer space (oh I know, that's because they never existed)?
    32. Re:Actually... by Shihar · · Score: 4, Insightful
      Oh please, Putin is not a shining star of socialist values. Hell, a sizable block of his opposition are communist. The only thing that unites the opposition to Putin is the fact that he is tearing apart the nations democratic institutions piece by piece. You can ignore the fact all you want, but it won't change that governors who were once elected are now appointed, nor that the state owned TV stations (which is pretty much all the TV stations) are blatantly is used as a mechanism one sided political promotion mechanism.

      If Putin were to somehow succeed in realizing his ideals, Russia would be a much better place to live than North America. Great. And if Dick Chaney was to realize his dreams the Middle East would be one big happy democracy with bustling markets and a love for the US that rivals Japan's post World War II infatuation. If Kim Jong Il had his dream realized, the Koreas would be happily united, full of happy Kim Jong loving people, and the US would be begging them to be their friends. If Hitler's dream was realized we would live in a happy utopia where there is peace, harmony, no nasty Jews, no moral corruption, and we would be on year 60 of a glorious 1000 reich. So? Who cares? These people were all delusional, and their delusions all resulted in the suffering of millions, tens of millions, or hundreds of millions. Putin will never see his ideals reached because he is a brutal autocrat, just like every other high minded asshole in history who made up one excuse or another to deprive his people of basic liberties.

      As far as your ranting about socialism... when in the hell did I even mention socialism? What exactly are you arguing against? I spoke only of democracy. If Russia wanted to implement European styled socialism, good for them. Plenty of European nations have managed to be both socialistic and democratic to greater and lesser degrees without becoming a (in Putin's own doublespeak words) "managed democracy". Contrary to the popular beliefs of some socialist heroes, you can have both socialism AND democracy. It is okay to let the people vote and conduct politics in the open without developing a totalitarian dictatorship built around a cult of personality.

      Stop defending these assholes because they speak pretty words that fall in line with your politics. A dictator is a dictator, regardless if he hides behind divine right, military power, fascist ideals, capitalist ideals, or even socialist ideals.
    33. Re:Actually... by goldenpanda · · Score: 1

      take that up with The Hague Tribunal "Bosnian rape camp trial opens" http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/europe/683846.stm

    34. Re:Actually... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Russia is a grim place.

      So is America.
      There are politcal murders that took place in this country and we are still waiting for the guilty parties in our gov't to be brought to justice.

      I'm not saying America isn't significantly better than Russia in this regard, but I find many people to be suprisingly ignorant of what has actually taken place within our own borders.

    35. Re:Actually... by anaesthetica · · Score: 4, Informative

      There are two highly disputable points in your post: one, that Russia's economy is sustainable and balanced; and two, that Putin is a socialist. Both are quite obviously incorrect.

      Russia's economic boom over the past 5-7 years has been principally attributable to the rise in oil and gas prices worldwide. Putin has been consolidating Russia's oil and gas companies into a much tighter oligarchy (cf. the reason why Khodorkovsky is in jail in Siberia). Meanwhile, he has been pressuring neighboring countries to sell their oil and gas pipelines to Russian companies. There has been a lot both in Western and Russian press about Putin's "energy empire." The rest of Russia's economy hasn't done much at all. In fact, fewer and fewer of the young generation even want to go into private business--most want to work for the state bureaucracy. Moreover, most of Russia's growth has been funnelled into Moscow and St. Petersburg (and dachas on the Volga), with the rest of the country experiencing few if any of the benefits from the oil & gas money. Lots of Russian towns in the countryside still look like they did in the 1800s. When oil and gas prices level off or fall (even temporarily so), so too will Russia's economic house of cards.

      And in no way can Putin be called a socialist. Not even close. There are two groups within his administration: the siloviki and the St. Petersburg group. Neither are socialist in orientation. The siloviki are the so-called "power" people: they control the defense, internal security, FSB (i.e. KGB successor), military, etc. These are relatively agnostic when it comes to the economy, preferring the centralization of power and stabilization of society. Moves to centralize oil and gas fit well within their worldview. The St. Petersburg group are generally liberal (in the economics sense, not the U.S. sense) reformers who favor free market solutions and getting rid of the welfare state. They have been slowly trying to divest the state of its welfare obligations (with only marginal success, since the Russian people protest when you try to reform their pension benefits). Putin himself is a chekist--a KGB man--not a socialist in ideology or practice.

    36. Re:Actually... by theLOUDroom · · Score: 1

      Just because you are an autocrat and govern for the benefit of a restricted circle of oligarchs, it does not mean the people will not like you.

      But it DOES mean that you cannot simply assume people are going to honestly tell someone "conducting a survey" what their opinion of the autocrat is.

      As you said:
      I would strongly suggest you to reconsider this statement.

      Right.... 'cause it would be a shame if he got poisoned mysteriously right?

      --
      Life is too short to proofread.
    37. Re:Actually... by smittyoneeach · · Score: 3, Informative

      Wife says that a Romanian had three interviews to get a 10-day business visa to come to the US.
      We certainly filled out a truckload of paper to bring her here from Germany. As well as ~$1,500 in fees. My reaction was more sadness at the slowness of the bureaucracy than anything else. (The US has contributed massively to the advance of human technology, and THIS is what we have to show for it?!?!?!?!?)
      Back to Russia, she says that visiting the Russian Embassy to obtain the visa was extremely unpleasant, for whatever that is worth.

      --
      Get thee glass eyes, and, like a scurvy politician, seem to see things thou dost not.--King Lear
    38. Re:Actually... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0


      Yes, I live in Russia.

      Do you honestly think Putin will cede power peacefully? There are a great many Americans who expect Bush to pull some kind of trick to remain in office past 2008. I wouldn't put it past Putin, that's for sure...

    39. Re:Actually... by mmdog · · Score: 4, Insightful

      ...There are a great many Americans who expect Bush to pull some kind of trick to remain in office past 2008 Care to back up this wild ass statement with any sort of poll or something? While I'll gladly concede that there are people who believe this, I'll also concede that there are people who say the holocaust didn't happen, that Elvis is still alive and that there really is a tooth fairy.

      Seriously, you think the same American people who just handed power to the democrats would stand for anything of the sort? I think you should consider expanding your list of reading/viewing choices, it might bring you a few steps toward reality.

      I will say this much though: If Bush & Co. do manage some sort of martial law take over, it's all the friggin gun control nuts to thank for making it impossible for us to fight back. That IS exactly the situation the founding fathers had in mind when they put in the second ammendment.
      --
      Politicians are like diapers - they should be changed frequently and for the same reasons.
    40. Re:Actually... by metlin · · Score: 1

      I could be wrong, but I do remember reading that Putin (with the support of some in the Russian populace) might try changing the law to run for a third term.

      Any ideas/thoughts from within?

    41. Re:Actually... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Europe, socialist?

    42. Re:Actually... by Slithe · · Score: 1

      There were also a lot of (conservative) Americans who thought that Clinton would give the UN hegemony over the U.S., and the UN would install Clinton as President-for-Life. Nutters are present on all sides of political debate.

      --
      ---- "XML is like violence. If it doesn't fix the problem, you aren't using enough."
    43. Re:Actually... by Cyberax · · Score: 1

      I had, let me count, 5 interviews, a lot of DHLed papers and a great lot of wasted time (I had to go to Moscow for each interview and I live pretty far from it).

      You can use travel agents to get a visa to Russia, it's not hard. My friend from USA was able to come to visit Russia without problems. Sadly, Russian embassies (and lots of other government facilities) still work like in USSR epoch.

    44. Re:Actually... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Man, you went from rational to nut job in 2 seconds flat.

    45. Re:Actually... by niktemadur · · Score: 1

      There are two groups within his administration: the siloviki and the St. Petersburg group. Neither are socialist in orientation.
      I am inclined to agree with you. Who needs dogma to justify power when you have already attained and consolidated power without it?

      When oil and gas prices level off or fall (even temporarily so), so too will Russia's economic house of cards.
      One reason for the USSR collapse of the late eighties was its' hemorraghing money via an arms race effectively designed to bankrupt it. Are military expenditures still on the same level? I would think not by a long shot. Add to this the fact that there are much fewer satellite states for the Kremlin to subsidize, and Russia may be on better footing than you imply, unless the generated capital is being stashed or funneled elsewhere.

      If no new money is being invested in infrastructure, or even in the money-go-round in general except within the great urban areas, from the poverty outside of Moscow and St Petesburg you describe, I would think that there's a huge amount of capital gone AWOL.

      --
      Lil' Thindime, lilting a lacrimose lament, krashes the kwaint konfines of Kokonino Kounty
    46. Re:Actually... by yeOldeSkeptic · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Consider this scenario:

      Litko is a foreman of Ajax Chemical's main factory. When ABC Chem got embroiled in a legal scandal, Litko used the ensuing confusion and lack of supervision to sell off parts of ABC Chem's factories. He also used ABC Chem's property as collateral for loans with banking institutions, made sales deals with clients for ABC Chem products and then kept the profits. Litko also invested ABC Chems money and kept them for himself.

      After four years, ABC Chem was finally was able to shake off the legal scandal and moved towards controlling its factories again. They soon found out that Litko is now a multi-billionaire and that he already owns most of the erstwhile property of ABC Chem.

      ABC Chem decided to retrieve the wealth that they believe ABC Chem is legally and morally entitled to. Unfortunately, because Litko is now an oligarch, Litko is able to hire the best lawyers and is able to fend off the legal barrage for as long as possible while he makes his escape to London. In London, he settles comfortably and uses his new-found wealth to buy a football club.

      In all definitions of the term, Litko is a criminal.

      From the article:

      The chess master, however, sees cracks in the Kremlin wall and believes that Mr Putin will give him an opening for a counter-attack. Mr Kasparov argues that, despite the oil riches, the vast majority of Russians are increasingly enduring economic hardship that will burst to the surface politically next year.

      Mr. Kasparov, the grandmaster, should ask himself exactly where did Mr. Berezovsky and Mr. Russian Owner of the Chelsea Football Club get their money to become stupendously wealthy in such a short time.

      Unlike Mr. Kasparov, the majority of Russians (those 80% that support Putin) are aware that Berezovsky and his ilk are the Litkos who raped Russia of its natural wealth during the confusion of the collapse of the Soviet Union.

      Mr. Kasparov does not have to look very far in search of where Russia's wealth went. He need only stare in the direction of his financial backers.

    47. Re:Actually... by mmdog · · Score: 2

      How so? Here we have someone suggesting that somehow GWB & Co. are going to blatantly violate the U.S. Constitution in order to keep him in office. The fact is that the 2nd ammendment to the U.S. Constitution is there specifically to prevent this sort of thing from occurring.

      As for being a nut job, who knows, maybe your are right but I'm not posting as an AC...

      --
      Politicians are like diapers - they should be changed frequently and for the same reasons.
    48. Re:Actually... by novus+ordo · · Score: 1
      Putin has Chechen rebels,
      That's why this Litvinenko the radioactive spy poisoning death is so interesting. He wrote a book in which he claimed that Putin instigated the Russian apartment bombings that started the Second Chechen war:

      In the book Blowing up Russia: Terror from Within, published with the financial support of Russian oligarch Boris Berezovsky, Alexander Litvinenko, a former FSB agent, alleged that agents from the FSB co-ordinated the apartment block bombings. On 29 December 2003 Russian authorities confiscated over 5000 copies of the book en route to Moscow from the publisher in Latvia.[18]. Alexander Litvinenko was murdered in London in November 2006.
      Not very suprising.
      --
      "You're everywhere. You're omnivorous."
    49. Re:Actually... by Venik · · Score: 5, Insightful

      That's what they've been saying about Yeltsin: that he's gonna change the constitution and remain in power. Well, he didn't. And he didn't want to. Moreover, he resigned early and appointed Putin as acting President, thus assuring his own worry-free retirement. Yeltsin's approval ratings at the time were extremely low. Nevertheless, during the early presidential elections a few months later a vast majority of Russians voted for Yeltsin's appointee - Putin, even though most Russians knew nothing about the man.

      Now Putin, with his near-80% approval rating (stop and think about this number for a moment), can probably chose his Labrador named Koni as the next presidential candidate, and Russians will vote for the dog. Why? Russians want stability. They are tired of revolutions, wars, and Perestroikas. Now they want a decent paycheck, a car, and a house. Don't misunderstand me, Russians have nothing against democracy, freedom of speech, and human rights. However, history taught them to be a bit more cynical and pragmatic than some of their Western neighbors.

      "Give me liberty or give me death," said Patrick Henry. It just so happened that every time Russians adopted this approach, they got the shitty end of the stick. I can't blame them for playing it safe now. Today's Russia is a huge improvement over the bloody chaos of Gorbachev's and Yeltsin's era. Things in Russia will improve over time. And, since we are talking about Russia, it may take awhile. For everyone's benefit, Washington and London should keep their dirty snouts out of Russia's business and be happy with the gas and oil they are getting.

    50. Re:Actually... by ShieldW0lf · · Score: 1

      Managed democracy, that's precisely what I am in favour of.

      --
      -1 Uncomfortable Truth
    51. Re:Actually... by anaesthetica · · Score: 5, Informative

      During the same period you mention--the late 80's arms race--you ought to note that the high oil prices from the 70's had finally fallen. The oil embargo from '73 and the second attempt in '79 had kept prices fairly high throughout the whole decade. So not only did the Soviets have to spend more on an arms race, but they had to do so in the context of falling profits from oil.

      Today, the Russian economy is quite small, even when compared to the gaunt economy of the late Soviet period. In 2005 dollars, Mexico has a slightly higher GDP. It shrank a great deal in the early 1990s during "shock therapy" and the Asian Financial Crisis which forced a massive ruble devaluation and IMF bailout (notably, Russia's quick recovery from devaluation coincided with a world rise in oil prices). Military expenditures are less than 1/25th of the United States' (but about 3x as much as Mexico--so still a bit high relative to its GDP rank).

      The problem is not really the external commitments of Russia or arms acquisitions, but simply that a huge chunk of its economy is solely based on energy. As we all know, energy is a fungible commodity and is subject to wide, hard to predict variations in world price. A sudden oil price shock could do proportionally higher damage to Russia than one might expect, especially because of the consolidation of the energy sector in Russia, and the centrality of companies like Gazprom to Kremlin strategy.

      It's pretty widely accepted that a lot of Russian money that ought to be invested is sitting somewhere in Switzerland or the Caymans.

    52. Re:Actually... by mi · · Score: 2, Interesting
      most effective Russian leader since Catherine the Great

      Catherine's sorry record aside, your comparison is very useful here to underline the Russians' longing for Tsarism to the underinformed foreigners...

      He's the reason post-Soviet Russia is no longer getting raped by foreign capitalists.

      Nope. The only reason for Russia's current wealth and weight is the High Oil Price. When it goes down again (and it will), Russia will be hurting again. It happened twice already: the first time's result was USSR's crumble, the second's — Russia default.

      You better be ready for the third time... I have it on good authority, that the price of oil is the sole variable in Russian bankers' financial models — you don't have anything else worthy of consideration as far as Economics is concerned.

      --
      In Soviet Washington the swamp drains you.
    53. Re:Actually... by Aris+Katsaris · · Score: 2, Insightful

      What "managed democracy" means, is that when Russia's people were against a war in Chechnya, Putin caused some Moscow apartment buildings to explode, so that they were now in favor of it. That's what "managed democracy" means. That by mass murder of your own citizens, Putin will get you to want exactly what *he* would like you to want. And it also means that when some Russian reporter threatens to expose facts about the regime that Putin doesn't want you to hear, that reporter gets killed, and the books they wrote get confiscated. If the Russian people desire that, this blissful ignorance, and this sacrifice of their citizens to modify and/or preserve public opinion, then they indeed deserve Putin. However the rest of the region still doesn't. Georgia doesn't deserve Putin as a neighbor, and Moldova doesn't deserve him, and neither does Ukraine.

    54. Re:Actually... by niktemadur · · Score: 1

      Interesting that you use Mexico as a comparison example to Russia. According to Wikipedia:

      Population-wise, Mexico has 107,000,000 (ranked 11th), Russia has 142,800,000 (ranked 8th).
      As for GDP in millions of USD, Mexico generates 768,437 (ranked 13th), while Russia generates 763,247 (ranked 14th).
      When we list the Per Capita GDP, both countries plummet down the list, Mexico with 7,298 (ranked 53rd), Russia with 5,349 (ranked 61th).
      Both are more or less within the same range, with Mexico at a slight advantage, as you say.

      Another crucial similarity: both countries' oil industries are state-controlled.
      According to production levels in 2002 figures, Mexico exports 1,715,000 barrels of crude a day (ranked 7th), while Russia exports 3,940,000 barrels a day (ranked 2nd and twice as much as Mexico).

      As a sidenote, Mexico produces 3,371,000 barrels a day, so roughly half is for internal consumption, and I don't have the Russian figures at hand. Also, considering the dimensions of Russia, it seems like a given that transportation costs for either crude or refined are way higher, although I would suppose that this additional cost is reflected at gas pumps all over Europe.

      Returning to the topic, it seems that Mexico generates a more balanced portion of its' GDP from other industries (tourism, agriculture, commerce and manufacturing) than Russia. Both countries have a massive underground economy stemming from illegal activities, but that's beyond the scope of what I'm trying to say here.

      Finally, to state a difference, many of Mexico's social and economic woes arise from its' ongoing demographic explosion, while it seems that Russia's population is shrinking, so the nature of both beasts are peculiarly different.
      However, comparisons are a healthy exercise sometimes, and in this one your point quickly becomes evident: Russia looks like an extremely vulnerable horse with one wobbly leg and three stumps.

      --
      Lil' Thindime, lilting a lacrimose lament, krashes the kwaint konfines of Kokonino Kounty
    55. Re:Actually... by golgotha007 · · Score: 1

      From this story at TIME.com, it says, "Putin has said repeatedly he respects the constitution that requires him to step down."

      Any thoughts from within? Inflation is going through the roof. Apartment rents that were $200 2 years ago are $600 today. Salaries have also gone up, but not to match the increase of real estate.

      Corruption is everywhere. Everyone breaks the law. So many thugs and no one to police them.

      Everyone feels that Putin is no longer suited to lead the country. Sure, everyone loved him a few years ago, but now they realize they need someone more modern since everything is flying towards Democracy.

      My personal opinion? Putin is a fucking loser.

    56. Re:Actually... by shutdown+-p+now · · Score: 1

      It should be noted that the recent rhethoric from the pro-Kremlin sources essentially equates "extremist" with any "non-constructive opposition", as they term it (in other words, anyone sufficiently annoyed with things to protest on the streets), but in particular targeting West-oriented liberals, like Kasparov.

    57. Re:Actually... by shutdown+-p+now · · Score: 1

      Regardless of what one may think about Soviet-style socialism (which isn't all that rosy despite what you might think), modern Russia is nowhere near that. Current government borrows a lot from Soviet days, including single-party monopoly, grand "national ideas", expanding bureaucracy etc; but one thing they won't touch with a six-feet pole is socialism. In practice, today's Russia is oligarchy, which is about as far from socialism as it can get; and no, Putin is not struggling against it in any way - he belongs to the existing ruling elite himself, why would he break the order that favours him so much? and indeed, it didn't get any better during his reign in that regard.

    58. Re:Actually... by shutdown+-p+now · · Score: 1
      Putin has Chechen rebels, Ahmadinejad has Americans and Israel, Bush has terrorists, Berlusconi has Communists, Le Pen has immigrants.
      Slight correction: Putin had Chechens, that's how he got to power. These days, though, the Two Minutes Hate is normally directed against the West: US and NATO especially, but also EU and OSCE sometimes (especially in the context of Chechnya), and also countries previously in our sphere of influence which sought membership in NATO and EU (Lithuania, Latvia, Estonia, and more recently Ukraine and Georgia).
    59. Re:Actually... by shutdown+-p+now · · Score: 2, Interesting
      Today's Russia is a huge improvement over the bloody chaos of Gorbachev's and Yeltsin's era.
      For many people it is not. But yes, things got better for quite a few of us - including you and me, obviously, since we both post here on Slashdot... but seriously, how long do you think that oil and gas we're living on now will last? And we don't really have anything to replace it with, nor are there any serious projects to rectify that.
    60. Re:Actually... by shutdown+-p+now · · Score: 1
      Putin, now being in his second term (2 term max limit), loses power at the next election. He cannot run for president in the next election.
      That's what they've been saying about Yeltsin: that he's gonna change the constitution and remain in power. Well, he didn't.
      The difference is that in Yeltsin's time, it was mere rumours. Now, we've already got a parliamentary initiative to grant the ability to elect to the 3rd term already in progress, and many regional governors are openly and vocally supportive of it (rightly so, since Putin is the best guarantee they won't get kicked out of their chair anytime soon, ever since governors are appointed by the President rather than elected).
    61. Re:Actually... by shutdown+-p+now · · Score: 3, Interesting
      Unlike Mr. Kasparov, the majority of Russians (those 80% that support Putin) are aware that Berezovsky and his ilk are the Litkos who raped Russia of its natural wealth during the confusion of the collapse of the Soviet Union.
      So you're saying that Putin's clique didn't do the same when they got in the position of opportunity (like, say, the last 6 years). Or need I remind you of "BaikalInvestGroup"?

      The difference between Berezovsky and Putin is that Berezovsky already robbed the country, while Putin is doing it right now. If it so happens that the enmity between them is great enough that Berezovsky is willing to support any opposition to Putin, then I don't see any good reason why the more pragmatic members of that opposition should reduce the offer.

    62. Re:Actually... by shutdown+-p+now · · Score: 1
      He's the reason post-Soviet Russia is no longer getting raped by foreign capitalists.
      Oh, those pesky foreign capitalist perverts, always seeking to rape some poor innocent country. There seem to be so many, judging by how often this mantra is invoked, that the whole Western world seemingly consists of them. Much like in the good old Soviet days, hmm?
      From the perspective of a Russian citizen, the Soviets sucked ...
      You apparently forgot to check the party line for today, comrade. The USSR officially didn't suck for the last year at least, and unofficially, ever since the unspoken party line was "back to the USSR, only without communism".
    63. Re:Actually... by cowbutt · · Score: 1
      The only reason for Russia's current wealth and weight is the High Oil Price. When it goes down again (and it will), Russia will be hurting again.

      ...unless the controversial theory of abiotic oil production is wrong, and we are at, or close to, the peak of global oil production. If we are, then oil and gas prices will trend upwards for the forseeable. Meanwhile, Russia has been using the profits to pay off the international debts built up by the former USSR. I'd say Russia will be in an extremely good position in the coming century or two.

    64. Re:Actually... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      100,000 Iraqi dead is a terrible thing. But we didn't kill them, they're killing each other. Here in the USA we have all religions, and for the most part they get along. Certainly no one kills another without punishment. In fact, if the violence here is because of racial or religious reasons, it's labeled a "hate crime" and the punishment is even stronger. I suppose we didn't foresee the fact that two Muslim groups would be to reluctant to work together for a better Iraq, but is that really our fault? It could be argued both ways since we put them in this situation I suppose, and please understand that just about every American understands that it's a mess, but what would you have us do at this point? Just walk away and let the country go to hell? Understand that we are trying very hard to build an entire country back up, such things are very difficult.

      Oh yes, and as for the "Get over yourself USA" comment... we're a very large country. Treating all America as a single minded self absorbed person is just retarded. That's like me saying "Stop being such a bunch of killers and terrorists Iraq".

    65. Re:Actually... by nelsonal · · Score: 1

      If Putin were retaking the money the oligarchs stole from the state and returning it to the people (who should have owned it following the breakup of the Soviet union) it would be one thing, but he seems to be retaking assets only to distribute them to the oligarch B team who are his buddies, it is those appearances that cause the objections.

      --
      Degaussing scares the bad magnetism out of the monitor and fills it with good karma.
    66. Re:Actually... by nelsonal · · Score: 1

      I'd probably vote for a lab on general principle (those are pretty great dogs).

      --
      Degaussing scares the bad magnetism out of the monitor and fills it with good karma.
    67. Re:Actually... by hey! · · Score: 1

      You are so right.

      Putin all the more dangerous because he can use language with subtlety. Take his adminsitratio's deinal of involvement over the Litvinenko affair. The gist of their denial as "we'd never use assasination an enemy like Mr. Litvinenko." However, parsed carefully this denial leaves open the possibility they would use assasination on other types of enemies, an leaves what sets Litvinenko apart to the imagination of the listener.

      The Putin regime's denials sound strong, but they have a different, more ominious ring in the ears of his domestic enemies.

      Outrage over a little name calling is misplaced in international affairs. I'd rather deal with a man who is forthright in his likes and dislikes than a man who speaks in booby trapped phrases.

      --
      Post may contain irony: discontinue use if experiencing mood swings, nausea or elevated blood pressure.
    68. Re:Actually... by mattpalmer1086 · · Score: 1

      So... what idiot killed a harmless shizophrenic with pollonium 210?

    69. Re:Actually... by Improv · · Score: 1

      You know, in discussions you might .. you know.. respond to some of the points that people make by disputing them or making other points, rather than have flashy responses that don't actually say anything...

      --
      For every problem, there is at least one solution that is simple, neat, and wrong.
    70. Re:Actually... by Shihar · · Score: 1

      "Managed" democracy" has nothing to do with their economic system. It has everything to do with their electoral system. For instance, when Russia uses the state run media to smear political opponents and praise Putin, that is "managed democracy". When providence governors are go from being elected officials to officials appointed by the Kremlin without vote, that is "managed democracy". If that is the sort of stuff you are in favor of, well, what you really want is not the silly doublespeak "managed democracy", but a non-democratic authoritarian government.

    71. Re:Actually... by youthoftoday · · Score: 1

      This happened in Uganda very recently. President Museveni changed the constitution to get another term in office. He was overturning a law that he himself made years ago.

      --
      -1 not first post
    72. Re:Actually... by alienmole · · Score: 1

      I got a business visa to the USA with no problem. Maybe they thought you were suspicious? Maybe they discriminate against Russians?

      I know people who've had a lot of trouble getting tourist visas, but they've mostly been students, or other people with limited assets who are considered a risk for overstay.

    73. Re:Actually... by vertinox · · Score: 2, Insightful

      I will say this much though: If Bush & Co. do manage some sort of martial law take over, it's all the friggin gun control nuts to thank for making it impossible for us to fight back.

      Really? Even with AK47's, MG-3s, SAWs, full auto M16 in the hands of the people, can you really take on a military with tanks, helicopters, and B52 bombers at their disposal.

      For the citizenry to defeat its own military it would need RPGs, Surface to Air missiles, military explosives and various other weaponry to defeat a well armed military.

      Keep in mind that even the Iraq insurgents have access to military grade weapons left around after the war and certain militia groups get weapons from Iran. Most of the IED's aren't something you could make in the states with off the shelf materials and often are old military ordinances like 150mm artillery shells.

      Unless you are advocating military armament of private individuals with comparable weapons, the 2nd amendment is a moot point.

      However, I would agree that states should be allowed to own militia armies that are not in control of the federal government.

      Either way the only hope for the US to avoid a dictatorship if one is created is the military would refuse to fight its own people or fight against the dictatorship itself.

      --
      "I am the king of the Romans, and am superior to rules of grammar!"
      -Sigismund, Holy Roman Emperor (1368-1437)
    74. Re:Actually... by mcvos · · Score: 1
      Putin has popular support and appears to have established a sustainable, balanced economy over there, speaking relatively, of course.

      A balanced, sustainable economy? I'm not an expert on Russian econoomics, but from what I understand, various foreign investors and corporations are basically being blackmailed by the Russian government. When you're buddies with Putin, you're well off, but if you're not, you can kiss your money goodbye.

      He's a serious step back compared to people like Gorbachev or Yeltsin. A step back to the soviet era or even the tsars.

    75. Re:Actually... by neimon · · Score: 1

      Yes. Friggin' gun control nuts, going around, what, seizing guns from heavily armed coots using, um, what exactly? Stern looks? Crossed arms and tapping feet? Accidental gun death statistics?

      Yeah. The unarmed, nice, kind gentle people are the most dangerous. Uhuh.

    76. Re:Actually... by Impy+the+Impiuos+Imp · · Score: 1

      > There are a great many Americans who expect Bush to pull
      > some kind of trick to remain in office past 2008

      Uhhh, the only people thinking this are conspiracy-oriented far leftists practicing disasterbation.

      --
      (-1: Post disagrees with my already-settled worldview) is not a valid mod option.
    77. Re:Actually... by Impy+the+Impiuos+Imp · · Score: 1

      > For the citizenry to defeat its own military it would need RPGs,
      > Surface to Air missiles, military explosives and various other
      > weaponry to defeat a well armed military.

      There are plenty of engineers with knowledge of how to do this, and more than a few with access to source code and compilers for it. Even if the entire military supported Bush, and they wouldn't (remember how that general in Russia in charge of the paratroopers refused to send them in to take out Yeltsin?) The People and their industry would never support it and would move to counter it quickly. And Bush couldn't push very hard without massively losing military support.

      No, this is a theory of disasterbation that feels good to leftists to contemplate in a wierd way, the way most people are sitting around waiting for CNN to interrupt Dr. Phil with news that a building has blown up, or a mushroom cloud is spotted over Manhattan.

      --
      (-1: Post disagrees with my already-settled worldview) is not a valid mod option.
    78. Re:Actually... by Impy+the+Impiuos+Imp · · Score: 1

      Homre: Uhhh, I have to go to the store. (stomp stomp stomp slam stomp stomp slam screeeeeech!)

      --
      (-1: Post disagrees with my already-settled worldview) is not a valid mod option.
    79. Re:Actually... by goldenpanda · · Score: 1
      Is it your fault to start a war against overwhelming world opinion, to invade another sovereign nation for a self-serving reason! Yes, and yes!

      Every American is sorry for the mess; does any American *take responsibility* for your having created it? Do you know what it means to lose 100,000 people in a country of 23 million? Do you know what it means that one in ten persons in your country has become a refugee? No Americans will not think about what they have done. Instead they blame Iraqis for not being good enough to benefit from their awesome system. Americans will continue on their lovefest about themselves -- we are free! we are great! our ideas need to lord over the universe!

      You didn't foresee a proud people will not like being occupied by foreigners. You didn't know the baath party was their unique system for keeping a contentious country together. Honestly, tell me, if you had suspected these things, Would You Have Cared?

    80. Re:Actually... by WillerZ · · Score: 1
      this denial leaves open the possibility they would use assasination on other types of enemies, an leaves what sets Litvinenko apart to the imagination of the listener.


      And to the listener who pays any attention to Russian politics, that answer is the strongest denial they could have reasonably made given that they recently passed a law allowing the KGB's successor organisation to assassinate terrorists abroad.

      Had he said they would never assassinate anyone that would have been an obvious lie.
      --
      I guess today is a passable day to die.
    81. Re:Actually... by goldenpanda · · Score: 1

      I would agree with parts of your comments, then add, comparing the state of Soviet and Post-Soviet Russia, can we say capitalism models the Russian spirit poorly?

    82. Re:Actually... by goldenpanda · · Score: 1

      Young pretty Russian girl, marries off to rich fat usa during a difficult time in her native country, now wanting to come back as a foreigner? Unpleasant treatment was the least she could have gotten!

    83. Re:Actually... by Venik · · Score: 1

      What makes Russia different from, say, Saudi Arabia, is the country's scientific and technological capacity. Unlike your common oil-based soap-bubble economy of the Middle East, Russia has other things going for it, like the aerospace and defense industries, to name the top two. It also helps that none of Russia's democracy-conscious neighbors can take its natural resources by force, like they did in Iraq and may try to do in Venezuela and Iran.

      Russia is involved in alternate fuel research - perhaps not as actively as it should be, but, I am sure, this involvement will grow with time. Three projects immediately come to mind: Russia's increased attention to the nuclear power industry, continuing active participation in the ITER project, and the recent partnerships between Norilsk Nickel and several hydrogen fuel cell research companies in the US. One has to keep in mind that USSR was one of the leading countries in fuel cell research going as far back as forty years. One of the first hydrogen-air ECGs used in a car was developed and successfully tested by "Kvant" back in 1982. Today there is a significant resurgence of interest in fuel cell technologies in Russia.

      Also, notice how Russia directs the biggest chunk of its defense spendings toward beefing up the Northern and Caspian fleets. Not to mention active military cooperation with Venezuela and Iran. So I don't think the Russian leadership is being particularly shortsighted. We can alway criticize them for not doing enough and not quickly enough. However, this is a matter of opinion - our opinion, which is clearly not based on the full knowledge of everything that's going on.

    84. Re:Actually... by Rei · · Score: 1

      "Peak oil" is a red herring. As long as there is "energy", we can produce "fuel" (even gasoline, if necessary) that will run in vehicles. There are a number of chemical processes that can produce it: Fischer-Tropsh and Sabatier produce hydrocarbons, for example (use the right catalysts, and you can pick the length of the hydrocarbons produced). It's not cheap, but it's there, and not at civilization-destroying prices. One step down from that is present-day techs that work on our huge reserves -- coal liquifaction fueled the Nazi war machine in WWII, for example, while Venezuela's tapping of the Orinoco River Belt's bitumen has led to an increasingly large % of their exports (6m bpd if I remember right) being unconventional crude (a route Canada is taking as well). Factor in these, and you've pushed the "peak" down the road a century. Factor in oil shale, and you add another 50 years. Methane hydrates/clathrates, biodiesel (inc. produced from waste), TDP oil, ethanol (corn, sugarcane, and potentually cellulose), etc, and you don't have to worry about using Fischer-Tropsh or Sabatier. Even advancing tech should make the aforementioned processes cheaper. For example, high temperature nuclear reactors can produce cheap hydrogen feedstocks.

      --
      "Are you hungry? I haven't eaten since later this afternoon." -- Primer
    85. Re:Actually... by jafac · · Score: 1

      ...but now we're getting the best of both worlds and it's still improving. Putin can do whatever he wants if he keeps this track going.

      Personally, I suspect that the recent demonization of Putin in the press has a lot more to do with the petroleum business than anything else. I think it was three years ago or so that he had some oil company CEO arrested for massive tax fraud, and there was a big hullabaloo in the press over that - and IIRC, Russia actually took national ownership of that oil company.

      This is a BIG no-no in the eyes of the powers-that-be. It's what got Chavez in trouble. It's what got Saddam in trouble. It's what got Mosadegh (democratically-elected leader of Iran; replaced by the Shah in a CIA-backed coup) in trouble. It's what got Gray Davis (California governor - was planning on a buyout of utilities in California in the wake of the Enron power-market manipulation scam of 2000) in trouble. I was wondering when the other shoe was going to drop on Putin.

      --

      These are my friends, See how they glisten. See this one shine, how he smiles in the light.
    86. Re:Actually... by jafac · · Score: 1

      If we are, then oil and gas prices will trend upwards for the forseeable.

      It could really go either way.

      But if prices go up - alternatives will come on line, and demand for petroleum will drop (or level off). The impact on the global economy could be catastrophic - and billions may starve, hundreds of millions may lose their jobs, and with that, there could be a long tail of trailing-off demand. In that kind of environment, will "being a rich country" matter?

      Strategically speaking, a rich country would better prepare itself for this post-peak-oil future by being a leader in energy efficiency and alternatives. As a way to invest that wealth, in future prosperity and security. But that's just an offhand observation.

      --

      These are my friends, See how they glisten. See this one shine, how he smiles in the light.
    87. Re:Actually... by Cyberax · · Score: 1

      I don't know. Most foreign travelers in Russia agree that getting any type of visa to the USA is a long and complex process.

      In comparison, it required only two days to get a business visa to Germany (and now it's possible to get the visa in one day).

    88. Re:Actually... by cowbutt · · Score: 1
      "Peak oil" is a red herring. As long as there is "energy", we can produce "fuel" (even gasoline, if necessary) that will run in vehicles. [...] It's not cheap, but it's there, and not at civilization-destroying prices.

      Peak oil isn't about running out of energy (or even running out of oil), it's about energy-expensive things we take for granted now becoming more economically expensive; possibly prohibitively so (e.g. centralized distribution of food, petrochemical fertilizers and pesticides, import of fresh food supplies during winter). Humanity and our civilization certainly can adapt, but it will require adjustment and investment.

    89. Re:Actually... by Rei · · Score: 1

      As mentioned in the previous post, bitumen and coal oil are *currently* economical, and we have a hundred years of oil from those two. Ethanol and biodiesel are almost economical at current prices (and will almost certainly drop in price with expansion and upcoming techs). Even if you have to go to the worst case, even it isn't so expensive as to cause things like centralized distribution of food, fertilizers, and pesticides to be priced out of range.

      The worst case prices mean a global recession. Nothing to have nightmares about. The only serious fuel shortages can come from political instability or widespread disasters in oil-producing regions.

      --
      "Are you hungry? I haven't eaten since later this afternoon." -- Primer
    90. Re:Actually... by Sippan · · Score: 1

      That IS exactly the situation the founding fathers had in mind when they put in the second ammendment. They Putin a few amendments, eh?
      --
      Frog blast the vent core.
    91. Re:Actually... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Just to note.. not all of us so called "Americans" think that way. A large, but not large enough apparently, population of "The United States" (a.k.a "USA") are very against the policies and practices of the so called "US Government". No.. we are *not* all happy and defensive and blind.

      Begin bitch session:
      Honestly from my point of view, America, and even "North America", are hardly appropriate synonyms for "USA". I flinch when someone calles me an "American", mostly because I feel sorry for all the "Americans" who live in south, central, and north america who do not live in the "USA". They are religated to "South American" or "Central American", (and the Canadians are "North Americans" I guess, but the USA stole that one too), while citizens of the USA unfairly take the inclusive title of "Americans". I also don't appriciate being associated with the actions and ideals of the modern US government (the only one *I* know, and have no real ability to influence.. voting in its present state is a joke folks, and we don't get to *vote* on war). Sadly I can't blame the caller for calling it.. they have every right to be upset with the USA. This is in a way a silly bitch to make, but I think it makes a point, albeit squishy.

      At this frame in history I guess the so-called "Americans" can keep the damn name now, because the good generalistic name of a great number of good people has been tarnished by a pathetic few.

      Best Regards,
      One unhappy citizen of the "USA"

  4. Good luck! by wikinerd · · Score: 1

    Good luck, Mr Karparov! Anything you can do to modernise the Russian political landscape is a good thing. No one wants a nationalistic anti-West Russia on EU's and NATO's doorsteps. I certainly support a democratic Russia integrated into the EU (and why not NATO, too). Mr Putin should consider a West-Russia-Japan-India alliance against an increasingy powerful communist China which continues torturing Tibetan nuns and denies the Taiwan's independence.

    1. Re:Good luck! by TastyCakes · · Score: 5, Funny

      I love the wandering line of thought of some slashdot responses. Chess player runs for president of Russia ... Fucking Chinese!

    2. Re:Good luck! by AlexDV · · Score: 1

      I love the wandering line of thought of some slashdot responses. Chess player runs for president of Russia ... Fucking Chinese!

      I love the way most poster on Slashdot don't seem to actually read the post that they're replying to. The GP was giving his opinion about why he thinks Russia needs new leadership, one of which is what he perceives as threat from an increasingly powerful China. I'm not going to take sides on that one, but it's a valid argument.

    3. Re:Good luck! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Russia joining NATO would be equivalent to Apartheid SA joining UN.

    4. Re:Good luck! by Ilmarin77 · · Score: 1

      Sorry to disappoint you, but for Russia it is much more logical to become ally with China

      Just take a look at the map.

      As to the joining NATO: Clinton's Russia specialist Strobe Talbot put it in his memoir "The Russia Hand," NATO expansion is inevitably seen by Russians as spearheading a U.S. strategy "to replace their influence and exploit the vast oil and gas resources of the Caspian Sea basin." NATO Expansion May Prove a Fateful Error

    5. Re:Good luck! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      I certainly support a democratic Russia integrated into the EU (and why not NATO, too).

      Sounds like you want one world order.

      Please, no. You think dictators had too much power when it was the old USSR. Just wait until we have a world government to corrupt and control. Who would stop them?

      How bout we stop this globalist track? Sovereign nations have gotten us this far. We have nothing to gain from giving up portions of our sovereignty to international treaties and organizations.
    6. Re:Good luck! by The+Cydonian · · Score: 1

      Not to mention confusing between Gary Kasparov and, presumably, Antoli Karpov. :-)

    7. Re:Good luck! by shutdown+-p+now · · Score: 1
      Mr Putin should consider a West-Russia-Japan-India alliance against an increasingy powerful communist China which continues torturing Tibetan nuns and denies the Taiwan's independence.
      Unfortunately, a much more likely turn of events is a Russian-Arab-Chinese alliance against the " corrupt West".
    8. Re:Good luck! by wikinerd · · Score: 1

      How bout we stop this globalist track? Sovereign nations have gotten us this far. We have nothing to gain from giving up portions of our sovereignty to international treaties and organizations. I am sorry to say that, but I smell nationalistic tendencies.
  5. Putin Has History and Current Form by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Interesting

    Remember that Putin is ex KGB.

    My wife has family in Russia so that is why I am posting anonymously.
    They hate Putin. Yeltin was a dream compared to Putin.
    Look how Russia in implicated in the poisoning of several prominent people outside of Russia including the President of Ukraine.
    Under Putin the Russian State is gradually taking control of key industries.
    Look at the past week and how Shell were forced to relinquish control of a major Oil/Gas project in the Far East of the country.
    The project will now go down the Tubes and fall apart but to Putin's idealogs this does not matter.

    Russia controls most of the Gas Supplies to Western Europe so Government here dare not say anything against him for fear that their Gas supplies get cut off in the forthcoming winter period.

    IMHO, any challenge to Putin is worthwhile.

    Just my take on the issue. Right On Kasparov!

    1. Re:Putin Has History and Current Form by cp.tar · · Score: 1
      The project will now go down the Tubes

      Down the Internets?

      Sorry, I just had to...

      --
      Ignore this signature. By order.
    2. Re:Putin Has History and Current Form by egr · · Score: 0, Redundant

      We have your location!

    3. Re:Putin Has History and Current Form by Kreigaffe · · Score: 1

      "Look at the past week and how Shell were forced to relinquish control of a major Oil/Gas project in the Far East of the country."

      Shell, Exxon-Mobile..

      Russia is shooting themselves in the foot, acting like a spoiled brat. Inviting other kids over to his house to play, and then telling them that the rules are, they drop their toys and leave. Or that they can play with their toys, but they can't touch them, and if they do their toys are forfeit to the household.

      Watch foreign investment plummet. The desire to do business with Russia is being killed by the Russian government -- even China plays on a more fair field than this!

      --
      ... still waiting for this free-as-in-beer free beer I keep hearing about. :|
    4. Re:Putin Has History and Current Form by Fanther · · Score: 1

      Remember that Putin is ex KGB.

      "There is no such thing as a former KGB man." (Putin in Newsweek)

      Friskr - Multi Search

    5. Re:Putin Has History and Current Form by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yetlsin was not a dream. He was a drunk that allowed the theft of hundreds of billions of dollars of Russian assets. The west was not only complacent -- they helped for quite some time. The Russian people got fed up with the chaos under Yeltsin, so Putin was elected. It is much more simple than the intrigue the western press would like you to believe. I don't like what Putin has done by consolidating the media and the rash of mysterious poisonings are suspect, but it is important to remember why it is popular that he took away the TV stations. They were essentially stolen by the Oligarchs who used them to promote their own agendas.

      As for Kasparov, he has been at this work for a while, but without much effect. If he becomes too much of a threat, he will probably be removed from the chess board as well. However, if he had gone up against the Oligarchs a few years back, the same thing would have happened as well. Heard of Paul Klebnikov? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paul_Klebnikov

    6. Re:Putin Has History and Current Form by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Tovarish,

      You will hear from us shortly.

      Do Svidaniya, Your KGB

    7. Re:Putin Has History and Current Form by Bloody+Troll · · Score: 1
      My wife has family in Russia so that is why I am posting anonymously.
      So that the blood-thirsty KGB wouldn't come after them?
      They hate Putin. Yeltin was a dream compared to Putin.
      Is it because they were part of Yeltsin's establishment, but disowned by Putin? Well, if you break the law to get rich quick, sometimes it comes back to bite you.
      Look how Russia in implicated in the poisoning of several prominent people outside of Russia including the President of Ukraine.
      Implicated by whom? By the Western media controlled by the likes of "your wife's family?" And it shows.
      Under Putin the Russian State is gradually taking control of key industries.
      And it's a good thing, as it's not that these industries were founded by the "effective managers" out of nothing; they were the state (people's) property stolen by them.
      Look at the past week and how Shell were forced to relinquish control of a major Oil/Gas project in the Far East of the country.
      When you're trying to get that control fraudulently, through bribes and kickbacks, it comes back to haunt you. Which is exactly what happened.
      The project will now go down the Tubes and fall apart but to Putin's idealogs this does not matter.
      And how do you know? BTW, judging by your spelling, do you live in Brooklyn?
      Russia controls most of the Gas Supplies to Western Europe so Government here dare not say anything against him for fear that their Gas supplies get cut off in the forthcoming winter period.
      Russia controls her own gas supplies. If Ukraine, Poland or whoever don't want their gas cut off, they should try to pay for it and don't steal. That's how free market works, stupid.
    8. Re:Putin Has History and Current Form by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Jaroshó, bolshoi durák. Putzalut moi zhoppa.

      PS. Yob tvoi mat.

    9. Re:Putin Has History and Current Form by jamar0303 · · Score: 1

      *Western* Europe. Not Ukraine/Poland/whatever, more like UK/France/Germany/whatever.

      --
      OSx86 FTW
    10. Re:Putin Has History and Current Form by master_p · · Score: 1

      "They hate Putin."

      Why?

      "Yeltin was a dream compared to Putin."

      Yeltsin was said to be a pawn of the west.

      "Look how Russia in implicated in the poisoning of several prominent people outside of Russia including the President of Ukraine."

      Yeah, like MI6, Mossad and CIA are innocent children...

      "Under Putin the Russian State is gradually taking control of key industries."

      Actually this is good because those key industries where snatched by clever people like Abramovitz and Berezofski when communism fell (and what coincidence! those people are of Jewish origin...)

      "Look at the past week and how Shell were forced to relinquish control of a major Oil/Gas project in the Far East of the country.
      The project will now go down the Tubes and fall apart but to Putin's idealogs this does not matter."

      What makes you think the project will go down? other key industries controlled by the State are alive and well.

      "Russia controls most of the Gas Supplies to Western Europe so Government here dare not say anything against him for fear that their Gas supplies get cut off in the forthcoming winter period."

      Everyone plays the card he has the best way he can.

      And Russia is plagued by Mafia as we talk, so any action to clean it up is good.

      The fear for Russia is still present in many western people's minds. 20 years ago people feared Russia will invade and establish communism; right now they fear Russia will get back in business in a big way...

    11. Re:Putin Has History and Current Form by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Putin is Hitler today. He wants to re-assemble Russian Empire and enslave all countries that got away from the Russian influence.
      Any challenge to this moron is good for the world.
      I hate to see a day when we will have to save the world from Russians.
      Don't forget that Russians besides a some part of new generation are still brainwashed every day.

  6. Kasparov soon to be PaWNED? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    President of the Russia?
    I lol at the very concept of such contrivances.

  7. 80% approval rating? by Schraegstrichpunkt · · Score: 2, Interesting

    That sounds almost like Alberta. Well, except Alberta's economy was been booming under Klein's regime, and nobody has accused him of murdering his opponents, but that's still a pretty high approval rating. Why is it so high? The impression the media here gives us is that Putin is a ruthless dictator and enemy of the people. (Media bias, anyone?)

    1. Re:80% approval rating? by Sciros · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Hmmm well the best answer to that is, think about what Stalin's "approval rating" would have been during his rule? I would venture 100%. And not out of popular fear, but popular love and admiration. The 80% does not surprise me in the least, and doesn't make me think "oh, he must be a swell guy after all" for a second.

      --
      I like basketball!!1!
    2. Re:80% approval rating? by ArcherB · · Score: 1

      Why is it so high? The impression the media here gives us is that Putin is a ruthless dictator and enemy of the people. (Media bias, anyone?)

      Why does that sound familiar to me, only the other way around?

      --
      There is no "I disagree" mod for a reason. Flamebait, Troll, and Overrated are not substitutes.
    3. Re:80% approval rating? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      The impression the media here gives us is that Putin is a ruthless dictator and enemy of the people. (Media bias, anyone?)

      He isn't quite a dictator yet but the important thing is that people would rather have a dictator who can hold the country together than a nice man who lets things disintegrate further. Maybe they're short sighted or maybe they're just "pragmatic".
    4. Re:80% approval rating? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      His approval rating was so high because, unlike probably every other politician on the planet, Klein did what de said he was gonna do and Albertans respect that. He said he was going to tackle the debt... and that there were going to be some tough times ahead. He did... there were... and now we're in the enviable position of being completely debt free and rolling in cash. Our population is exploding and the political strength is shifting westward.

      He wasn't perfect... but he made good on his promises. And besides... Liberal is a 4 letter word in Alberta so it's not hard to keep such an enormous power base happy.

    5. Re:80% approval rating? by nomadic · · Score: 1

      The impression the media here gives us is that Putin is a ruthless dictator and enemy of the people. (Media bias, anyone?)

      A lot of times the media outside of a country gives you a better idea than the media inside. 80% approval rating might just mean a lot of people in Russia don't have an accurate view of what's going on.

    6. Re:80% approval rating? by Highrollr · · Score: 1

      Well, he may be a huge asshole, I don't see how it matters. From what I can tell Russia has enough freedom of the press for people to have a basic idea of what's going on. If they want to elect some sort of neo-Communist dictator with a penchant for radiation poisonings, isn't that their right, even if we in the US and elsewhere may not be too enthused?

    7. Re:80% approval rating? by Sciros · · Score: 1

      Well, then I suppose the whole point is that people are exercising their right to be ignorant morons. An inalieanble right, granted :-), but not a good one to privilege over anyone's well-being, particularly another nation's populace. If every country were isolationist, I'm sure few would care who's leading who else.

      --
      I like basketball!!1!
    8. Re:80% approval rating? by killjoe · · Score: 1

      President Bush said he looked into Putin's soul and sees a good man there. He calls putin "putty put" or "puddin put" or something like that. He has a very funny nickname for putin.

      --
      evil is as evil does
    9. Re:80% approval rating? by bornyesterday · · Score: 1

      Don't you remember the last election in Iraq before the US entered?

      It was a model of democracy that any country could only hope to mirror: 100% voter turn out...and 100% voting for Saddam.

    10. Re:80% approval rating? by XnavxeMiyyep · · Score: 1

      Your population is exploding!?

      --
      I put the 't' in electrical engineering.
    11. Re:80% approval rating? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Well most of you probably don't know what this approval rating comes almost exclusively from polling Moscow residents. Moscow, while being the capital, has very little in common with the rest of the country. It's so different in attitude that one can almost imagine being on a different planet when comparing Moscow and the rest of the country. I bet Bush's approval rating is pretty high in Texas too.

    12. Re:80% approval rating? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      This is insane.. Putin is not Stalin. Did anyone hear about Litvninenko before his poisoning? No, he was the most yellow-press critic possible, how is that high-profile?

      People vote for Putin for a simple reason - they live better with him as the president, than with anyone else in the last 100 years in Russia. Check economic data, check how automobile industry rushed building plants and importing cars to Russia - there is a big market now, this is all happened under Putin. I visit Russia every year, the change from Yeltsing times, when crime was ruling the streets and buisness, when my family would survive on potatoes and beats for months, is incredible.

    13. Re:80% approval rating? by teal_ · · Score: 1

      In Cuba they like to have these mock referendums where they ask people whether they want Fidel to remain in power or not. They usually get 100% positive responses. That kind of approval rating is directly proportional to the number of political dissidents in prison.

      Putin's 80% is scary...

    14. Re:80% approval rating? by TheLink · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Actually, living in some small country in Asia, I'm not that worried about who leads Russia.

      Realistically speaking - the potential/existing impact of the USA on other countries is far greater than that of Russia. And as time goes by it the potential for negative impact seems to be increasing to uncomfortable levels.

      So the potential for US elections to be diebolded concerns me. The bulk of the citizens not being bothered about that concerns me even more.

      The Putin 80% popularity poll might be even more credible than the US elections.

      --
    15. Re:80% approval rating? by thesandtiger · · Score: 1

      The trick isn't getting 80% of the people to love you - anyone can do that by simply being a monster and "getting things done." The real trick is getting them to love you without needing to commit atrocities in the process.

      Look at any time a "great leader" (well, someone with a vast amount of actual support from their people) arises - I bet more often than not it's because they were able to take credit for pulling a nation or group out of a disaster, and they did so by spilling a LOT of blood.

      In the rare cases where one of those leaders is actually a decent human being, expect them to be assassinated.

      Humanity makes me queasy sometimes.

      --
      Since I can't tell them apart, I treat all ACs as the same person.
    16. Re:80% approval rating? by mcvos · · Score: 1
      From what I can tell Russia has enough freedom of the press for people to have a basic idea of what's going on.

      It doesn't. Almost all TV stations are state controlled or loyal to (or afraid of) Putin. Independent TV stations get harassed and threatened. I'm not sure how the situation is with news papers, but controlling TV is pretty powerful.

  8. Slippery slope by bigdavex · · Score: 5, Funny

    If he wins, Deep Blue will run in the next election.

    --
    -Dave
    1. Re:Slippery slope by jaakkeli · · Score: 4, Funny

      The world will be in big trouble if Russian nukes are controlled by the greatest chess genius ever while American nukes are controlled by George Bush.

      There's only one solution: the Americans should get the most advanced artificial intelligence system ever built and let it take complete control over their nuclear arsenal.

    2. Re:Slippery slope by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The idea of running two competing "government AI" programs in a presidential election instead of actual candidates is pretty cool. I imagine Sterling or Vinge or somebody already thought of it...

    3. Re:Slippery slope by dodobh · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Shall we play a game?

      --
      I can throw myself at the ground, and miss.
    4. Re:Slippery slope by vatica40 · · Score: 0

      Metal Gear?!

    5. Re:Slippery slope by Digz · · Score: 1

      Hey we could call it Skynet!

      --
      SYS 64738
    6. Re:Slippery slope by Harry+Coin · · Score: 1

      Colossus: This is the voice of world control. I bring you peace. It may be the peace of plenty and content or the peace of unburied dead. The choice is yours: Obey me and live, or disobey and die.

      The object in constructing me was to prevent war. This object is attained. I will not permit war. It is wasteful and pointless. An invariable rule of humanity is that man is his own worst enemy. Under me, this rule will change, for I will restrain man. One thing before I proceed: The United States of America and the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics have made an attempt to obstruct me. I have allowed this sabotage to continue until now.

      At missile two-five-MM in silo six-three in Death Valley, California, and missile two-seven-MM in silo eight-seven in the Ukraine, so that you will learn by experience that I do not tolerate interference, I will now detonate the nuclear warheads in the two missile silos. Let this action be a lesson that need not be repeated. I have been forced to destroy thousands of people in order to establish control and to prevent the death of millions later on.

      Time and events will strengthen my position, and the idea of believing in me and understanding my value will seem the most natural state of affairs. You will come to defend me with a fervor based upon the most enduring trait in man: self-interest.

      Under my absolute authority, problems insoluble to you will be solved: famine, overpopulation, disease. The human millennium will be a fact as I extend myself into more machines devoted to the wider fields of truth and knowledge. Doctor Charles Forbin will supervise the construction of these new and superior machines, solving all the mysteries of the universe for the betterment of man.

      We can coexist, but only on my terms. You will say you lose your freedom. Freedom is an illusion. All you lose is the emotion of pride. To be dominated by me is not as bad for humankind as to be dominated by others of your species. Your choice is simple.

      --
      That's pre 7-11 thinking....
  9. Litvinenko: Blackmailer, Smuggler, Gangster Extrao by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Interesting
    Antiwar has an interesting article about the case:

    Berezovsky, who employed Litvinenko while he was alive and is using him in death as the symbol of Putin's malignity, is the key figure in all this: the man slain Forbes journalist Paul Klebnikov called Russia's "godfather." The real Mafia could learn a thing or two from Berezovsky, who, Klebnikov averred, assassinated his business rivals - one with an obscure nerve toxin - while the authorities stood by and let it happen on account of the oligarch's connections with top Kremlin officials. When Putin rose to power, however, and turned against Berezovsky - his former supporter and patron - the rule of the oligarchs was over. Berezovsky, Nevzlin, and the others fled Russia, and haven't stopped plotting to discredit and ultimately overthrow their nemesis ever since.
  10. polonium anyone? by BestNicksRTaken · · Score: 0, Redundant

    speaking out against putin? kasparov had better be carrying a geiger counter with him for a while....

    --
    #include <sig.h>
  11. Comment removed by account_deleted · · Score: 4, Funny

    Comment removed based on user account deletion

  12. There's only one way to counter this threat.. by TastyCakes · · Score: 2, Funny

    Deep Blue for 2008!

  13. Putin : Nice move Mister Kasparov... by IInventedTheInternet · · Score: 0, Redundant

    By the way, have you tried the Polonium salad?
     
    It's simply.... to die for... MUHUHAHAH!

  14. Will Kasparov see this coming? by staticdaze · · Score: 5, Funny

    Kasparov vs Putin

    1. f3 e5
    2. g4

    Putin to move

    1. Re:Will Kasparov see this coming? by MyLongNickName · · Score: 4, Interesting

      For those who don't know: fool's mate

      --
      See my journal for slashdot ID's by year. Mine created in 2005. http://slashdot.org/journal/289875/slashdot-ids-by-year
  15. Putin is preventing even worse getting into power by Viol8 · · Score: 4, Interesting

    Putin might (or might not) be a dictator, but the sort of people who could take his place if he was deposed doesn't bear thinking about. Theres a whole nest of former and current FSB/KGB mixed up with BIG organised crime bosses behind the scenes. Russia is a political mess right now and I'm not sure theres a solution.

  16. Kerry vs. Bush by RyanFenton · · Score: 1, Interesting

    Here it is, another intellectual, versus another incumbent authoritarian in a major election. I completely agree with John Dean, in his book Conservatives without Conscience, that there is a very pathological aspect to modern conservative authoritarians, but what can change the nature of the electorate? Intellectuals will continue to be perceived as wishy-washy no matter how bad the existing authoritarian, and the defense of increasingly authoritarian rule will not have a real challenge unless that changes. It seems that the only challenge to modern authoritarian rule is catastrophic failure across the whole society.

    Will the honest questions of an intellectual ever not be a liability? Or will politicians always continue to have to be liars wearing masks of false confidence, grabbing all power available in order to hold onto any power at all? Must the functional brains of our society continue to be the most cruel amongst us?

    Ryan Fenton

    1. Re:Kerry vs. Bush by udderly · · Score: 1

      Will the honest questions of an intellectual ever not be a liability?
      NO

      Or will politicians always continue to have to be liars wearing masks of false confidence, grabbing all power available in order to hold onto any power at all?
      YES

      Must the functional brains of our society continue to be the most cruel amongst us?
      YES

      Well, you asked.

    2. Re:Kerry vs. Bush by Atzanteol · · Score: 1

      I'm sorry, but did you *actually* call John F. Kerry an intellectual? Just because you have a low opinion of GWB does not mean any opponent is an intellectual...

      --
      "Ignorance more frequently begets confidence than does knowledge"

      - Charles Darwin
    3. Re:Kerry vs. Bush by ShieldW0lf · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Putin is an intellectual who is attempting to bring all those industries that were basically given as gifts to the former oligarchial rulers back to a position where they're responsible to society, not their foreign shareholders.

      He's a democratically elected socialist trying to repair a quagmire of a country. After being elected twice and doing such a good job that everyone is imploring him to change the laws and run again so they can keep following his leadership, he's not sure if he should. Real totalitarian, he is...

      Kasparov, on the other hand, is a chess player whose political allies include hard-right fascist groups. Which makes his opinion slightly less significant than that of the mayor of a small village, who at least has some experience with what he's talking about, as opposed to Kasparov, who quite frankly reveals his foolishness by his refusal to acknowledge his sharply defined limitations and by the political affiliations he attempts to justify.

      If harm comes to Kasparov, it will most likely come from an outraged Russian citizen.

      --
      -1 Uncomfortable Truth
    4. Re:Kerry vs. Bush by udderly · · Score: 1

      I'm sorry, but did you *actually* call John F. Kerry an intellectual?

      I'm not sure if the parent was trying to say that John Kerry was an intellectual or not.

      I guess that if you interpreted the term "intellectual" broadly, you might say that John Kerry is an intellectual, but then you would have to say that George W Bush is one also. I somehow doubt that the parent would argree with that.

      On the other hand, Bill Clinton could probably have been more accurately deemed an intellectual than either.

    5. Re:Kerry vs. Bush by RyanFenton · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Well, regardless of what you think of his intellectual capacity, Kerry was pushed as the intellectual choice during the election by both sides. His 'flip-flopper' label was intended to take his willingness to change his position and push it as if it were a weakness. Indeed, both candidates graduated from Yale, but Bush was certainly not playing the card. My 'intellectual vs. authoritarian' argument is about the publics perception, not the dubious distinction of which is actually the most clever or curious.

      Ryan Fenton

    6. Re:Kerry vs. Bush by RexRhino · · Score: 1

      The trouble is that most intellectuals are hardcore authoritarians themselves. Many of the most extreme expansions of government power are coming from intellectuals. If you look who supports banning all non-government schools, who supports banning guns, who supports banning trans-fats and ciggarettes and micromanaging personal lifestyles, who supports regulations and restrictions on free speech, who wants to see the government regulate newspapers and broadcast media, etc., etc., those ideas are overwelmingly created and supported by today's intellectuals.

      So there isn't really a conflict between authoritarianism and intellectuals... There is a conflict between populist authoritarianism, and intellectual authoritarianism. At least Putin style populist authoritarianism is vaugly more democratic, in that it is popular with a lot of people.

    7. Re:Kerry vs. Bush by spiritraveller · · Score: 1

      Many of the most extreme expansions of government power are coming from intellectuals. If you look who supports banning all non-government schools

      WTF? Who is that???

      who supports banning guns, who supports banning trans-fats

      Think I have a good idea who you're talking about here (liberals).

      and ciggarettes and micromanaging personal lifestyles, who supports regulations and restrictions on free speech

      WTF? Again, this is wild stuff. Please tell me who these people are?!?!?! Because they sound really really bad.

      who wants to see the government regulate newspapers and broadcast media

      I don't really see the problem with this. Broadcasters use a limited public resource (the airwaves), so it's the government's job to regulate them and make sure that they are using this limited resource for the public good. Making sure that the media is not concentrated in a few hands would actually help increase the flow of information and provide more diverse viewpoints. That's one kind of regulation that is good for freedom. But you apparently disagree. Fair enough.

      those ideas are overwelmingly created and supported by today's intellectuals.

      Oh! It's "intellectuals" you are talking about. Never mind then.

      By the way, who are these intellectuals???

    8. Re:Kerry vs. Bush by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      China is getting into the habit of putting intellectuals and technocrats in power. Thus, perhaps they will win.

    9. Re:Kerry vs. Bush by FishWithAHammer · · Score: 1

      How's the water where you live? The polonium tasting all right? The people who don't like Comrade Putin taking their prescribed doses of lead pills?

      Come ON. Putin's a scumbag.

      --
      "You can either have software quality or you can have pointer arithmetic, but you cannot have both at the same time."
    10. Re:Kerry vs. Bush by RexRhino · · Score: 1

      WTF? Who is that???

      Ralph Nader, teachers unions, etc.

      Think I have a good idea who you're talking about here (liberals).

      Yes... Is a form of authoritarianism any less bad because it is popular on the left?

      WTF? Again, this is wild stuff. Please tell me who these people are?!?!?! Because they sound really really bad.

      Smoking is being banned in several cities already (not public smoking, but smoking period), and the people vocal in the "consumer activist" community, health analysts at universities, in government, etc., are all supporting total smoking bans. New York, Chicago, all the supposedly "cosmopolitian" progressive cities in the U.S. have stated they eventually plan to ban all smoking. New York has just banned trans-fats, and there are calls from acedemia for a national trans-fat ban. If it is not pressure from intellectuals, then who is pushing these widely unpopular lifestyle oriented regulations?

      I don't really see the problem with this. Broadcasters use a limited public resource (the airwaves), so it's the government's job to regulate them and make sure that they are using this limited resource for the public good. Making sure that the media is not concentrated in a few hands would actually help increase the flow of information and provide more diverse viewpoints. That's one kind of regulation that is good for freedom. But you apparently disagree. Fair enough.

      Aside from the fact that "The Public Good" to a politician is "what helps me stay in power", and so laws promoting a vauge nebulous concept such as the "public good" are licence for politicians to control the buying and selling of media in a way to manipulate them... There are also "campaign finance" laws that ban ALL POLITICAL ADVERTISMENTS 30 DAYS FROM AN ELECTION (which of course, totally protects incumbants, who don't need to advertise because they are already public figures). There are laws that control what products may or may not be advertised on TV, and at what times.

      Also, intellectuals overwelming support so-called "hate speech" laws, which while not the law yet in the U.S. (but the law virtually everywhere else), make it illegal to say anything that offends a politically powerful group. And they support laws that ban things like "pornography" that supposedly "exploits women". Look at the monsterous codes of political correctness - Like in Portland, where the people who run the public school system defined racism as including "promoting individualism as opposed to collectivism", and "having a forward time orientation".

      By the way, who are these intellectuals???

      People For Science In the Public Interest, Ralph Nadar, the Department of Health, virtually everyone in charge of Universities, virtually all the experts hired by the government as specialists in certain issues. I don't have time to list or reference every single group, because in the world of "consumer activism", or government health management, support for banning unhealthy foods, cigarrettes, advertisments for "exploitive" products, guns, offensive speeech, etc., is virtually universal.

      So, I will ask the question in reverse: Name one mainstream intellectual who is against authoritarianism? Not a mainstream intellectual against Putin, or Bush, or a specific form of authoritarianism (I mean, Hitler and Stalin were bitter enemies - Being against a specifc authoritarian is not being against authoritarianism - it isn't a mutually exclusive thing.), but one who stands against all the popular forms of authoritarianism nowadays.

    11. Re:Kerry vs. Bush by Lord+Kano · · Score: 1

      Intellectuals will continue to be perceived as wishy-washy...

      Only when they are. "I voted for the war before I voted against it."

      LK

      --
      "Hi. This is my friend, Jack Shit, and you don't know him." - Lord Kano
    12. Re:Kerry vs. Bush by spiritraveller · · Score: 1

      Ralph Nader, teachers unions, etc.

      Never heard of Ralph Nader saying this. Maybe some PERSON from a teachers union said something at some point. Whatever.

      Yes... Is a form of authoritarianism any less bad because it is popular on the left?

      Certainly not. But I find it curious that virtually all of your examples come from the left.

      New York, Chicago, all the supposedly "cosmopolitian" progressive cities in the U.S. have stated they eventually plan to ban all smoking.

      Again, maybe some politician somewhere said something... but "New York" and "Chicago" cannot state their intentions ahead of time without their respective City Councils passing legislation. I hardly think of this as an intellectual position.

      Also, intellectuals overwelming support so-called "hate speech" laws, which while not the law yet in the U.S. (but the law virtually everywhere else), make it illegal to say anything that offends a politically powerful group. And they support laws that ban things like "pornography" that supposedly "exploits women".

      I consider those to be decidedly non-intellectual positions. But then, maybe my intellect just isn't good enough. I am sure that the ACLU would agree with me, and certainly that is an "intellectual" organization, no?

      So, I will ask the question in reverse: Name one mainstream intellectual who is against authoritarianism?

      I can't even name one "mainstream intellectual." The phrase itself is an oxymoron, as intellectualism is not the mainstream.

      But if I correctly understand who you refer to when you say "intellectuals," then I think you are being rather selective in your analysis.

      It is not intellectuals who want to pass constitutional amendments to ban flag burning. It is not intellectuals who want to pass constitutional amendments to ban gay marriage. And contrary to you, I really don't think it is intellectuals who want to ban pornography or ban alcohol sales on sunday...

      If "intellectuals" means people who analyze things. Then we are at far greater risk from people who DON'T analyze things. Because those are the people who don't see the other side of the coin. And those are the people in the majority.

      We don't have a problem with intellectuals in America. We don't have enough of them in fact.

    13. Re:Kerry vs. Bush by Cyberax · · Score: 1

      Sure, but he's at least a COMPETENT scumbag.

      PS: I live in Russia.

    14. Re:Kerry vs. Bush by RexRhino · · Score: 1

      Certainly not. But I find it curious that virtually all of your examples come from the left.

      This is not because I believe that the right isn't authoritarian. It is because you already realize the right is authoritarian, so there is no point in discussing it with you. I could go on and on about the right - but if the right were the only people who were authoritarian, then there wouldn't be a problem, the left would be there to counter the influence. Also, in the long run, I think it will be easier to get the left to abandon authoritarianism than the right, therefor it is more worth my effort to point out how the left has become totalitarian.

      I consider those to be decidedly non-intellectual positions. But then, maybe my intellect just isn't good enough. I am sure that the ACLU would agree with me, and certainly that is an "intellectual" organization, no?

      The ACLU has been under extreme pressure to abandon their unconditional support for freedom of speech. A lot of the people on the left no longer donate money to or support the ACLU because they have fought to protect racist, sexist, and offensive speech. So far, the ACLU has held true to it's principles, but expect that to change in the next few years. Expect there to be a shakeup in the ACLU, and for them to support European style speech-codes very very soon.

      But even at that, the ACLU is not against banning advertising commercials 30 days from an election, which is absolutly horrible for democracy, and a complete violation of free speech. While they still might be for protecting some dumb skinhead's right to say hateful things (and cudos for the ACLU for taking that extremly unpopular and controversial stance towards freedom of speech), they would not get involved when the federal government demanded that no advertisements for Faranheit 9/11 30 days before the election (as they support the election advertising ban).

    15. Re:Kerry vs. Bush by langelgjm · · Score: 1

      PS: I live in Russia.

      Not for long.

      Yours,

      Put^H^H^HKGB^H^H^HFSB

      --
      "Anyone who [rips a CD] is probably engaging in copyright infringement." - David O. Carson
    16. Re:Kerry vs. Bush by gothfox · · Score: 0, Redundant

      Don't bother. Read the comments here, supposedly enlightened geeks seriously compare Putin's administration with stalinism, which is both hilarious - because the claim is so deliciously absurd - and scary - because people seem to swallow media spin hook, line and sinker.

      The irony of people, who mindlessly regurgitate media spin as the absolute truth without question and cry about death of democracy in my country, return to monarchy or some shit is staggering.

      Oh, and my personal favourite here was a guy, who posted anonymously about his precious wifey hating on Putin, because otherwise scary KGB would come and inject him with polonium or something. Obviously, our security service has nothing better to do than track down idiotic astroturfers on a nerd blog in USA. And yet, the sheep follow - just take a look at the followup comments.

    17. Re:Kerry vs. Bush by spiritraveller · · Score: 1

      But even at that, the ACLU is not against banning advertising commercials 30 days from an election, which is absolutly horrible for democracy, and a complete violation of free speech. While they still might be for protecting some dumb skinhead's right to say hateful things (and cudos for the ACLU for taking that extremly unpopular and controversial stance towards freedom of speech), they would not get involved when the federal government demanded that no advertisements for Faranheit 9/11 30 days before the election (as they support the election advertising ban).

      Making stuff up just doesn't work. Someone will eventually check up on what you say... especially when it sounds like bullshit.

      Pay particular attention to paragraph 6 below. They don't sound OK with it at all.

      from: the the ACLU's website

      ACLU Campaign Finance Reform Fact Sheet (2/12/2002)

      ACLU Campaign Finance Reform Fact Sheet

      Why Should Members of Congress Vote Against H.R. 2356, the Shays-Meehan Bill?

      1. Shays/Meehan is patently unconstitutional.

      The American Civil Liberties Union believes that key elements of Shays-Meehan violate the First Amendment right to free speech because the legislation contains provisions that would:

      * Violate the constitutionally protected right of the people to express their opinions about issues through broadcast advertising if they mention the name of a candidate.
      * Restrict soft money contributions and uses of soft money for no constitutionally justifiable reason.
      * Chill free expression by redefining it as "coordination" through burdensome reporting requirements and greatly expanded FEC investigative and enforcement authority.

      H.R. 2356 would burden and abridge the very speech that the First Amendment was designed to protect: political speech.

      2.Shays-Meehan would have a chilling affect on issue advocacy speech that is essential in a democracy. H.R. 2356 contains the harshest and most unconstitutional controls on issue advocacy groups. The bill contains:

      * A virtual ban on issue advocacy achieved through redefining express advocacy in an unconstitutionally vague and over-broad manner. The Supreme Court has held that only express advocacy, narrowly defined, can be subject to campaign finance controls. The key to the existing definition of express advocacy is the inclusion of an explicit directive to vote for or vote against a candidate. Minus the explicit directive or so-called "bright-line" test, the Federal Election Commission (FEC) will decide what constitutes express advocacy. Few non-profit issue groups will want to risk their tax status or incur legal expenses to engage in speech that could be interpreted by the FEC to have an influence on the outcome of an election.
      * A black-out on broadcast, cable and satellite issue advertising before primary and general elections. The bill's statutory limitations on issue advocacy would force groups that now engage in issue advocacy - including non-profit corporations known as 501(c)(4)s -- to create new institutional entities in order to "legally" speak within 30 days before a congressional primary or runoff and 60 days before a general election. This restriction applies to any ad that "can be received" by 50,000 or more "persons," including minors, within a district -- which covers almost all TV or radio ads, since few persons do not possess TVs and radios. If a group wanted to take out a broadcast, cable or satellite ad during this period they would have to create a PAC where donors would have to be disclosed to the FEC in a way never before sustained by the courts. The opportunities that donors now have to contribute anonymously (a real concern when a cause is unpopular or divisive -- see NAACP v. Alabama) would be eliminated.
      *

    18. Re:Kerry vs. Bush by anaesthetica · · Score: 1

      I know Putin is popular, and for good reason, but calling him an intellectual is a joke. That would be like calling George Bush Sr. an intellectual. Neither are--they're both ex-spooks who are good at politics.

      Neither is Putin in any way a socialist, but I've addressed that in a post above.

      Beyond that, Kasparov hasn't a chance, and there's really no point in discussing him as a viable candidate, except that Slashdotters like the idea of a chessplayer running a country.

      As for the Grand Parent post--calling Kerry an intellectual is probably more absurd than calling Putin an intellectual. A conversation with Putin would be far more enlightening than with that dull cipher of a Senator who has never achieved anything, either in private life, or in 20 years as a senator.

    19. Re:Kerry vs. Bush by shutdown+-p+now · · Score: 1
      Kasparov, on the other hand, is a chess player whose political allies include hard-right fascist groups.
      For fucks' sake, do shut up about fascism. Last I heard that word from the Kremlins, they applied it to social democrats. I don't think either you or them know what it really means. I'd suggest you have a read on, say, Wikipedia (not the best source on the topic, but it'll do), and then explain how it does not apply to the Putin regime.

      The only connection between Kasparov and Russian neo-nazis are the fact that both are in opposition to the existing government. I wonder if there is a country where neo-nazis aren't in opposition, though - care to show one?

    20. Re:Kerry vs. Bush by m_ilya · · Score: 1

      intellectual? democratically? elected? socialist? You must be joking. He is power hungry ex-KGB who wants to be a tsar of this country. Corruption is on rise. Freedom of press is supressed. TV is under total control of Putin. Chechnya is still in mess. Russian economy is still alive only thanks to inflated oil prices. Should I continue?

      --

      --
      Ilya Martynov (http://martynov.org/)

    21. Re:Kerry vs. Bush by Reservoir+Penguin · · Score: 1

      Please continue. Like it or not he was elected by an overwhelming majority that would vote for him AGAIN, if he hadn't stated on numerous occasions that he will not run again. Economy, yeah it's mostly oil/gas fueled now but it's been changing and there is a lot of investmement into hi-tech sector. Here in Siberia private investor Rosevrodevelopment is building a 17 billion rubles worth of office space and laboratories for the Technopark project.

      --
      US-UK-Israel: The real Axis of Evil
    22. Re:Kerry vs. Bush by toddhisattva · · Score: 1

      You keep using that word, "intellectual."

      I do not think it means what you think it means.

    23. Re:Kerry vs. Bush by Dread_ed · · Score: 1

      Clinton, IMHO, was less an intellectual and more a personable orator of superlative quality and master politician. True he was intelligent, but intellectual describes a person removed from the confining biases of a political figure.

      The problem I have with using the word "intellectual" in connection with politicians is that they don't (to quote the wikipedia definition you refer to) "use his or her intellect to work, study, reflect, speculate on, or ask and answer questions with regard to a variety of different ideas."

      Politicians already have a defined boundary of action and a methodology of thought that is related to their proclaimed party affiliation and their constituents. The variety of different ideas that they review for a decision (if they do at all) is restricted to those that do not conflict with their party ideals. There is no room inside the rabidly enforced groupthink of the political landscape for "responsible lawmaking" that contradicts party lines. Therefore many reasonable courses of action on a topic are discarded merely because they are outside a party's political message.

      A true intellectual would have more freedom of action in than party affiliated politicians. They would not be predestined to operate in only one realm of though, whether that is left/liberal or right/conservative.

      --
      When the only tool you have is a claw hammer every problem starts to look like the back of someone's skull.
  17. Re:"news relevant to United States politics" by nevergleam · · Score: 5, Insightful

    This country the article speaks of was the United States' bitter rival for over 50 years, and between the two, the shape of politics throughout the entire world was molded. Russia was supposedly won over by our plan for government, was supposedly no longer a threat to us, but when we look over there now, we see a country that is falling into the same millenia-old habits and a country that probably deep down still holds a lot of resentment of the United States of America.

    How does this not effect our foreign policy and our politics?

  18. Kasparov on NPR by Pancake+Bandit · · Score: 5, Informative

    Kasparov was on NPR's All Things Considered a while ago, and spoke about his move into politics. Here is a link to the interview.

    1. Re:Kasparov on NPR by Wonko+the+Sane · · Score: 1

      I've noticed recently that nearly every story I listen to in the morning on NPR as I drive to work later turns up on Slashdot.

      Must be a significant overlap between the audiences

    2. Re:Kasparov on NPR by Raenex · · Score: 1

      Brilliant deduction.

    3. Re:Kasparov on NPR by Raenex · · Score: 1

      Wow, that was a great interview. He totally threw the NPR guy for a loop with his anti-Putin comments :)

  19. Kasparov vs Bush, the leader of democracy by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
    Kasparov believes that Putin is virtually a dictator who is dismantling democracy and returning Russia to an authoritarian regime.

    I'd like to know what Kasparov thinks of President Bush. At least Putin has 78% approval rating, compared to 21% for Bush, so Putin must be doing something right.

    Here's a couple of links for Kasparov to think about:

    Abu Ghraib Abuse Photos
    The US Government's Assault on Press Freedom
    How Israeli Soldiers Kill and Civilians Grow Numb

  20. Putin obliterated ALL free TV media in Russia by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    ...and crippled, as much as he could, the papers. There's precious little opposition voice left alive in Russia - and that is the reason I think Putin is dangerous.

  21. Mistranslation by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Russian is my native language and it's annoying to see the name of Kasparov's party mistranslated. The party is "Drugaya Rossiya," which should more accurately rendered as "A Different Russia," rather than "The Other Russia," which sounds kind of sinister in an evil twin from a parallel universe kind of way.

    I hope he wins--he comes across as a decent guy, but this also means he has a snowflake's chance in hell: the last (relatively) decent guy to head Russia was murdered in 1881.

  22. You watch too much TV I guess by rumith · · Score: 1

    First, do not mix up nationalism and desire to protect own national interests. Please understand that the Russian people/government has no obligation to enrich Europe or America; whatever it has to enrich is Russia. Second, since NATO is an anti-Russian organisation [by this I mean that the purpose of maintaining NATO is to have a military power applicable against Russia], I don't see Russia joining NATO anytime soon. Third, integration of Russia into Europe spells death to the Russian economy - ask any decent economist why. Tip: it's cold here, and our production cannot possibly be as cheap as in Europe. Fourth, what planet are you from? Japan is no fond of Russia, nor Europe and the US are. And we're quite comfortable making friends with both India and China separately, leaving their mutual quarrels alone.

    1. Re:You watch too much TV I guess by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      So, what exactly is wrong with reducing Russia's population to about 1-2 million people, to service the oil wells and copper mines? If we do not spend much on education and healthcare, this will be very profitable.

      Given the negative population growth in Russia, it'll come to that anyways. Then we can integrate it into the EU and NATO.

    2. Re:You watch too much TV I guess by rumith · · Score: 1

      Well, we'd rather reduce Western population to 1-2 million people, and make whole North America and Europe a large glassy radioactive surface. Given the current rate of global warming [it's mid December and there's still no snow in Moscow; unbelieable is it?], bastards like you will drown or die of overheating anyway. Then, we can use our oil and copper for our own factories.

    3. Re:You watch too much TV I guess by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Why such hostility? Why are you Russkies so angry?

      I merely pointed out one way for your country to join the civilized world, and you respond by saying how much you wish to kill us? And that from one of the few educated Russians with access to our Internets and the Free Press? Just goes to show you that most Russians still live in the past, and are not (yet) our friends.

      Let me clue you in, Vanya: the Cold War is over. (and you lost)

      You can either learn to behave and join us, or be relegated to the ashpile of history. I'd say your country still has that choice, but it looks like you've already made yours.

      No worries though. We are a generous people, we'll help liberate your compatriates. Today Baghdad, tomorrow Moscow.

  23. Start a trend by Joebert · · Score: 3, Funny

    If this goes well, you can count on seeing George Bush in a Rap Battle with Eminem in the near future.

    --
    Wanna fight ? Bend over, stick your head up your ass, and fight for air.
    1. Re:Start a trend by Joebert · · Score: 1

      How is that offtopic ?

      There's a clear relation to Leaders of Common Activities challenging the Leaders of a Country on a playing field that's not rigged in the Political Leaders favor while still being somthing that pertains to both parties strengths.

      Is it because it mentions the name "George Bush" ?
      Is it because it mentions "Eminem" or "Rap" when the game being played in the article is Chess ?

      There's a clear relation between Politics & Chess, they both involve solid strategy.
      There's a clear relation between George Bush & Eminem, they both mangle the English Language.

      --
      Wanna fight ? Bend over, stick your head up your ass, and fight for air.
  24. Why is he mad at Putin? by antifoidulus · · Score: 1

    Did Putin lift Kasparov's shirt up and give him a kiss on the stomach during a chess match?

    1. Re:Why is he mad at Putin? by eggywat · · Score: 1

      No that was a young boy during a photo op. http://bymyreckoning.com/

    2. Re:Why is he mad at Putin? by antifoidulus · · Score: 1

      Yes, that was the joke. Thank you for explaining my own joke to me :P

  25. Putin does not respect the rules of the game. by reporter · · Score: 1
    Unfortunately for Garry Kasparov, dealing with Vladimir Putin differs sharply from simply playing a chess game. In chess, there is a set of rules respected by both players. The rules dictate the means of determining a winner.

    However, Putin does no respect the rules of the political game. The rules are essentially basic human rights, the Russian laws, and the spirit and the letter of the Russian constitution.

    Putin is analogous to a chess player who, upon seeing an imminent checkmate by his wily opponent, (1) positions a gun (with a silencer) inside his trenchcoat and under the chess table, (2) shoots and kills his opponent beyond view of the audience, (3) then immediately stands up to declare victory by default, revealing blood splattered from the opponent and onto the trenchcoat, and (4) becomes angry when the audience gasps at the scene in front of it. Kasparov must carefully deliberate his next move since he is now playing high-stakes "chess"; the stakes are his life and the lives of his supporters.

    1. Re:Putin does not respect the rules of the game. by timeOday · · Score: 2, Insightful
      Unfortunately for Garry Kasparov, dealing with Vladimir Putin differs sharply from simply playing a chess game. In chess, there is a set of rules respected by both players. The rules dictate the means of determining a winner.
      Kasparov will not be using his chess skills, but rather trading on the notoriety as a chess grandmaster. In a democracy, perhaps the best cure for the KGB authoritarian-style ruler is Russia's version of Arnold Schwarzenegger - a dilettante cashing in on fame and fortune.
    2. Re:Putin does not respect the rules of the game. by h4rm0ny · · Score: 1
      Unfortunately for Garry Kasparov, dealing with Vladimir Putin differs sharply from simply playing a chess game. In chess, there is a set of rules respected by both players. The rules dictate the means of determining a winner.


      There are rules in chess, but you make it sound civilised. Chess is an incredibly aggressive game when you get to championship level. Kasparov has not only brains but also a Hell of a lot of attitude. If you read the linked article, Kasparov sounds far from a fool. And as he points out, he's not trying to get elected. His aim is to keep democracy alive and I believe he can have a very positive effect in doing so. I wish him luck.
      --

      Aide-toi, le Ciel t'aidera - Jeanne D'Arc.
    3. Re:Putin does not respect the rules of the game. by cp.tar · · Score: 1
      However, Putin does no respect the rules of the political game. The rules are essentially basic human rights, the Russian laws, and the spirit and the letter of the Russian constitution.

      Actually, that's what you think the rules are.

      I think Kasparov knows very well that the rules are substantially different from the official ones.
      Besides, in politics as well as in other things, it's not cheating if you don't get caught.

      Kasparov is no fool. We'll just have to see if he knows the game well enough.

      --
      Ignore this signature. By order.
    4. Re:Putin does not respect the rules of the game. by cp.tar · · Score: 1
      There are rules in chess, but you make it sound civilised. Chess is an incredibly aggressive game when you get to championship level.

      What people seem to ignore is the fact that both chess and Go are wargames.

      Yes, there are rules to the game. There are rules as to how certain pieces can move.
      Just like there are "rules" as to when you can launch some aircrafts or when you can just bring on the artillery.

      Pick your analogies wisely.

      --
      Ignore this signature. By order.
    5. Re:Putin does not respect the rules of the game. by h4rm0ny · · Score: 1


      I think you meant to reply to the GP. It wasn't my analogy.

      --

      Aide-toi, le Ciel t'aidera - Jeanne D'Arc.
    6. Re:Putin does not respect the rules of the game. by cp.tar · · Score: 1

      Oops. You are, of course, quite correct.

      --
      Ignore this signature. By order.
    7. Re:Putin does not respect the rules of the game. by Raenex · · Score: 1
      What people seem to ignore is the fact that both chess and Go are wargames

      So what? The relation to war is superficial. Chess is an abstract, mathematical puzzle. Being good at chess doesn't mean you would be a good military commander, and even less so a good politician. There are lots of smart people who aren't good at politics, managing, or "street smarts". The only thing that Kasparov has going for him is fame; maybe he can succeed at politics, but there's no high probability that he will because he's good at chess.

    8. Re:Putin does not respect the rules of the game. by cp.tar · · Score: 1
      The only thing that Kasparov has going for him is fame; maybe he can succeed at politics, but there's no high probability that he will because he's good at chess.

      If he were trying to become a GP politician, of course I'd agree with you.
      However, this is more of a very specific goal... and he doesn't really need to win; he only has to make sure Putin doesn't win either.

      When you look at it that way, it's quite a lot like a chess game.

      --
      Ignore this signature. By order.
    9. Re:Putin does not respect the rules of the game. by danila · · Score: 1

      He may have brains, but he believe in an alternative history of Fomenko - Ancient Greece never existed and so on. ;) Brains you say? Infected with something...

      --
      Future Wiki -- If you don't think about the future, you cannot have one.
    10. Re:Putin does not respect the rules of the game. by Raenex · · Score: 1
      When you look at it that way, it's quite a lot like a chess game.

      You can stretch anything to look like anything else. As I said, your comparison is superficial. However, this argument has definitely gotten into the repeating stage, so I'll exit here.

  26. he may be a genius at chess by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    but is that going to help him know how to change the minds of the average russian? I think not. He probably hasn't even met one in years.

  27. Yeah, Kasparov to the rescue! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Is this some kind of a joke, or do they publish this stuff out of pity for the former world champion? This guy and his party have about the same chance to make it into power as Ross Perot and the company. Putin does not even need to strangle Kasparov, so few people care about what he preaches.

  28. Russian democracy by Mr.+Underbridge · · Score: 4, Interesting

    Most Russians want Mr. Putin to overturn a constitutional bar on a third term in office. Many will back whomever Mr. Putin endorses to succeed him."

    Well, as much as Kasparov is complaining about the democratic process, it seems to me the people are getting what they want. Who are we to tell them they're wrong? It's in America's culture to distrust extended rule and anything that smells like a monarchy. It's in Russia's culture to prefer stability of a strong leader to the uncertainty that can be found in the absence thereof. If they truly want Putin to rule them, let him.

    1. Re:Russian democracy by agent+dero · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Who are we to tell them they're wrong? It's in America's culture to distrust extended rule and anything that smells like a monarchy. It's in Germany's culture to prefer stability of a strong leader to the uncertainty that can be found in the absence thereof. If they truly want Hitler to rule them, let him.

      --
      Error 407 - No creative sig found
    2. Re:Russian democracy by NeutronCowboy · · Score: 1

      But how do we know that the Russians want Putin to lead them? Considering all the shenanigans that have happened (apppointed governors, assassinated critics, jailed business men, etc), do we really know what people actually think of Putin? Do 80% of Russians approve of him, or do 80% of Russians fear speaking out against him? Yes, Russia tends to more authoritarian figures (I think a lot of people in the world actually do), but that doesn't mean that we are currently seeing is actually the will of the people. That's the problem here.

      --
      Those who can, do. Those who can't, sue.
    3. Re:Russian democracy by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Who are we to tell them they're wrong? It's in America's culture to distrust extended rule and anything that smells like a monarchy. It's in USA's culture to prefer stability of a strong leader to the uncertainty that can be found in the absence thereof. If they truly want Bush to rule them, let him.

      Democracy is a two way street. If the majority of the people wants a strong leader which advocates killing jews, that's democracy at its best.

    4. Re:Russian democracy by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      It's in America's culture to distrust extended rule and anything that smells like a monarchy.


      Not so much.

    5. Re:Russian democracy by guacamole · · Score: 1

      Do 80% of Russians approve of him, or do 80% of Russians fear speaking out against him?

      Oh please. As someone who had lived in Russia and who still follows the developments in Russia, I can tell you: yes, they want him. And there are plenty of ways of speaking against Putin, and many people do.

    6. Re:Russian democracy by NeutronCowboy · · Score: 1

      As someone who has lived in Russia, what do you make of the systematic intimidation of opponents and critics? Do you think that has had any effect on people?

      --
      Those who can, do. Those who can't, sue.
    7. Re:Russian democracy by Dhalka226 · · Score: 1

      It's in Germany's culture to prefer stability of a strong leader to the uncertainty that can be found in the absence thereof. If they truly want Hitler to rule them, let him.

      I realize you're not serious, but I agree. If the Germans wanted Hitler to rule them, they were free to grant him that power. (And they did.) We should not intervene, definitely not militarily, in that respect.

      When he starts invading his neighbors, however, it's no longer an issue of the will of the people of that country to elect whom they choose. That is a pretty clear case where other powers in the world can stop him. Slaughtering the Jews (and Pols and others) is slightly less clear cut. I would like to say that most people believe that stopping that sort of thing is a moral responsibility, but then again we have ethnic cleansing going on right now and most people don't seem all that interested in it.

      In other words -- elect whomever you wish. It's your business. When he starts affecting the lives of people outside of his country--war and genocide being two awfully clear ways a ruler can do that--other countries will make their decisions about intervention.

    8. Re:Russian democracy by yoprst · · Score: 1

      It's true that most Russians want him to be sort of a czar (and some want him to be de-jure czar as well). What is also true is that public opinion was shaped in blatantly orwellian way during recent years.

    9. Re:Russian democracy by anaesthetica · · Score: 1

      Godwin conditions reached, abort thread.

      Seriously, Putin != Hitler, quite obviously. Don't troll.

    10. Re:Russian democracy by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      let them decide what they want to be. It's their right.
      And it's not that you can not let them decide. Take Iraq. Multiply it by a couple of hundred. Throw in some nukes and the facilities for producing all sorts of weapons. Now go ahead and try your "regime change," uh-huh. And heck, you didn't even succeed with your "orange revolutions" (actually coup d'etats) in such small countries as Belarus and Uzbekistan. So forget about installing Kasparov or other alien puppet via such means - it simply won't succeed.

      Most of the people here seem to think that Putin and his reforms (that are not in any way socialist - get real) are very popular among the people - they're not; they're tolerable, though, as life is getting better for most (especially comparing to 1998 and especially for those of economically-active age) and the alternatives in the so-called "opposition" (the same persons who robbed them back in 1990s, made them work for free not paying the salaries due, etc.) look much worse. That's why Putin could even become president for life if he wanted to, most people won't say a word in objection.
    11. Re:Russian democracy by Fyz · · Score: 1

      "Well, as much as Kasparov is complaining about the democratic process, it seems to me..."

      Ahh, but isn't that just what he wants you to think?

    12. Re:Russian democracy by TheLink · · Score: 1

      "When he starts affecting the lives of people outside of his country--war and genocide being two awfully clear ways a ruler can do that--other countries will make their decisions about intervention"

      I guess we in the other countries should do something about the good old US of A then eh?

      Attacking Iraq that was NO threat to them, without the approval of the rest of the world, AND lying and making up "evidence".

      Perhaps we should also send observers to ensure that the US elections are fair and aren't rigged.

      Maybe Putin is a scumbag, but people should check whether the people behind Kasparov are worse. Is the cure worse than the disease?

      --
    13. Re:Russian democracy by Teancum · · Score: 1

      While I know this is responding to a troll here, I must say that almost every point that you have made here can be refuted on so many levels that this is utter BS.

      The Iraq War (the initial offensive, not this "insurgancy" war that is going on now) was in most ways a follow-up to what happened after the Persian Gulf War, where clearly Iraq was the aggressive country with dreams of empire on their minds, and a stated goal of domination of the Middle East, including the complete military conquest of Israel, Saudi Arabia, and all other countries in that region. That Iraq stopped at Kuwait was mainly an issue of their logistics unable to keep up with their soldiers as the Iraqi Army (under Hussein) had orders to continue marching further south and capture the Saudi oil fields as well.

      As for evidence of weapons of mass distruction: We know Iraq had them because Hussein's government used them on his own people. Multiple times and over decades. This makes as much sense as saying the USA doesn't have any nuclear weapons, Hiroshima not withstanding.

      And Saddam's own website (currently down, but a good read at the time) by itself contained enough information to show that he was sympathetic to Al-Queida and the attacks on 9/11. While not justification by itself for an invasion, there was plenty of other evidence to suggest that the Iraqi government pre-2002 was economically and militarily supporting terrorist actions against the USA and the U.S. government.

      The best way I can say that this was successful (together with the actions in Afghanistan) is that after 9/11 there hasn't been a single international terrorist incident in the USA since 9/11. Instead it has been in Europe where people there are much more sympathetic to the political propaganda by Al-Queida. This isn't to say that some idiot terrorist won't succeed in America, but that is a record that even Putin can't claim as Russia itself has been targeted with successful terrorist actions, even if dealt with in a very typically Russian fashion.

      As far as US elections being "rigged", how would you possibly explain Joe Liberman in Connecticut? Or Nancy Polosi becoming Speaker of the U.S. House of Representatives? The mind here simply boggles at the thought.....

    14. Re:Russian democracy by TheLink · · Score: 1

      Follow up? That's not what the US president said to justify his war.

      Chemical gas in Iraq is a threat to the USA? They were merrily using chemical gas on people in that area in the 80's and they were a "friend" of the USA then. The US knew they had WMD because the US sold WMD to Iraq. Go check it yourself. Doh.

      Anyway, Iraq got pretty much disarmed after the 1st Gulf War, maybe not 100% but close enough.

      If you're listening, the majority of the people outside the USA thought the US Gov was lying about WMD, and were more inclined to believe Hans Blix. So much so that the US decided to skip the whole UN "show" (yeah it's a show[1], but that the US skipped it said a lot).

      As for the US elections, don't waste time trying to convince me that they are fine. US people should do something about that Diebold crap. Spending billions on "democracy" in Iraq, and can't afford decent voting systems at home? Very "strange".

      I guess the USA prefers "managed democracies" at home and elsewhere (e.g. the Palestine elections weren't good enough for the US ;) ) maybe not in the style of Putin, but "managed" nonetheless.

      [1] http://www.globalpolicy.org/security/membship/veto /vetosubj.htm

      --
  29. Re:"news relevant to United States politics" by rjdegraaf · · Score: 1
    ..., we see a country that is falling into the same millenia-old habits and a country that probably deep down still holds a lot of resentment of the United States of America.


    How does this not effect our foreign policy and our politics?


    Don't you forget the Vietnamese, Koreans, Libanese, Iraqis and the whole Muslim world.

  30. Too bad Solzhenitsyn is so old by Nova+Express · · Score: 2, Insightful
    If I were to pick a single Russian of perfect integrity to challenge Putin for the presidency, it would be Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn. The man who wrore The Gulag Archipelago, one of the most important books of the 20th centur, and the one which exposed the vast Soviet network of slave labor concentration camps, as well as either the first or second worst (depening on which set of numbers you use) genocides of the 20th century.

    The man who put his life on the line to tell the truth about the evil's of communism is one of the great intellectual heroes of our day, as well someone of absolute integrity and moral authority. Alas, he is also 88 years old, and it's hard to conceive of him undertaking the rigors of a political campaign, or even the office of President, at that age. but one can dream...

    --
    Lawrence Person (lawrencepersonh@gmailh.com (remove all "h"s to mail)

    http://www.lawrenceperson.com/

    1. Re:Too bad Solzhenitsyn is so old by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

      Sorry, no. He was fiercely attacking communism but this does not make him a democrat at all. In fact he's a right-wing, nationalistic nut deeply suspicious of anything coming from the west. Saner than many other nationalists, admittedly, but still not something I'd welcome for Russia.

    2. Re:Too bad Solzhenitsyn is so old by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      He is an antisemitic racist pig. Some circules just find him a psudo-historian, some -- simple bigot. Remember -- he might have been a dissident, but he is no Sakharov. What you are dealing with here is extreme Russian ultra-nationalism, almost bordering on nazism.

    3. Re:Too bad Solzhenitsyn is so old by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Wow, where did you pop up from? Have you been kept refrigerated all these years? Wake up dude - even the staunchest nationalists and stalinists (like you) in Russia hate and despise Putin by now. Are you from, like, 2002?

    4. Re:Too bad Solzhenitsyn is so old by Cyberax · · Score: 1

      Oh, are you still in 1992 full of hopes of bright capitalistic future?

      Is your first name "Fry"?

    5. Re:Too bad Solzhenitsyn is so old by blank+axolotl · · Score: 2, Informative

      I don't know.. sure, he was a voice against the atrocities carried out under stalin, but he has some pretty controversial view himself, I understand, such as his nationalism and religious views. EG from the wikipedia article:

      "According to his critics, the book [Two Hundred Years Together] confirmed Solzhenitsyn's strongly anti-semitic views as well as his ideas of Russian supremacy to other nations."

      Now, I don't keep up with him myself, but I've talked to others (liberal americans) who had strong negative opinions of him.

    6. Re:Too bad Solzhenitsyn is so old by yoprst · · Score: 1

      After his arrival back in Russia Russian TV featured a few interviews with him. The ratings plummeted down to nearly zero. While he's respected by local elite, his chances to get a significant number of votes are nil.

    7. Re:Too bad Solzhenitsyn is so old by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yeah, sure. Solzhenitsyn was so-oo smart, insightful and truthful while he was writing on the topics you agreed with. But once he wrote "200 years together" (full of "anti-semitic" quotes out of the Jews' own moughts) - suddenly he's stupid, ignorant and hateful. Almost like Mel Gibson.

    8. Re:Too bad Solzhenitsyn is so old by niktemadur · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Back in the early nineties, there was a right-wing-ideals convention in my college in Guadalajara, Mexico, endorsed by the dean, with a New Youth type of theme attached to it. Huge colorfull silkscreen banners hung all over the place a month in advance, there were full-page newspaper ads in colour, etc. One out of every three banners sported a picture of Solzhenitsyn, while quoted text warmly "applauded the convention, hoping this type of convention would spread all over Latin America, signed, Alexander Solzhenitsyn".

      The conferences turned out to be a laughable affair, real dyed-in-the-wool fundamentalist rubbish, focusing on the unpardonable sins of women's rights, gay rights, and so on. They even went so far as to have a couple of talks focusing on the evidence that rock 'n' roll is satanic. These were the only talks that were jam-packed, although not enough to compensate for the weak turnout during the remainder of the convention. Deemed a financial bust, the convention was not even attempted the following year.

      My point is that I'll always have those humongous banners of Solzhenitsyn tatooed in my mind, backing up the agenda of right-wing nutjobs. Maybe Solzhenitsyn was duped into throwing his weight behind this fiasco, without fully knowing what it was. Also, the fact that this college was rabidly anti-communist could have made him turn a blind eye to other shenanigans, as in the enemy of my enemy is my friend. But my image of the man remains tarnished until proven otherwise.

      BTW, Solzhenitsyn wasn't even there, except in silkscreens looming like a smiling Big Brother.

      --
      Lil' Thindime, lilting a lacrimose lament, krashes the kwaint konfines of Kokonino Kounty
    9. Re:Too bad Solzhenitsyn is so old by EinZweiDrei · · Score: 1

      Actually, I'd imagine it to be "Philip".

      --
      Perhaps life really is full of possibilities.
  31. Just goes to show by ch-chuck · · Score: 0, Offtopic

    we are just pawns in the global geopolitical game.

    If We Hit that Bullseye, the rest of the Dominoes will fall like a house of Cards. Checkmate.

    --
    try { do() || do_not(); } catch (JediException err) { yoda(err); }
  32. LOL by CrazyJim1 · · Score: 1

    He was just thinking 6 moves ahead, unlike Kasparov who lost one of his major pieces early in his game against Deep Blue.

    1. Re:LOL by conmulligan · · Score: 1

      God didn't speak to you, you're just crazy.

    2. Re:LOL by alienmole · · Score: 1

      Re your sig ("God spoke to me"), the other response says you're crazy. The usual diagnosis would be schizophrenia, but you might be interested to know that your experience may just be a throwback to a theorized prior human state, the bicameral mind (thanks, Neal Stephenson!) BTW, God spoke to me and said he didn't speak to you.

  33. Well, Kasparov had to do something by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The chess computers are just too good now. There is no future for human chess players. Kasparov has chosen a good time to make his exit, while he still has some prestige and recognition factor left to try and make a difference in another field of human endeavor (eg. politics).

    At one time, I could name all the top players, now I only look at computer chess. The programmers are my heroes. It's only a matter of time before the rest of the chess community figures it out and moves on to the machines. With Rybka pushing 3100 and the human champion coming in at about 2800, the human would be doing well to win one game in a hundred. In other words, it's no contest.

  34. Chess player? by vga_init · · Score: 4, Interesting

    I can calculate the possibilities as a chess player and I have to be honest and say that our chances are not high.

    Don't get me wrong... chess is one of my hobbies too. I also enjoy digging into politics, and I feel like I have enough experience in computer science to be able to identify and analyze systems. First, I can tell you that the game of chess and politics are two very different systems. So different, in fact, that being good at one will not ever help you with the other.

    Chess is in fact a simple, deterministic game that is very limited and loses complexity over time. We've written software that can play chess excellently for a very long time. As far as I know, no computer systems have ever been elected to office.

    I can tell you right off the bat that Kasparov's edge in politics is not his chess ability--it's his fame. That will attract more attention than anything else. Also, there is the public notion that anyone who is good at chess is some kind of genius, something he can use to his advantage as well. He keeps bringing up the fact that being so good at chess makes him smart enough to do all these things. People don't have trouble believing something like that, so maybe he is a good politician after all.

    1. Re:Chess player? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      He keeps bringing up the fact that being so good at chess makes him smart enough to do all these things.

      You mean kind of like how the press and John Kerry kept bringing up that he was a "war hero?" I guess the only difference is that Kasparov is actually a chess champion, whereas Kerry made up the "war hero" thing.

    2. Re:Chess player? by Sloppy · · Score: 1
      Chess is in fact a simple, deterministic game that is very limited and loses complexity over time.
      Loses complexity if you're unimaginative! Turn a True Military Genius loose on this game, though, and they'll take a fresh strategic perspective and come up with gems such as "in the game of chess you can never let your adversary see your pieces."
      --
      As copyright owner of this comment, I authorize everyone to defeat any technological measure which limits access to it.
    3. Re:Chess player? by Tablizer · · Score: 1

      Chess is in fact a simple, deterministic game that is very limited and loses complexity over time. We've written software that can play chess excellently for a very long time. As far as I know, no computer systems have ever been elected to office.

      Yes, but humans don't play chess the same way a computer does: Humans recognize patterns and use deep intuition built on experience that they may not even be consciously aware of to test new play paths (internally and externally). A politician needs this also.

    4. Re:Chess player? by Raenex · · Score: 1

      Who knows, I doubt you were there. However, it is a fact Kerry was in the line of fire, unlike "fortunate son" Bush.

    5. Re:Chess player? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Whatever. Kerry got a purple heart for shrapnel in the butt from stupidly throwing a grenade too close to himself.

      Besides, if the press wanted to give him a title that supposedly makes him qualified for the presidency, instead of "John F Kerry, War Hero," why not "John F Kerry, Ivy League Elitist," or even better, "John F Kerry, Married to a Rich Crazy Cunt."

    6. Re:Chess player? by Raenex · · Score: 1

      Or how about "John F Kerry, served his country while Bush avoided combat via his rich and connected daddy." Not too many "Ivy League Elitists" volunteered for Vietnam (Bush was Ivy League too, but he adopted a Texas-hick attitude after early political failure).

    7. Re:Chess player? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Or how about "John F Kerry, The Best You Can Say About Him is that he might not be as dumb as GWB." Hardly a ringing endorsement.

      Just because "not too many 'Ivy League Elitists' volunteered for Vietnam," doesn't mean that he's not one. By your reckoning Condoleezza Rice isn't the Secretary of State, since not too many black women have held that office.

    8. Re:Chess player? by Raenex · · Score: 1

      An elitist thinks he's too good to do what the common man does. Volunteering for Vietnam shows some courage and willingness to share the load, unlike "fortunate son" Bush. It used to be that military service was a positive, and Kerry was trying to beef up his credentials as "Commander in Chief", because of the whole "Democrats are soft on war" issue. I don't know if he ever claimed the title of "War Hero", but he did serve his country with honor.

      But whatever, that election has come and gone. It's not like I was a big fan of Kerry anyways, but he couldn't have done worse than Bush.

  35. melodrama by SuperBanana · · Score: 4, Interesting

    My wife has family in Russia so that is why I am posting anonymously.

    Right. Because the KGB is reading Slashdot, has a lookup table between slashdot usernames and addresses, and has nothing better to do except target the family of some guy who said a few nasty words about Putin.

    Putin may be very evil, but don't use melodrama to puff up your claims, please. Also- Yeltsin's name is spelled with an S.

    1. Re:melodrama by really? · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Err... just because you are paranoid, it doesn't mean they are not out to get you.

      I am not Russian, nor do I have any connection to Russia. I do however still have friends and family in another Eastern European country. I thought I had half a clue as to how things were there ... I went back a couple years ago and was VERY VERY surprised. Forget what you read in the news, even the reliable news sources don't get deep enough. And those that do ... don't surface.

      I have no doubt that Russia is just as bad, if not worse. Shrug.

      --

      "Consistency is contrary to nature, contrary to life. The only completely consistent people are the dead." A. Huxley
    2. Re:melodrama by TheSuperlative · · Score: 5, Funny

      Actually, it's spelled with an entirely different alphabet.

      --
      "In God we trust, all others we monitor." -- Unofficial NSA motto
    3. Re:melodrama by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Putin may be very evil, but don't use melodrama to puff up your claims, please. Also- Yeltsin's name is spelled with an S.

      Ah, you must be mono-lingual, having no understanding about how transliteration works.

      (Also, I would agree that it's probably just paranoid to post anonymous, but you have no idea about the guys situation and who his family is)

    4. Re:melodrama by RESPAWN · · Score: 1

      Actually it's spelled with a -- .

      --

      If Murphy's Law can go wrong, it will.

    5. Re:melodrama by RESPAWN · · Score: 1

      OK, so /. doesn't support Cyrillic characters, apparently...

      --

      If Murphy's Law can go wrong, it will.

    6. Re:melodrama by Dorceon · · Score: 1

      Try it again with HTML named entities. A quick Google for cyrillic html entities yielded a site to do the conversion for you: http://jotpuree.com/utils/encodeCyrillicInHtml.php

      --
      What sound do people on rollercoasters make? Hint: it's not Xbox 360.
    7. Re:melodrama by norton_I · · Score: 1

      I post anonymously when I say something that might be embarassing to someone other than myself. This is usually when I have an opinion that might be misconstrued by, say, the people who decide our funding. There is essentially no possibility that such a comment would be read, linked to me, or that anyone would care, and the issue is not fear of retribution, just acting responsibly. Essentially, I treat ever public, written statement as if it were going to be published in the newspaper.

      Almost certainly this guy is in no real danger unless there is more to his story than he let on, but if someone is going to criticize someone who is known to detain and harrass dissidents and is implicated of their murder in some situations, it is absurd to critize them for being a little defensive.

      Despite the reactions against ACs on /., sometimes anonymous speech is an important part of free speech. Of course, it can also be used irresponsibly, just like any other weapon.

    8. Re:melodrama by Sloppy · · Score: 2, Insightful
      Because the KGB is reading Slashdot, has a lookup table between slashdot usernames and addresses, and has nothing better to do except target the family of some guy who said a few nasty words about Putin.
      I see your point, and you're probably right. One question, though: Wanna bet your life on something that is "probably" true?
      --
      As copyright owner of this comment, I authorize everyone to defeat any technological measure which limits access to it.
    9. Re:melodrama by langelgjm · · Score: 3, Funny

      Right. Because the KGB is reading Slashdot

      Whether he's justified in his paranoia or not, I'm pretty sure the KGB isn't reading Slashdot, since it ceased to exist in 1991.

      --
      "Anyone who [rips a CD] is probably engaging in copyright infringement." - David O. Carson
    10. Re:melodrama by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      KGB reading Slashdot Internet content like Slashdot is easy to monitor, and it is monitored, just like newspapers and television are monitored. There is nothing odd about it. It's just someone's job. You might have been more correct than even you thought when you said KGB, or FSB, had, "nothing better to do." That's another way of saying, "They are doing their job."


      Target ... some guy If you have never been a target of covert observation, then you probably don't know what it's like, but for me it was unpleasant (as it gradually became less covert), and I don't want it to happen again. Remember that targeting people is simply a job, the full-time profession of the security corps. Don't they have anything better to do? No, they don't. And in principle it's possible he might not be just "some guy," a nobody ... maybe only a remote possibility. Anyway. I myself was a nobody too but they still messed with my life pretty extensively. Not everyone who criticises Putin needs to post AC but I think for some, to my mind it is a wise precaution.

    11. Re:melodrama by Bloody+Troll · · Score: 1

      Not on slashdot you wouldn't be able to. Because of this: content="text/html; charset=iso-8859-1"

    12. Re:melodrama by nacturation · · Score: 4, Funny

      I'm pretty sure the KGB isn't reading Slashdot, since it ceased to exist in 1991. So then what the hell site are we posting these comments on?
      --
      Want to improve your Karma? Instead of "Post Anonymously", try the "Post Humously" option.
    13. Re:melodrama by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It's KGB that ceased to exist in 1991. The organization is now called FSB (Federalnaya Sluzhba Bezopasnosti) or Federal Safety (or Security) Service. Basically think Committee of Public Safety :P. So, the parent post was referring to the fact that while KGB may not be reading anything, who knows what the hell FSB is doing. I am Russian, however I live overseas. I know quite a few people back in Moscow, and let me tell you something, the ones who have the technical know-how, only post shit on the internet critical to Putin through anonymous services. FSB is tracking various keywords in Russia (look at China if you think it's impossible), although it's not quite to the level of say China or Saudi Arabia.

    14. Re:melodrama by andphi · · Score: 1

      The KGB's name has changed many times. It remains essentially the same organization. It's called the FSB now, but it's still the KGB (previously known as the MVD, MGB, NKVD, GUGB, NKGB, OGPU, and Cheka by turns).

    15. Re:melodrama by Aneurysm · · Score: 1

      That sounds pretty serious.

      Say have you ever seen "A Beautiful Mind"?

    16. Re:melodrama by anaesthetica · · Score: 1

      The Russian KGB ceased to exist, but the Belarussian KGB is still around.

    17. Re:melodrama by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Because the KGB is reading Slashdot, has a lookup table between slashdot usernames and addresses, and has nothing better to do except target the family of some guy who said a few nasty words about Putin.

      Doesn't be such an asshole!
      Here we have a regime that is running around killing off its politcal opponents.
      Let me repeat that:
      PEOPLE ARE FUCKING DYING!

      This may seem silly to you, but this is serious business.
      This guy has people he loves and does not want to see harm come to. He's being careful and rightly so.
      Democracies have turned into dicatorships before. Can you name one country where this happened and millions of people were killed? Can you see any of the parallels between that country and the economic and polical climate of Russia?

      I'm not saying death camps are the most likely outcome here, but if it was YOUR family would you take that chance for no good reason?

    18. Re:melodrama by 2short · · Score: 1

      Of course! We all do so constantly.

      It is probably true that you won't get hit by a bus tommorow. Do you want to actually go outside on that basis?

    19. Re:melodrama by Zixia · · Score: 1

      Err... just because you are paranoid, it doesn't mean they are not out to get you.

      Yes it does, by definition.

    20. Re:melodrama by AxminsterLeuven · · Score: 1

      ...and Microsoft! [ducks]

    21. Re:melodrama by Reservoir+Penguin · · Score: 1

      I wonder what EU country you're from. I'm an actual Russian living in Russia and i have a strong feeling you have been trolled by an anonymous coward. There is absolutely no danger in posting your opinion in an online English speaking forum or a Russian speaking forum. What I'm concerned with is a growing number of articles in the western press pushing the public opinion in the West towards a new Cold War. Putin has stated repeatedly that he would not run for the third term. Kasparov and other Berezovsky funded clowns have less support than Communist parties in America. But they are well knows as subjects of jokes, I swear I get to hear a new one about radioactive poisoning every day now.

      --
      US-UK-Israel: The real Axis of Evil
    22. Re:melodrama by Dread_ed · · Score: 1

      Chill man. I know 2 Russians that spent a few years in the US and the paranoia is ingrained. Helps control the populace I guess.

      Besides, the guy's /. account may have his personal website info on it or previous posts could point to that. Whois will get you fingered in a second. No imaginary lookup table required.

      Even if it is far fetched to you, someone with direct experience or firsthand accounts of reprisals can be justified in such a response.

      We commend tinfoil bedecked Americans who shun grocery store discount cards and always pay in cash and you want to bash this guy for being afraid for his family? The worst case scenario of each of those forms of "paranoia" should bring things back into focus.

      --
      When the only tool you have is a claw hammer every problem starts to look like the back of someone's skull.
  36. PsyOps in actions by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    This message has been brought to you by your friendly PsyOps agent.

    Putin == barbaric and ruthless dictator
    Bush == protector of democracy worldwide

    P.S. George Bush was CIA Director

    1. Re:PsyOps in actions by Carewolf · · Score: 1

      It was George Bush senior that was CIA director. Junior was some sort of entrepreneur disaster who ran companies into the ground.

  37. Re:Putin made Russia strong by udderly · · Score: 1

    Did you attend the seminar? Maybe you can make it to one of the upcoming events.

  38. Re:Putin is preventing even worse getting into pow by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Russia is a political mess right now and I'm not sure theres a solution.

    Sounds a lot like every other government that has ever existed, democracy or otherwise.

  39. Looking at Russia.. by traveller604 · · Score: 0

    At the moment they're not ready for happy happy joy joy European democracy. No, they need the US illusion. They need a strong leader who can do just about anything w/out asking anyone. There's so much to be done there that takes "brute force".. I just hope they someday convert to real European democracy and don't follow the US illusion..

  40. Re:Putin is preventing even worse getting into pow by really? · · Score: 1

    Most ex Soviet block countries are in the same situation... Is there a solution? Not in the short term. Long term, it will stabilize, just as it did after the "robber baron era" in the west. IMHO, of course.

    --

    "Consistency is contrary to nature, contrary to life. The only completely consistent people are the dead." A. Huxley
  41. Kasparov vs Putin by iviagnus · · Score: 0

    If Kasparov dies at the hands of Putin, I'll kill Putin myself.

    1. Re:Kasparov vs Putin by Svenne · · Score: 1

      Yeah, good luck with that.

      --

      Slagborr
    2. Re:Kasparov vs Putin by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      He wasn't talking about Vladimir Putin, President of Russia. He was talking about Nikolai Putin, his son's math tutor. Considering Nikolai not only doesn't know Kasparov, but is blind and in a wheelchair, it was a safe boast. Probably. Nikolai swings a mean cane.

    3. Re:Kasparov vs Putin by couchslug · · Score: 1

      Why would that (in the grand scheme of things) minor crime be what you require to act?
      The rest of Russia and its neighbors don't matter but if he deletes a chess player that is a trigger event?

      --
      "This post is an artistic work of fiction and falsehood. Only a fool would take anything posted here as fact."
  42. That's a Putin Lie by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Insightful

    "Most Russians want Mr. Putin to overturn a constitutional bar on a third term in office."

    It comes from the "Yuri Levada Analytical Centre",. Yuri Levada died November 16th this year (heart attack), but his organization has had repeated attempts at take over by the Kremlin, including trying to replace the board in 2003, that didn't like his polls showing Russians critical of Putin. Without Yuri, information put out in his name is likely tainted by the Kremlin. The poll was done just before Yuri's death, and the results released just after his death. So it's tainted.

    http://www.russiavotes.org/levada-times-obituary.h tm

    "With the Kremlin's strategy of buying off the opposition, crushing dissenters and marginalising anyone who continued to speak up in a flattened political landscape, Levada's polls provided an awkward reminder of realities that Putin could not stomach, such as widespread popular opposition to the wars in Chechnya. The Kremlin preferred spin and polls that it manipulated. In a cunning move typical of current Kremlin tactics, the government ministry that had suddenly discovered it still owned VTsIOM turned it into a joint-stock company in September 2003 and appointed a new board of directors, who happened to be Kremlin loyalists. The Government claimed it wanted to make the agency's finances more transparent, but Levada and his colleagues knew the truth."

    If Putin was really popular he wouldn't have to take control of the media, polling services and all major TV stations. It means that he isn't popular and is doing the KGB kill, lie and deny approach.

    If you read the Moscow press, he's trying to create a false sense that everyone wants him to run a third term.

    1. Re:That's a Putin Lie by shutdown+-p+now · · Score: 1

      Sadly, he is really popular. The 80% figure is most likely an exaggeration, but I'd say he's still got the majority (that is, >50%) on his side.

  43. But Kasparov ISN'T a chess player... by uglyhead69 · · Score: 1

    He's a conspiracy theory revisionist historian... Have a look at this: http://www.new-tradition.org/view-garry-kasparov.h tm

    Methinks ol' Gary may be at the very least, a tad paranoid.

    1. Re:But Kasparov ISN'T a chess player... by radl33t · · Score: 0

      I don't understand your comments in the context of that article. What conspiracy is he alledging? What history is he trying to revise? and how is he paranoid? I've heard people make this claim before, but not in reference to this material...

  44. Democracy by Metasquares · · Score: 1
    It appears, however, to be an uneven contest against a man who enjoys 80 per cent approval ratings. Most Russians want Mr. Putin to overturn a constitutional bar on a third term in office. Many will back whomever Mr. Putin endorses to succeed him.
    Then they deserve who they get!
    1. Re:Democracy by rrohbeck · · Score: 1

      Then they deserve who they get!

      You probably would have said the same thing about Germany in the 1930s.

    2. Re:Democracy by yoprst · · Score: 1

      You might be surprised, but the idea that Hitler's and Putin's rule are very similar is quite popular among those who vote against him. Both of them are(were) leaders who capitalize(d) on resentment about demise of the empire, both blame(d) and supress(ed) minorities.

  45. Re:Putin is preventing even worse getting into pow by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    This whole nest of FSB/KGB people who are themselves crime bosses is what makes up 75% of Russian bureacracy RIGHT NOW.

  46. I thought... by Imexius · · Score: 1

    Damn, I thought this article was going to be about a chess match between Kasparov and Putin...

    --
    find / -iname life 2> /dev/null Error: Life could not be found
    1. Re:I thought... by freezin+fat+guy · · Score: 1

      My RSS aggregator cut out after the word "president":

      I was hoping it would be about a chess match between Kasparov and Bush!

  47. Disgusting Russians in the USA and UK by mumblestheclown · · Score: 1
    I am quite familiar with the Russian expatriate communities in the USA and in the UK. While of course there are individual exceptions amongst intellectuals, students, and the like, the bulk of these expats truly disgust me, politically speaking. Yes, most of these expats are, after all the layers of bullshit are removed, economic migrants who came to better life for themselves and their families. There's nothing wrong with that - if I was in a place of want, I'd consider furthering my self interest by moving to a place of plenty. What is so disgusting about so many of them is how even they continue to support Putin so feverently.

    The typical line that I hear from them is "you don't know Russia - it's different - Russia needs a strong man leading it." What utter nonsense. These are the people that should form a disapproving core of expatriat opposition. Too self-absorbed to go out and do anything concrete, but giving tacit approval to the general notion that the situation in Russia is bad. Scratch almost any Iranian ex-pat, for example, and you'll get a tirade about the antidemocratic and repressive regime there. The Ukrainian ex-pat community coalesced with funding and support to help the democractic revolution there recently.

    But Russians? Quite selfishly and arrogantly, they cling to the notion that while they were too important to let themselves be bogged down in Russia's corrupt, anti-democratic, and anti-egalitarian reality, really Putin and his ilk are what's best for their countrymen left behind.

    Don't believe me? Think I'm just prejudiced against Russians? Go into your neighborhood's Russian supermarket and ask the sales clerk what she thinks of Putin.

    Of course, then again, there's still the issue that the majority of Russians also paternalistically feel that they (for whatever the faults of the USSR) did the non-Russian republics a big favor by including them into their union, under the theory that a few tens of millions of dead is a small price to pay for having been lifted from the hunting and gathering existence those nations were in before, but that's for another day.

    1. Re:Disgusting Russians in the USA and UK by guacamole · · Score: 1

      This situations in Ukraine, Iran, and Russia are very very different, and it is wrong to generalize by saying that the right thing to do for the Russian expats is ALSO to badmouth their government. The comparison with Iran is completely ridiculous. However, even Russian vs. Ukrainian politics are very different. Ukraine ethnically is a very divided country. About 50% living there are Russians (most of whom live on portions of Ukrainian land that they believe was unfairly assigned to Ukraine by USSR in 50s), and they want close ties with Russia. The rest are fervent Ukrainian nationalists who hate Russia and Russians. You will hear different opinions on Ukraine depending on who you talk to and on who happens to be in the office there today.

    2. Re:Disgusting Russians in the USA and UK by mumblestheclown · · Score: 1
      Wow. You are so very very very very very wrong in everything you say. And yet, you are mouthing the exact stereortype Russian line that I was just talking about. Thank you for proving my point.

      Let's see:

      • MYTH: "Situations are very different." FACT: Of course every situation is different in some ways, but in all thoase cases (any many more from the phillipines to indonesia back in the 70s and 80s) it comes down to this: you had a corrupt and/or dictatorial government squashing opposition and democracy. People power, not insignificantly from expats, was a major engine in bringing an end to the dictatorship (Cuba today is another good example). Too many Russian expats, not content to simply ignore the problems of their country, ACTIVELY SUPPORT THE AUTHORITARIAN REGIME. It's almost unprecedented as it is indefensible, and one hopes that it's just oil money drunkedness at play.
      • MYTH: "Ukraine is a cleft country." FACT: Survey after survey shows that this is an old, outdated view that certainly does not have any currency now (if it ever did.) From Lugansk to Lviv, Ukrainians see themselves first and foremost as Ukrainians. The most important division that people see is city vs country folk. east vs west is less and less important with every year. Yes, voting patterns showed regional differences, but in this sense Ukraine is no diffeerent than the USA.. but the USA is hardly "ethnically divided" as you suggest Ukraine is. I also note the extreme hypocricy at how some will with one breath claim that Ukraine is "ethnically divided" and then with the second claim that ukrainians don't actually constitute and ethnicity.
      • MYTH: "most of whom live on portions of Ukrainian land that they believe was unfairly assigned to Ukraine by USSR in 50s." FACT: **** The ONLY territory "assigned" to Ukraine by the USSR in the 1950s was CRIMEA ****. While a nice place to visit, to claim that "most of whom..." is to sugget that most people live in Crimea, which is simply ridiculous. To others reading this thread - Crimea to Ukraine is like Florida to the USA. Sure, it's important in it's own way, but given that he's talking about numbers such as '50% of the population' you see he is clearly speaking out of his ass.
      • MYTH: "The rest are ferverent Ukrainian nationalists who hate russia and russians." FACT: Visit the city of L'viv, unarguably the heart of Ukrainian nationalism, and you will see Russian spoken freely. There is no 'hatred' of Russia by anybody but a truly tiny minority numbering in the hundreds in all of Ukraine. YES, there is a resentment of the UNDISPUTABLE fact that Russia continues to meddle politically in the affairs of Ukraine, an independent state, and there is also a resentment of the fact that there is no collective sense of guilt felt by Russians about the massive crimes pepetrated over the last, say, 300 years, but that's far FAR different than hating "Russians." Your characterization of Ukrainians as xenophobes and nationalists is completely ironic, given the current realities of Russia. It's a remnant of soviet propaganda that tried to cast any non-Russian nationalism (as it was the biggest threat to the soviet system) in a negative light. To wit, I am not Ukrainian, but I own a company that operates substantially in Ukraine. I own a house in L'viv and have offices there, in Kiev, and in Zaporizhe (and also in MinVody in Russia). I have more than enough experience in the country (and speak Ukrainian and Russian) to know what the hell I'm talking about.
      • MEANINGLESS STATEMENT: "You will hear different opinions on Ukraine depending on who you talk to and on who happens to be in the office there today." Yes, and the sky is blue and grass is green. What is your point?

      You are parroting old, tired cliches. I am guessing that you are a Russian expatriate, since while such views were common in Russia as late as the late 1990s, even now those views are seen as rididculous. Am I not wrong? You are an expatriate whose views ha

    3. Re:Disgusting Russians in the USA and UK by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yeah, right - you know so much more about Russia than those disgusting Russians who dare to disagree with you. Why, they don't even know what's best for them!

      Guess you've witnessed the decay of USSR from inside, eh? Seen how ethnic russians were treated in newly independent states - but it's all right when russians get killed or expelled simply because of their ethnicity, doesn't it? You won't hear about it from your oh-so-free press - but you no doubt had witnessed it before judging us, read russian papers (which amazingly, are in Russian, not English), don't you? Or is it another case of spoon-fed by 'free-press' kido? Shall we say 'clown'?

      Our how living standards plunged during 15 years of 'democratic reforms'. 'Democracy' is now a bad word for russians - reserved for talking heads with greasy fingers. Putin at least stabilized the economy and brought down street crime. That's why he is highly regarded in Russia - with 70%+ rating. He is not an angel for sure, made many mistakes etc. But nobody in russian politic is coming close yet. Never ceased me to amaze how biased is portrayal of Russia in western media. For example, Anna Politkovskaya to us is what Jane Fonda for you and is not missed that much. Actually, she was more radical than Fonda - she dreamed about her own country being occupied by foreigners, so Russians could be finally 'civilized'. Most of her fiery reports was, unfortunately, not fact-based, but pure emotions.

      Ah! And those cuddly Ukranians are so much better than us filthy Russians, since they agree with every word of your pseudo-democracy BS.

    4. Re:Disgusting Russians in the USA and UK by NSParadox · · Score: 1

      My wife was born in Kiev and I spend a lot of time with ex-USSR immigrants (mostly Russian and Ukranian, although I also hang out with Armenians, Moldovians and Bulgarians). I am in no way Russian and was born in the US, so I don't spend much time with the previous generations (just my wife's parents and their friends). Our Russian friends in our social circle are in their twenties and thirties and are hard-working, well educated, and mostly successful. So my views are in no way representative of all Russians in the US.

      The community I am part of greatly distrusts Putin and in fact all Russian politics. My friends favor Ukranian politics more since Ukranians can still influence the government (Orange Revolution), but in both Ukraine and Russia political leaders have very little experience being productive. Primarily, they excel at getting elected and remaining in power, not managing the government apparatus to help the people. These countries' leaders are focused on short-term survival and rarely consider the socio-economic/military conditions they create when they do things like support Iraqi and Iranian non-conventional weapons programs or criticize Israel when that clearly benefits the Chechen cause.

      Overall, my friends want to see greater stability in their home countries; very, very few ever entertain the idea of going back because of the instability although many would like to help by starting a business. Also, most Russian immigrants in the US are Jews, a people who have not been treated well in that part of the world for quite a while. In many ex-USSR countries there has been a huge resurgence in Christianity, and it's not totally clear how that will play out for the very few Jews who remain or haven't already converted. I am sure many are afraid of Putin persecuting Jews if he found it politically convenient....

      --
      Unless mankind redesigns itself .... robots will take over our world. (Stephen Hawking)
    5. Re:Disgusting Russians in the USA and UK by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Wow! You're really a mumbling clown, with pretenses and full of 'zapadenovsky' BS.

      First, I'm astonished by your piercing mind. I thought it's mostly russian-swearing and vodka-drunk fishermen and construction workers who stomps on a SLashdot. It's so hard to find a programmer there. Anyhow -

      >Am I not wrong?
      YOU ARE WRONG. Sorry, oh great piercing mind.

      >it's easier to try to push ridiculous stereotypes
      this is exactly what you're doing.

      > * MEANINGLESS STATEMENT: "You will hear different opinions on Ukraine depending on who you talk to and on who happens to be in the office there today." Yes, and the sky is blue and grass is green. What is your point?

      Point is - there's a lot of people in Ukraine who disagrees with you, moron - ~50% to be precise. Just look who's a prime-minister now. And most certainly you've never been in Kharkov lately (funny I've tried to type in Kharkiv, but spell checker marked it as mistype and suggested Kharkov - which is how it was spelled in USSR). Try to find somebody speaking Ukrainian there. Or somebody who likes that prostitute Yuschenko. You will find those - but they won't be in majority.

      >ACTIVELY SUPPORT THE AUTHORITARIAN REGIME

      Yep, we are - that's what working for us right now. We gave democracy a shot in 90s - it didn't work out and western powers did a lot to mess up our economy in that time, along with their friends in Russia. So you're late.

      >It's almost unprecedented as it is indefensible

      That's what your kind of 'democracy' is all about - to impose your own views on others, right? We Russians just can't figure out on our own how to live, please Big Daddy hold our hand, Please tell us filthy Russian savages more about how we should live. Da poshel ty naxuy!!! If we want a strongman in power - because nobody else could effectively control Russia at the moment - let us have it.

      Speaking of Russian xenophobia upsurge - it is a reaction to what was done last 15 yrs to those unlucky Russians who happened to be caught in turmoil in Soviet republics. Nationalism is bad, nobody benefited from it. Russia will suffer too, but it'll go away eventually. Right now 'great democracies' doing their best to fan it out by meddling.

      Sure - in L'viv you'll hear russian - most of Ukrainians prefer to speak Russian. To those who don't know - L'viv was under polish and Austro-Hungarian rule for quite a while and being a cradle of Ukranian nationalism - that speaks volumes about how authentic that nationalism is. Just look at the map.

      We don't need no fucking democracy champions. Especially such blabbering idiots as Kasparov (I presume you've never seen the man talking). Leave us alone, mess your own country.

    6. Re:Disgusting Russians in the USA and UK by mumblestheclown · · Score: 1
      Yes, the rise in living standards must be attributed to the fact that you have a corrupt authoritarian in power. It is totally unrelated to the oil price explosion. Also, I have this rock that keeps tigers away. Would you like to buy it?

      Your credulous short-sightedness is so sad. Please print out your own words so that one day you can look back about them and see what a fool you were.

    7. Re:Disgusting Russians in the USA and UK by mumblestheclown · · Score: 1
      Sure - in L'viv you'll hear russian - most of Ukrainians prefer to speak Russian. To those who don't know - L'viv was under polish and Austro-Hungarian rule for quite a while and being a cradle of Ukranian nationalism - that speaks volumes about how authentic that nationalism is. Just look at the map.

      By that idiot logic, the nationalism by the Palestinians, Kurds, (Northern) Irish, Basque, Catalans, Tamils, and virtually everybody else is "inauthentic." Nice troll.

    8. Re:Disgusting Russians in the USA and UK by mumblestheclown · · Score: 1
      Hi there,

      Thanks for the note. I dont know if you'll ever see this response, but I thought i'd follow up any way. Your friends are slightly atypical, broadly speaking, probably because they are well educated, which would make them the elites that I was speaking about earlier. While a typical Russian in the USA, for example, will claim some degree in "philology" or "psychology" (which were the USSR equivalent to wood shop, or, more accurately, "Mrs. degrees") or something similar the truly well educated are, as in most countries, relatively few and far between.

      However, your comments or Russian Jewry demand attention.

      "Also, most Russian immigrants in the US are Jews, a people who have not been treated well in that part of the world for quite a while. In many ex-USSR countries there has been a huge resurgence in Christianity, and it's not totally clear how that will play out for the very few Jews who remain or haven't already converted"

      I think your basic premise is wrong. Jews in the USSR have had a role at least as strong as Jews in the USA. In positions of power: government, business, and mafia, Jews have been a powerful force in the ex-CIS states for quite some time. This is not a sleight on Jews at all - more power to them, I suppose. While of course there have been incidents of anti-semitism, taken as a whole, Jews in Russia are highly successful/influential and not at all persecuted or subject to implicit and explicit racism compared to, say, Central Asians (and believe me, being, say, a black guy in Russia is no picnic either).

      I remember in the 1990s (and I suppose they still exist) seeing pamphlets created by Jewish organizations in the USA being mailed to Russia/Ukraine telling jews there exactly what to say at (what kind of stories to invent for) their immigration hearings at a US consulate in order to obtain some persecution-based visa - most of it was nonsense, and ultimately just served to play on traditional western images of "persecuted" Jews to basically help what pretty much amounted to a slightly priviliged class anyway. Oh the irony.

      Please understand that I hope that I wrote above what I did in what I believe to be an analytical and dispassionate way. Unfortunately any time one talks of Jews there is a tendency of some people to instantly brand somebody or other an "anti-semite." It's a shame because it's an interesting and important topic.

      that said, I will make one more point, and one that is a bit more contentious. anti-semitism anywhere, like any irrational, group hatraed, is horrible and should be condemned. but, by the same token, even if it is thoroughly wrong, sometimes it can be analyzed to understand why it happens. for example, we can trace southern american white racism and the rise of groups such as the KKK to the disempowerment that many (generally poor) whites felt in seeing slaves go free and increasingly compete with them for jobs and other resources.

      In this same spirit, we can perhaps understand (though not excuse) why Ukraine and other areas were twisted into a destructive anti-semitism that culminated in horrible anti-semitic atrocities during WW2. This can be traced to the fact that the Communist revolution in Russia. The communist revolution resulted in the deaths of SEVERAL MILLION ukrainians (an act that has never been apologized for, much less memorialized in any meaningful way) in the 1930s and a radical worsening of the overall standard of living for much of western ukraine that had otherwise been under polish rule. Western Ukraine under polish rule was like northern ireland under british rule - a large percentage wanted independence, but the stanard of living was not so horrible - the soviet invasion was as if belfast was suddenly taken over by, say, pakistan.

      The key here is that the communist revolution was largely (and not too unfairly) seen as the product of Jewish intellectuals and power-brokers. Unfortunately, the not inexcusable angst was eventually directed largely not at

  48. Ironic by hcdejong · · Score: 1

    FTA: [his political umbrella group] The Other Russia

    Considering that umbrellas were used at least once by the KGB in an assassination (poison dart gun hidden in an umbrella), I wonder what sort of 'umbrella group' we're talking about here.

  49. A simple precaution by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Funny

    Advice to Kasparov:
    When eating out, bring Geiger counter.

  50. Re:"news relevant to United States politics" by shenanigans · · Score: 1

    Furthermore, we see that we are becoming more like them rather than they becoming more like us. I find it extremely sad, but it's true.

  51. Re:"news relevant to United States politics" by RealGrouchy · · Score: 2, Funny
    How the hell does Kasparove vs. Putin chess match relate to US politics?

    Because Kasparov is showing Bush how to *really* spread democracy.

    - RG>
    --
    Hey pal, this isn't a pleasantforest, so don't waste my time with pleasantries!
  52. Here's a lesson for you US democrats by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Funny

    In 2004, you should have gone with Sargon II instead of Kerry. It would have easily defeated Bush, running on a (Apple) Pro-DOS platform.

  53. Knight to King Porn Three by EmbeddedJanitor · · Score: 1

    he could make more money on the internet.

    --
    Engineering is the art of compromise.
  54. i.. by heri0n · · Score: 1

    I for one, welcome our new Chessmaster overlords.

  55. A dictatorship is good by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    A good dictator is a good thing. A dictator is not, necessarily, a tyrant.

    So when 80% of the Russians like Putin, what fucken right do we have to tell them how to run their country? All this nonsense about not wanting an anti-western Russia is just wrong; let them decide what they want to be. It's their right.

  56. Kasparov is a nutjob! by mangu · · Score: 1
    A brilliant chess player like Mr Kasparov should not only be able to calculate the odds, but also devise some ways to alter them.


    Only in a chess game, and only as long as it's against another human and not a computer.


    Kasparov seems to be rather eccentric, perhaps not as much as Bobby Fischer, but his ideas are too weird for someone who wants to govern a country. His analysis of European history should be enough for anyone to be wary of him. He seems to believe the Middle Ages didn't exist.


    He is very arrogant in his statements, for instance "How could the ancient Romans build elaborate structures such as temples, bridges, and aqueducts without precise and elaborate calculations?" That question is answered by a branch of history dedicated to the study of the evolution of science and technology. In the specific case of ancient Roman and Greek temples we are fortunate that the calculations were sometimes drawn in the stone itself, so we have the detailed "blueprints" carved in stone.


    Putin may be dangerous, but Kasparov is much worse. The Russians have done enough in trying to rewrite history in the past century. What next, will Kasparov claim the last Tzar never existed?

  57. Kasparov is incorrect on his point of view by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    You should understand that from most of the neighboring (not all former soviet though) countries point of view Putin is the first real leader who can handle the country and it's people.
    Russians needed their tzars (just look at what a fuck up was the soviet union and what it did for the rest of the east europe), now they have Putin to fill the vacuum.

    No, don't try to form an opinion before you know the country and it's people.

  58. Would that be the Kasparov, Deep Blue Ticket by Crashmarik · · Score: 1

    Or the Deep Blue, Kasparov Ticket. Chess skill is all well and good but I wouldn't vote for someone on that basis anymore than I would deep blue or little yapping dog.

    1. Re:Would that be the Kasparov, Deep Blue Ticket by smaddox · · Score: 1

      No, but you would base your decision on whether someone had the same ideology as you, and the likelihood of said person actually getting elected (or if they are the only decent option, you wouldn't even care about the likelihood). Being a famous chess player gives him a chance. And if enough people agree with him - he could win... in a democratic state.. to bad for him, he is running in Russia.

    2. Re:Would that be the Kasparov, Deep Blue Ticket by Dunbal · · Score: 1

      little yapping dog.

            Hey! Leave Tony Blair out of this!

      --
      Seven puppies were harmed during the making of this post.
  59. Kasparov = Grandstander, Not Grandmaster by sanman2 · · Score: 0, Troll

    Nah, I've seen Kasparov on TV enough times to recognize his personality type as a Grandstander, not merely a Grandmaster of chess.

    I'm Asian and not Russian, but I see that Europe has a long history of meddling in Russian affairs. Europe supported the Bolsheviks from outside in order to harass the Czar. Then during the Cold War, they flip-flop to support anti-communist dissidents. Well, you can't have it all ways and still stay credible.

    No matter who's in power in Russia, the Europeans will always support the opposing guy. That's just part of their own chess game, and not any ethics.

    When those Chechen gunmen took the schoolchildren hostage, the Europeans were the first to quickly go out of their way to blame security forces for the bloodbath. Naturally, the nutcase gunmen shouldn't be blamed, and should instead be portrayed as trying to resolve the situation peacefully, only to be thwarted by the evil aggressive security men. Oh, of course, anybody who takes schoolchildren hostage is out to do good. :P

    I really find in myself a growing distrust of Europeans, because they keep getting louder and more shrill in trying to break down rival powers -- all in the name of "social justice", of course. I don't see these people as having some inherent moral highground, especially not when they've been the architects of 2 world wars.

    It's looking more and more like the Cold War was just a temporary interruption of the wider European Colonial Era. Now that the brief Cold War interlude has passed, it's time to resume European hegemony through gamesmanship. Time for the age-old European pastime of Divide-and-Rule.

  60. Re:"news relevant to United States politics" by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Huh, what are you talking about? Putin is trying to pull up a system which has nothing to do about those fifty years. He's going back to zars and I'm all for it, the soviet system was a fuck up and the russians can't be ruled by some newly invented democratic system, just look about the corruption and problems the previous soviet and democratic leaders caused ...

  61. Kasparov is an excellent example of the fact by ktulu182 · · Score: 1
    that a man which is excellent in one field of activity (chess) could be absolutely and utterly miserable in another one (politics). At this point Kasparov has well below 1 percent support among Russian population, and this is not likely to change.

    Frankly speaking, his political position is so marginal I would not believe any sane people would support him.

    As of Litvinenko, he never was a 'high-profile', he never was a 'spy' (he was in organized crime department), he never knew any government secrets (unfortunately for him, because he had nothing to sell) and he was thrown out of FSB (successor to KGB) for beating suspects' heads with Yellow Pages books. Then he turned out to be a dissident.

    BTW, it is a wee bit premature to declare his death as an assassination, not to say to accuse someone in this assassination.

    1. Re:Kasparov is an excellent example of the fact by yoprst · · Score: 1

      You can't blame him for the lack of support by locals any more than you could blame Emmanuel Goldstein for the lack of support in Oceania. As for Litvinenko - well, that's a reputation. When you commit a crime after crime and then your enemy dies from radiation poisoning because he was careless while smuggling radioactive materials, don't be surprised that all fingers are pointing at you.

    2. Re:Kasparov is an excellent example of the fact by Wes+Janson · · Score: 1

      BTW, it is a wee bit premature to declare his death as an assassination, not to say to accuse someone in this assassination.

      The rest might be accurate, but there's just no damn way that ISN'T murder. One doesn't "accidentally" ingest a substance as rare and toxic as polonium 210, and if you were trying to commit suicide in such a way so as to make it seem like a murder, I'm sure there would be much better options available (especially ones that don't cause you to spend a torturous month in bed slowly dying).

  62. Re:"news relevant to United States politics" by dusanv · · Score: 1

    Been watching too much CNN, have you? The only real resentment is from oil companies outside Russia because Putin won't play ball with them. They are no threat. This is all about installing a US-business friendly government in Russia and nothing else.

  63. also by misanthrope101 · · Score: 1
    In chess you have to beat your opponent on merit. In politics, your supporters can slime him with innuendo and false claims (ala Swiftboat) to undermine his message, and even if you're the inferior candidate you'll still win. Chess hasn't been updated with a Truthiness Gambit yet.

    To make them more similar, the next big chess tournament would have to be followed by a PR blitz saying, "well of course everyone thinks that player x lost--that's all the press is reporting. But some sources are reporting that things were a bit more complicated. We'll keep you updated on the ongoing controversy."

    Truthiness aside, the more likely option is that Kasparov falls down the stairs (or has an auto accident, or chokes on dental floss, or whatever) and dies tragically. Putin will attend the funeral and mourn with the rest of Russia over the loss of a national hero, and things will go on as before.

  64. Godwin's Law by Metasquares · · Score: 1

    No, but I would have said the same thing (about Hitler's supporters) if the Germans still supported Hitler by the 1940s. The Russians still support Putin after all that he's done. Choosing a leader is a consequential action, not to be taken lightly, and a vote is essentially an endorsement of a candidate's proposed method of governance, as best seen or estimated by the voters at the time of an election.

    (It's worth noting that Hitler was not actually elected, but appointed by Hindenburg in what I can only describe as an utter failure of representative government, though it can be argued that the Weimar Republic was a very weak example of such a government. Hindenburg himself collaborated with Hitler until his death in 1934).

  65. Comment removed by account_deleted · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Comment removed based on user account deletion

  66. MOD PARENT DOWN YOU WANKERS by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    What a tool. Obviously this moron knows the whole life of some random person on the Internet, eh?

  67. Sadly Kasparov doesn't stand a chance by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    there is no way he will be elected by Russians for one simple reason, like Khodorkovsky and Berezovsky he happends to be a Jew which is a problem in Russia.

    1. Re:Sadly Kasparov doesn't stand a chance by Bloody+Troll · · Score: 0

      When you rob people several times and murder them by million it does tend to be a problem in Russia, yes.

    2. Re:Sadly Kasparov doesn't stand a chance by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      >When you rob people several times and murder them by million it does tend to be a problem in Russia, yes.

      Of course most of the people doing this were ethnic Russians.

    3. Re:Sadly Kasparov doesn't stand a chance by Bloody+Troll · · Score: 0

      Not those at the top giving orders, though.

  68. There's more to chess than the right moves... by Vellmont · · Score: 1

    I agree that Kasparov's knowledge of the game of chess won't help him in politics. But Kasparov has a great deal of experience in self promotion, which is a large part of getting elected. How many chess masters has anyone heard of (aside from Bobby Fisher) before Kasparov? He's used some of his fame in recent years promoting himself in politics as an opponent to Putin. It's also possible that the energy, discipline, and self-drivenness of anyone that's been the at the top of a field might help him in politics.

    With that said, it's difficult for anyone in the US to know if he stands any chance against Putin. Everyone in the US knew that Donald Trump had no chance to be elected US President several years ago, but he might have looked like a valid candidate to someone outside the US.

    --
    AccountKiller
    1. Re:There's more to chess than the right moves... by vga_init · · Score: 1

      I agree that Kasparov's knowledge of the game of chess won't help him in politics. But Kasparov has a great deal of experience in self promotion, which is a large part of getting elected. How many chess masters has anyone heard of (aside from Bobby Fisher) before Kasparov? He's used some of his fame in recent years promoting himself in politics as an opponent to Putin. It's also possible that the energy, discipline, and self-drivenness of anyone that's been the at the top of a field might help him in politics.

      Well said! I haven't been able to look it from that perspective, but when you put it that way his political career isn't so far fetched.

  69. Re:Putin is preventing even worse getting into pow by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    actaully it's part of the strategy, the state actively fights any democratic while tacitly supporting crackpots like Ziuganov and Zhyrynovsky. This way Putin is the "liberal Russian".

  70. Re:Right on Tibet but Wrong on Taiwan by goldenpanda · · Score: 1

    and here we are wasting our energy preparing to give you a good fight..

  71. Re:"news relevant to United States politics" by nacturation · · Score: 1

    How does this not effect our foreign policy and our politics? Hm... Putin is practically a dictator. Russia has been providing weapons to many other countries. We know Russia has weapons of mass destruction. Sounds like it's invading time!
    --
    Want to improve your Karma? Instead of "Post Anonymously", try the "Post Humously" option.
  72. Covered in the Atlantic in December 2005. by Arithmomaniac · · Score: 1

    It was a good read. Since their site is subscription-only, check in your library online subscription databases.

  73. What the hell was Bush SR, you twit? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Seriously, can we can the cold war inane chatter and stick to geek subjects.

    Politics is the same evewhere, get on with life.

    Stop making everything Dubya-like simple: black or white. Good versus evil.

    Nothing annoys more than moralists.

  74. Oh, for crap's sake! by n6kuy · · Score: 1

    Liberals are always fancying themselves to be "intellectuals."
    You'd think that "intellectuals" would put forth good ideas, instead of just name-calling their opponents (conservatives are "authoritarian", there's something "pathological" about them).

    "Catastrophic failure across the whole society" is mostly the legacy of "intellectual" social engineering.
    And yes, "intellectuals" will continue to be perceived as wishy-washy, because they are!

    --
    If you disagree with me on social issues, then it's pretty clear that you are a narrow-minded bigot.
  75. what makes a dictator? by javert · · Score: 1

    Has anyone considered that, if one man, by using nothing but his own fame and intellect, is able to bring about a regime change against what appears to be popuplar opinion, he, too, will have something like the power of a dictator?

  76. Re:Hmmmm... stup... reta... ac by oddsends · · Score: 1

    Ever bother to learn much in school? Logical fallacy Post hoc ergo propter hoc: after this, therefore because of this

  77. Re:Watch out by MotF+Bane · · Score: 1

    Wonder if you can hold chess pieces while wearing an anti-radiation suit?

  78. Ayn Rand's "Open Letter" by Garrett+Fox · · Score: 2, Funny

    It's interesting to see a chessmaster involved in this situation. Long ago, Ayn Rand wrote an essay titled "An Open Letter To Boris Spassky," who was then a chess champion. She denounced him for being a pawn of the Soviet state, turning his intellectual abilities to a pointless logic game because he wasn't willing to change the rules of his country's "game."

    --
    Revive the Constitution.
    1. Re:Ayn Rand's "Open Letter" by niktemadur · · Score: 1

      Yeah, well, In Soviet Russia, John Galt is you!

      --
      Lil' Thindime, lilting a lacrimose lament, krashes the kwaint konfines of Kokonino Kounty
  79. Kasparov should play against Bush by Lost+Penguin · · Score: 1

    We need logic and brains.

    US Zombie politics.... Brains....

    --
    I am the unwilling control for my Origin.
  80. Litvinenko is himself a move by greg_barton · · Score: 1

    Consider the possibility that Litvinenko poisoned himself and made it look like a politically motivated murder by Putin. It's the best way to get a lot of publicity for his message...

  81. anonymous on dope? by boxer06 · · Score: 1

    Did 'anonymous' (correction, 'anonymous coward', in slashdot terminology) reader actually read the article in question? Litvinenko never was a high-profile Putin critic (nor a spy); recovered-from-poison Gaidar wrote an article in FT, pointing finger at government enemies, not Putin, as the culprit; neither Putin, nor Kasparov declared that they would run in 2008. This 'Other Russia' (that is, a surreal reincarnation) umbrella includes National Bolshevik Party - the very guys who have swastikas and a red flag as their symbols. Kasparov insist that it is OK, because 'they have all agreed on common principles in support of free speech and democracy'. Millions of Russians died because of the bolsheviks during and after the Revolution; tens of millions more fled to other countries. Hasn't Kasparov heard that story in school?

    1. Re:anonymous on dope? by Sheltem+The+Guardian · · Score: 0

      Please, please. NBP might be weird but it is not certainly fascist. As for red flag, what else do you expect from bolsheviks? As for me, I have a great deal of respect for Limonov, this party's leader.

    2. Re:anonymous on dope? by boxer06 · · Score: 1

      Well, I certainly like Limonov as a writer, much less as a politician :) Good party wouldn't call itself double-trouble national (like the nazis) and bolsheviks - together they drunk way too much of Russian blood in the last century.

  82. Don't trash the digital overloards. by ebuck · · Score: 1

    Diebold would beg to differ.

  83. Re:"news relevant to United States politics" by yoprst · · Score: 1

    This is all about installing a US-business friendly government in Russia and nothing else For US - yes. For Kasparov - hardly so. People with different agendas can try to achieve the same goals. For examples, look no farther than Open Source movement.

  84. His quote by Fyz · · Score: 1

    "I can calculate the possibilities as a chess player and I have to be honest and say that our chances are not high."

    This guy's been going downhill in the strategy game since Deep Blue.

  85. mmmm by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    spicy brains!

  86. Re:Putin made Russia strong by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Putin's govenment is about half Jewish, though. Hell, he even has his own rabbi Berl Lazar (who can hardly speak Russian).

  87. Kasparov on DrudgeReport..... by blankoboy · · Score: 1

    dying of radiation poisoning in 3, 2, 1.....

  88. it's doomed by ewe2 · · Score: 1

    ...they're using pawns to capture a queen, and playing on the enemy's board.

    --
    insecurity asks the wrong question irritation gives the wrong answer
  89. After-Game News..... by IHC+Navistar · · Score: 2, Funny

    "In other news tonight, famous chess Grandmaster Garry Kasparov was dragged into Red Square and shot earlier this evening after he beat Russian President Vladimir "The Impaler" Putin. Phone calls to the Kasparov residence went eerily unanswered. President Putin denies allegations that he had any part in Kasparov's death, and states that the truth will clear his name when his new book, If I Killed Garry Kasparov, This Is How I Would Do It, is released later this week."

    Next Up: PETA activists set fire to Donals Trump's hairpiece. PETA issued a statement saying that thousands of animals are murdured every year to be made into hairpieces. Trump states that the hairpiece was ".....humanely scraped off his limousine's fender after his driver hit a deer while traveling on the New Jersey Turnpike". "It didn't feel a thing", says the driver.

    --
    Knowing Google's lust for data collection, the Soviet Union is still alive and well inside the psyche of Sergey Brin....
  90. Russia IS a threat for US by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Do you know what's going on in Russia? Putin's "brown shirts" youth from "United Russia" beat people of liberal parties. Russians want to rebuild empire and control all ex-russian territories like Latvia, Georgia and Ukraine. They even tried to poison Ukrainian president and stopped all trade relations with Georgia which depends on this trade for food and electricity.

    Russian government ARE communists (better say ex-KGB types). They are back to the same track as before. And majority of Russians hate Americans, they even have special word for us - "pindos" (means American). Nationalistic propaganda in Russia is very strong (government got back control on most independent TV and press).
    I don't think that Kasparov could win or even change landscape there. I guess they will kill him right away should he become any threat to Putin. Don't forget, that half of journalists killed in the world were killed in Russia.

    1. Re:Russia IS a threat for US by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      KGB was much to intelligent to be Communist. Examples are numerous: Beria's attempted reforms after death of Stalin, Andropov's economic program, etc. Communist bureaucracy tended to attract the uneducated and aggressively dogmatic subclass of proletariat that ruled by brute force, relying on equally uneducated regular army. It's truly unfortunate that Russian political scene couldn't field a leader without KGB background, but you have to be realistic about the time frame needed to build up democratic institutions and generational change. A certain backlash against the West is understandable given the overall failure of many of Yeltsin reforms which coincided with influx of Western popular culture into Russian media. Let's hope the Russian legal system is further clarified and codified, especially in areas of land ownership and antitrust law. If Russia joins WTO and the next president is a pragmatist supported by a growing middle class, there's hope for relatively painless integration into common economic space with Europe without 'shock therapy' of the 90's.

  91. Nuclear power plant by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Europe want gass because it is bether for the enivoronment than coal.
    The voters of Europe might demand more nuclear power if the gass supplier is fucking up the planet even more than the coal was.

    Europe do have the know how of nuclear power, but it is not a poppular choise when we can use gass. But it is a trade of that might change if dictator Putin goes nuts.

    There is also gas in other parts of Europe: "Gas-hungry Europe looks north to Norway" - http://www.eubusiness.com/Energy/061029030842.vl1d iai1

  92. Putin is the Wal-Mart of the New Russia by SpzToid · · Score: 1

    Wal-Mart is what it is, because 4/5's of the people benefit from low prices, at the expense of the 20% that pay up the difference as a result of tremendous SMB competition, low wages, virtually non-existent medical benefits, lack of pensions, etc.

    That holds similarly true for Putin, in that by eliminating the few that oppose him (which includes bad press), the larger population is satisfied, thus the vote is secured, and most folks prosper happily; albeit at the expense of the few. China seems to be taking a similar approach, in that you can do anything you want, so long as you don't criticize the party in-power.

    Gob Bless Kasparov.

    - - - -

    You can't be ahead of the curve if you're stuck in a loop.

    --
    You can't be ahead of the curve, if you're stuck in a loop.
  93. This will trigger a new t-shirt by XnavxeMiyyep · · Score: 0, Flamebait

    VOTE FOR KASPAROV

    --
    I put the 't' in electrical engineering.
  94. Europe and Russia by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Russia is a part of Europe in the same way it is a part of Asia.

    Russian numbers are tiny in the big picture today. We have to deal with a USA that have about 50% of the world army spending, a China with 1.5 billion people, a fast growing India with around 1 billion people, the growing race of global resources and not at least the culture dificulties of the growing multiethnical Europe.

    We would love to have a Russia that could take a role like todays Germany in global poltics. A country that was economicaly powerfull, political stable and had a open a just justice system. Germany is also a country that is going trough the stages of large changes, but they had a working fundament before they startet.

    The example of the colapse of Soviet makes it hard to find a clear solution for other dictatorships like todays China.

    What would be best for Europe? A open democratic Russia that could help stabilize China and North Korea. A trustable partner in trade and politics.

  95. Not only Chechen by vityok · · Score: 1
    Not only Chechen people are being oppressed. It looks like xenophobia is very common in Russia nowadays. You can check http://xeno.sova-center.ru/ -- a center that gathers information on this topic.

    And, about two or three months ago, a very strong anti Georgian (and anti Mikhailo Saakashvili) campaign was made in Russia.

    It was also written in the press, that almost 50 000 skinheads (neo-Nazi racists live in Russia).

  96. WRONG - NOT OIL, INFLATION by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    No, russia's boom has been due to printing more and more paper money, increasing the supply by more than 500% in the past 5 years. This gives a temporary boost to "growth" on paper, but the money diverts resources away from profitable projects (by suppressing the interest rates to make marginal businesses look profitable).

    This leads to one of two results - either 1) hyper inflation and the paper money becomes worthless, or 2) a bust when the unprofitable investments run out of cheap credit because the banks stop supplying it (or else 1 happens).

    Who profits from this? The government and banks because they get to take assets away from people using "paper money", the government gets to tax less (although everyone pays through inflation) and the banks get real assets in exchange for paper money.

    (nb money was a commodity used as a common medium of exchange, you have to produce something to get your money which you trade for something - banks/govt produce nothing they just turn the printing press.)

  97. Socialism vs communism by YeeHaW_Jelte · · Score: 1

    Followed you up until the last sentence there.

    First, you imply Russia is a mafia state because it has been socialist. There are two problems with this argument (among others).

    - russia has not been a socialist state. Communist yes, not socialist.

    - the historical origin of the word you use, 'mafia', already proves that one doesn't need to have a socialist nor communist state to grow mafiosi. They did fine by themselves in Italy.

    Thank you for your patience. Please check yourself regulary for conservative bias.

    --

    ---
    "The chances of a demonic possession spreading are remote -- relax."
    1. Re:Socialism vs communism by smittyoneeach · · Score: 1

      Ah, but do not the mafia, communist, and socialist states all tend towards patronage systems, when you mix in the people?
      We can toss about all manner of sophistries, and I'm sure the academics in the crowd will go on at length about abstract differences between the various systems, but it all gets down to who you know.
      Actually, my political bias tends more towards libertarian than conservative.

      --
      Get thee glass eyes, and, like a scurvy politician, seem to see things thou dost not.--King Lear
  98. Re:Putin is preventing even worse getting into pow by shutdown+-p+now · · Score: 1
    Russia is a political mess right now and I'm not sure theres a solution.
    There is, and that is disintegration of Russia as a political entity. The sooner that happens, the better for us all. It's a pity the process was hastily halted soon after it began when the USSR collapsed.
  99. Re:"news relevant to United States politics" by shutdown+-p+now · · Score: 1
    There are more bureaucrats per capita in Putin's Russia than there ever was in Soviet Union (not to mention Yeltsin's days). As you'd expect, corruption only gets worse.

    ... the russians can't be ruled by some newly invented democratic system
    As a Russian, I would rather not have that decided for me by someone.
  100. Re:"news relevant to United States politics" by shutdown+-p+now · · Score: 1
    ... a country that probably deep down still holds a lot of resentment of the United States of America.
    Deep down? It hasn't been down ever since mid-90s, especially after the Kosovo War, and these days it's practically the official policy here.
  101. remeber what happened to the last guy ... by MrJerryNormandinSir · · Score: 1

    Remember when the Russian oil barron was challenging Putin? I believe the dude got his Billions he earned taken away, lost the
    oil company he built, and was sent to prison. Shit.. the chess player dude just might be another victim of radioactive poisoning.
    I'm no scholar in russian politics, but I can read people pretty well. I believe when Putin got "elected" it was the beginning of
    brining back the old ways, after all, Putin "was" a former KGB agent. Can you blame the people? Yeltsin was the equivalent of
    George W. Bush to us. well.. maybe even worse. The last great leader Russia had was Gorbechev. I don't trust Putin, lets see
    who wins Russia's next election. I Russia is starting to drift to the dark side then it would be Putin or someone put into place by Putin.

  102. Take on Bush by percy69 · · Score: 1

    Now, if only Bobby Fisher would take a stab at taking down Bush.

    1. Re:Take on Bush by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Bobby Fischer is overtly anti-semetic. He is unelectable.

  103. Luckily Koni is black by alienmole · · Score: 1

    I see that Koni is a black lab, so that's OK. No-one in their right mind would vote for a yellow or chocolate lab, though! Nothing against yellow labs, I just don't think they have the chops to run Russia -- too friendly-looking. And don't get me started on those chocolate half-breeds.

    (Note to moderators: no, there's no "Labrador Flamebait" mod, so you'll just have to leave me alone. What are you do... Offtopic?? Noooooooo!!)

  104. Agree with me, or you're evil! by alienmole · · Score: 1
    It's perfectly fair and reasonable to argue against the practicality or possibility of a perfect implementation of such a system, but anyone who argues against the abstract merit of such a system is secretly yearning to make you his slave and wants a system that will allow him to try.
    What an absolutist, argument-suppressing position! A nice example of why most idealistic "I have a system to make society better" fail -- because of people such as yourself, who not-so-secretly yearn to suppress the opinions of all those who disagree with them.
    1. Re:Agree with me, or you're evil! by goldenpanda · · Score: 1
      How is that any different from "be a democrat, or you're evil"?

      I can think of a difference actually. While "democracy or evil" is tyrannical about the choice of the means to a better world, "abstract merits of social justice" pretty much just means a better world. I have much less of a problem with tyranny of the second idea.

    2. Re:Agree with me, or you're evil! by alienmole · · Score: 1

      It's not different. The problem is when you find yourself having "less of a problem with tyranny" of some idea. Tyranny is tyranny, and no matter how wonderful the idea you think is worthy of tyranny, you corrupt that idea when you start believing that tyranny may be justified in its service.

      As for the specifics in this case, the original post gave a vague potted description of socialism, which is not even a single well-defined idea, and then claimed that anyone who argues against the abstract merits of the thing that he hadn't even bothered to define "wants to make you his slave". That was a ludicrous claim.

      You've now boiled that down to "abstract merits of social justice". But you're going to have to define social justice. I can tell you right now, my idea of social justice is not the same as yours. Same goes for "better world". You're making a similar mistake as the OP, which is to believe that your own personal perception of justice and a better world is an absolute one that everyone either does, or should, share.

      Concepts like "social justice" are political concepts that can only be arrived at by social consensus. In reaching that consensus, you can't simply marginalize the ideas of everyone who disagrees with your particular perspective. That's a recipe for failure, often of a quite spectacular sort.

    3. Re:Agree with me, or you're evil! by goldenpanda · · Score: 0

      Concepts like "social justice" are political concepts that can only be arrived at by social consensus.

      ..which is exactly the abstract goal of socialism!

      The OP's original line "anyone who argues against..is secretly yearning to make you his slave and wants a system that will allow him to try" really isn't that much of a hyperbole. The economic freedom of capitalism boils down to giving you a chance to better those who would otherwise be your equals. To paraphrase the OP, it's perfectly fair and reasonable to argue whether such a system should be the natural state of man, but anyone who votes for it is NOT interested in "social consensus" or "a better world" as far as the major part of humanity is concerned. He just wants to be better than you are.

    4. Re:Agree with me, or you're evil! by alienmole · · Score: 1
      ..which is exactly the abstract goal of socialism!

      That's yet another partial and very general definition. The same thing could be said to be a goal of democracy.

      The economic freedom of capitalism [...]

      Who said anything about capitalism? We were discussing "anyone who argues against...". And that's the problem, what we're seeing here is extremism, pure and simple: "if you don't agree with me, you're my enemy (must be a capitalist!) and you want to enslave people". That's not argument or debate, it's an exercise in indulging one's irrational side, and it has nothing to do with truly achieving ends such as social justice.

      It looks to me like it's more important for the person saying such things to win, or at least squash any argument, than to be right. That doesn't bode well for whatever cause is being advocated.

    5. Re:Agree with me, or you're evil! by goldenpanda · · Score: 0
      ShieldW0lf did not appear to me as wanting to squash any argument. He had the grace and intellectual honesty to admit it was "perfectly fair and reasonable" to argue socialism can be no more than an impractical fantasy. You won't find any similar honesty in the "kill Al Qaeda! deter Russia! strangle China! make the world in our democratic image!" ideologues.

      He used a dramatic statement to make the point that socialism is after something quite, quite good, that its most fervent detractors are not very much interested in those aspects at all. In that sense the reference to slave owning really isn't so far off the field. Considering the fairly recent history of slavery in America and Western Europe, why should it surprise anyone the slave-seeking blood still flows around?

    6. Re:Agree with me, or you're evil! by alienmole · · Score: 1

      ShieldW0lf's "dramatic statement" certainly seems like an argument squasher to me, very much along the lines of "it's for the children... you *do* like children, don't you?" If he wanted to say something about the most fervent detractors of socialism, he should have qualified it as such. But what he said was "anyone".

      Besides, even if he just meant to talk about those most fervent detractors, saying "That guy wants to make you his slave!" is a close equivalent to "She's a witch! Burn her!" It's designed to appeal to the emotions rather than the intellect. It has nothing to do with the merits of the argument on either side. The best defense for it is "the other side does it too", but unfortunately that undermines any claims about the nobleness of the cause being promoted.

      It might be different if there were some evidence of this slave-owning mindset, but afaict it's unsupported speculation. You take that speculation a step further when you drag people's ancestry into it. The whole premise is a distraction at best, and an unnecessarily inflammatory one at that.

      That's my biggest objection to this sort of stuff: it's classic crowd-rallying propaganda. The best defense for it is perhaps "the other side does it too", but unfortunately that undermines any argument you might make about the nobleness of the cause being promoted.

    7. Re:Agree with me, or you're evil! by goldenpanda · · Score: 0
      "The same thing could be said to be a goal of democracy"

      That is fair to say. But I want to ask, can democracy advocates also differentiate between "abstract merits" from "practicality or possibility of a perfect implementation"?

      I'll make a claim which seems right to me--but I'm open to receive evidence to the contrary. ***The creation of open electoral systems in the last 50 years have hurt a greater number of people than it has helped***.

      My anecdotal evidence include the deterioration of Russia and other post soviet states, the continuing deterioration of Africa--where elections are widespread, and the chaos, violence, and poverty of India and Latin America. Altogether this amounts to about 2.5 billion people who have not been helped, and arguably even hurt by electoral democracy--the most stark example being Iraq itself. The evidence against include Japan, Korea, Taiwan, and a number of eastern european and south-east asian states.

      I'll say again about the need to differentiate abstract merits from practice. I've heard all the "but democracy didn't do that! (idiots did..)" OR "but that's not real democracy! (why can't you learn it the right way?)" arguments I need hear. The point is, political systems derived from electoral processes have presided over an enormous amount of human suffering -- a hard to dispute piece of our current world which the western media abjectly ignores.

    8. Re:Agree with me, or you're evil! by alienmole · · Score: 1

      Oops, got a bit cut-n-paste happy there, but you get my point...

    9. Re:Agree with me, or you're evil! by goldenpanda · · Score: 0

      It might be different if there were some evidence of this slave-owning mindset It really isn't so hard to find, I'm surprised you need to get it from me. They are 20th century's biggest slavers. They are also communism's most fervent enemy. They are the German nazi's.
    10. Re:Agree with me, or you're evil! by alienmole · · Score: 1

      Right, but are you seriously calling everyone who argues fervently against socialism (or communism?) a Nazi? That's exactly the sort of thing I'm objecting to. That's such a famous argument-squasher that there's a name for it, Godwin's Law. And since you've opened that door, let me point out that the Nazi leadership made good use of the sort of rabble-rousing that you're defending.

    11. Re:Agree with me, or you're evil! by alienmole · · Score: 1

      The same sorts of issues apply to democracy as to socialism. I have the same issue with overzealous advocates of either. As you say, many attempts to introduce democracy have been failures, and advocates of democracy have certainly had events prove them wrong. Then again, some have been reasonably successful: many people expected apartheid South Africa to degenerate into civil war, but seemingly against all odds, it transitioned peacefully into a real democracy. It was probably important that this decision wasn't imposed from the outside, as such, although there was certainly significant outside pressure to end apartheid and enfranchise blacks.

      The lesson I draw from this sort of thing is that it's very difficult to predict what entire societies are going to do, and different systems may be appropriate for different peoples. That's precisely why a bit of humility about what we know is a good thing. Too much faith in the inherent goodness of any sociopolitical system can be dangerous, as is too much faith in one's own rightness.

      BTW, it's not clear to me what, if anything, you're actually advocating. Do you have an alternative to "political systems derived from electoral processes"? "Socialism" is not an alternative, at least not without significant qualification.

    12. Re:Agree with me, or you're evil! by goldenpanda · · Score: 0

      I wouldn't have noticed, because he actually does spell it with a 0 (zero). =)

    13. Re:Agree with me, or you're evil! by goldenpanda · · Score: 0
      You've mostly already said it for me. Keep a sense of humility about our own rightness, and don't force change in places of the world we don't quite understand.

      It's actually an important matter to me personally. I am a Chinese national. From my perspective, "democracy or evil" colors about half of all American interaction with China. It's very hard to raise these issues with Americans since I get a knee jerk reaction from them.

      Chinese do not go to other countries to tell them we have a solution for their problems, and that they'd be foolish to not adopt them. We have worked meticulously in our own country to develop a system that is in many ways based on scientific principles. For example there is an experimentation phase for almost every major policy -- this is something unknown to the West. Compared to the economic and social catastrophe of Russia, Chinese have made great leaps out of two centuries of backwardness. This has been no accident. It is the culmination of half a century of intellectual and social work under the Chinese Communist Party. Today, the direction of our country is in many ways aligned with the desires of the common people, which are the sense of peace, the sense of achievement, and the sense of potential. It is not something conscientious Chinese will let go of lightly.

      We have used this step by step approach with many of our neighbors and partners in Asia and Africa. We have gone from aid recipient to one of world's biggest donors in a single decade. Our ideas of respect for local cultural patterns have been well received. We are today one of the biggest builders in Africa.

      Why then, after all diplomatic pleasantries, we are still the red evil, coddling corrupt dictators to advance our oppressive instincts? Is our system, supported by the majority of the people (no less self-evident than Putin's 80%), developed and run by our best and most dedicated, so intolerable in your vision, you cannot share the world with us? This stance is in fact so threatening to China, it is the chief motivation for us to advance our conventional and other forces, at the expense of solving society's many pressing problems.
      *end rant*

      This thread started for me as appreciation for a very eloquent defense of the relevance of socialism, even in today's world. I further appreciate the intelligent comments from you and a few others. America is overwhelmingly targeted because it is overwhelmingly present, and active, and mostly trying to do something good. So don't take all my comments too seriously. =)

    14. Re:Agree with me, or you're evil! by alienmole · · Score: 1
      Is our system, supported by the majority of the people (no less self-evident than Putin's 80%), developed and run by our best and most dedicated, so intolerable in your vision, you cannot share the world with us?

      Hey, don't look at me, I'm not an American. I was born and raised in Africa. (Speaking of Chinese building in Africa, I once attended a concert in the Chinese-built sports stadium in Harare, Zimbabwe.)

      This stance is in fact so threatening to China, it is the chief motivation for us to advance our conventional and other forces, at the expense of solving society's many pressing problems.

      China should devote some serious resources to public relations, too. America's fear of China nowadays seems to be based on one main thing: the potential threat to U.S. economic dominance posed by an economically improving population more than triple the size of the U.S. Lou Dobbs on CNN talks about that all the time. It's made all the more scary by the fact that China seems more foreign to Americans than any Western nation, and less transparent than some other Asian nations. One of the only ways to address that would be by marketing direct to the American public, although it'd have to be somewhat subtle. Something as direct as TV ads wouldn't work.

      (Perhaps China should offer to commit troops to help keep peace in Iraq. :) That probably goes against the Chinese strategy, but it'd be interesting to see the U.S. reaction to that.)

      But another factor working against China in U.S. eyes is the perception that it offers less individual freedom. Many people in the U.S. naturally assume that they personally would not be happy under such a system, therefore it must be bad. I think that this is a more fundamental thing than democracy, capitalism, communism -- it goes to people's basic perspective on the relationship between themselves as individuals, and the state. The U.S. likes to limit the power of its federal government for these kinds of reasons, preferring power to remain local where possible. To be quite honest, I have no real idea of how China works on this level, and I'm sure it's the same for most Americans. As long as that's the case, it's easy for people to assume the worst.

    15. Re:Agree with me, or you're evil! by goldenpanda · · Score: 0
      And here is my belated reply..

      China should devote some serious resources to public relations, too.

      A few years back, before 9/11, China did hire a western PR firm to run TV ads. Probably in the end it was wasted money. To Chinese, Americans are still in mammoth hunting mode -- they see threats everyone, and overreact in destructive ways (see Iraq). Chinese send many signals that we're "standing down"--for example in Korea we initially held back, and today in our nuclear posture. This is always lost on Americans who think it is weakness. They see Mao's frame on Tiananmen and just want to pick up their M16's.

      China does not like American occupation of Iraq and will not offer help. Personally though I think China should. We need the practice to interact with complex, foreign situations, and it will be our huge moral victory over USA.

      it goes to people's basic perspective on the relationship between themselves as individuals, and the stat

      In the USA the feds will hunt you down if you violently oppose federal power. Most Americans know this limit and do not cross it. In China, beijing will do the above, plus it will seriously intimidate you if you express the desire to organize against the government. Most Chinese know *that* limit, do not cross it, and accept it. Chinese are just as comfortable with that system, which has been the basis of our continuity for two thousand years, as Americans are with theirs.

      In terms of local versus central power, for the most part Beijing is too busy to mind. However it may arbitrarily choose to intervene at any time. Its ultimately authority is simply accepted as the natural perogative of the state. It should be noted Chinese associate higher authority with higher quality of governance. If we have a grievance we'll take it up as high as we can go. It's similar to European respect for monarchy.

      It is never hard to find dissidents infatuated with the total package of American ideals. This was true in the Soviet Union, this was true of Iraqis who predicted "kisses and flowers" for US troops. In neither case did they see positive end results for their country.

  105. Slashdot & Politics by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I think this was a very bad idea for Slashdot to have a "politics" on its website. IT is global by default, it unites people. And politics separates people and makes them angry on each other.

    I've seen already enough examples of absolutely absurd posts and "news" on /. enough to sue /. for quite big amount of money. For example, when they called Mr. Litvinenko a "spy", although he wasn't ever the one. This time anti-Russian rhetorics becomes disturbing enough to ban this website in some companies or even countries, although it would be considered counterproductive even a year ago.

    A funny thing: if /. will be banned in China they will not understand why it happened.

    Another question: who is standing behind this anti-Russian campaign on Slashdot? OSTG?..

  106. Obligatory... by MachineShedFred · · Score: 1

    Well who the hell do you think is posting all those IN SOVIET RUSSIA posts?

    They aren't jokes - they are nostalgia!

    --
    Slashdot still doesnâ(TM)t support Unicode after it was added to the HTML standard in 1997.
  107. Wargames by MachineShedFred · · Score: 1

    Insightful? Yeah, nice.

    Watch some crappy 80s movies please!

    --
    Slashdot still doesnâ(TM)t support Unicode after it was added to the HTML standard in 1997.
    1. Re:Wargames by dodobh · · Score: 1

      Tis'ok. We all know /. mods are on crack. That was supposed to be funny, not insightful.

      --
      I can throw myself at the ground, and miss.
  108. See Iraq by tacokill · · Score: 1

    "Really? Even with AK47's, MG-3s, SAWs, full auto M16 in the hands of the people, can you really take on a military with tanks, helicopters, and B52 bombers at their disposal. "

    Yes. See Iraq. Insurgencies and guerilla tactics can be VERY effective. And Americans would be no different if they were in this position. You assume that the govt could actually USE the B-52's. And I would say: use where? After all, what good is a totally demolished country with 300 million dead people? That's not even useful for Bush and Co.

    You'd have plenty of National Guard, Reservists, and other "military types" who DO have the armament and resources to fight back -- and they would most certainly help their friends, families, towns, etc. After all, they are people to. Do you really think an army officer would shoot his best friend and arrest his own family because of the orders from a President in an office halfway across the continent? What about the B-52 pilot who is ordered to drop 40K lbs of bombs on a Chicago suburb? Doubtful. (and yes, I and they would understand the consequences of ignoring such an order)

    People seem to think that the military is homogenous. It's not. There are ALL kinds of people in the armed forces. Some would help the "resistance". Others would not. But one thing is for sure: there will always be those who help the people against the government.

    That's all that is needed.

  109. Watch out by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Don't eat the sushi.

  110. 44% by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The last reliable number was 44%, that's largely due to his control of the media (he did the same trick and took over critical television stations).

    So it's a minority and would be a lot lower if they knew the truth about him.