Kasparov Arrested By Russian Police

New submitter perdelucena writes "Former world chess champion Garry Kasparov was arrested outside a Moscow court, where the verdict in the trial of the Pussy Riot group members was being announced on Friday, Russian police said." Update: 08/18 01:14 GMT by T : Kasparov has written an account of the arrest.

Comments

Checkmate.

[Anonymous Coward]

Your move.

Re:Checkmate.

[SomePgmr]

Uh, you wanna rethink that? ;)

Re:Checkmate.

[lexsird]

You can play it several different ways.

Arresting a national hero like that probably wasn't the wisest thing to do. We are talking a Russian Chess Champion, something which is what we measure high end super computers against.

Frankly, I don't think we should be concerned about Russian internal politics. We the People, of America don't seem to have our own government in control. Somebody's driving it, but damn it, it's not us apparently.

It's not checkmate for anyone but Pussy Riot. Western decadence will not be tolerated I am sure.

We have nobody to thank but ourselves. We win the Cold War, and then let them rot because we were gloating dicks. We have more in common with them than we can imagine, and damn far more to gain by working together than fighting. Why is that oligarchies, that really controls us, have such short sighted, fear-biting, knuckledraggers leading them?

Re:Checkmate.

[void warranty()]

OP is playing FPS chess where the king can dodge out of checkmate?

Re:Checkmate.

[iamnobody2]

Kasparov Castles With Account of Arrest.

Re:Checkmate.

[Pf0tzenpfritz]

You mean "FSB-chess"?

Re:Checkmate.

[Kell Bengal]

Nonono, I like his idea better. "Boom! Headsh- er, checkmate!"

Re:Checkmate.

[artor3]

I was wondering how long it would take for someone to pull out the old "The US is just as bad" nonsense in response to the Pussy Riot trial. I never could have imagined that person would be so self-centered as to suggest that Russia's problems are our fault, as if the people over there are a bunch of children who couldn't possibly deal with their own problems and need a "grown-up" to come fix things. Yeah, I'm sure the world would be so much better off if the US had sent occupying forces over in the wake of the collapse of the USSR.

Re:Checkmate.

[AK Marc]

They wanted communism by having the government own all the corporations. We got communism with all the corporations owning the government. Republicans are communists! Wait, what was the question again?

Re:Checkmate.

[DigiShaman]

We got communism with all the corporations owning the government.

That would be a plutocracy, not communism. But yes, I know what you mean. Corporations have bought off both Democrats and Republicans to a larger extent. But who's really to blame is is people like...YOU...and ME. Let's be honest here. By and large the average US citizen just want's to work, play , and raise a family. They don't want to spend time constantly looking after their own government. But if history has taught us anything, is that for freedom to foster and remain, eternal vigilance is the ultimate price that must be paid to maintain it. Now you tell me which is more important. Watching reality TV, or paying attention to the ass fucks we call our election officials in office?

Re:Checkmate.

[SplashMyBandit]

> Something I never understood was why the fuck the US cared about the polytical system in a far region.
Well, the ideology was that global socialism was inevitable, but the USSR and China wanted to speed the process up (eg. encouraging and supply weaponry to the Chinese in their Civil War, the North Korean invasion, the North Vietnamese invasion, the communist Afghanistan government, invasions of Hungary and Czechoslovakia, arming insurgents and dodgy governments across the globe [Yemen, Malaysia, Angola, Ethiopia etc etc]).

Then there was the massive Warsaw Pact tank armies poised to drive through Western Europe at a moment's notice. Some of this was "the best defense is a good offense" mindset in the aftermath of The Great Patriotic War (as the USSR called World War 2), but plenty of it was itching to get their hands on more territory too. Fortunately the US, despite its other flaws, had the 'minerals' (translation: testicles; for those in the US), the capability, and (most importantly) the will to contain communist expansion around the globe (since many other countries would wring their hands but then appease the Soviets).

Even the Russians now acknowledge that the Soviet system was a mistake (although as time passes nostalgia is starting to take of the edge off the horrors for newer generations of Russians).

It is an interesting period of history. You can't really understand the post-Cold War of today unless you understand the Cold War. Similarly, you won't understand the Cold War unless you understand the historical aspects of World War 2. It's not exactly "turtles all the way down" but if you want to understand why the US acts as it does (which, on a strategic scale, is usually quite rational) then I suggest you make an effort and trawl through the colossal masses of information available at all levels that describe the relevant history. Then you won't be forced to make statements on Slashdot from not knowing why the actors (US, Russia, Europeans, Israel, Iran etc) act as they do. Good luck.

Re:Checkmate.

[Jane Q. Public]

"We win the Cold War, and then let them rot because we were gloating dicks."

"Let them rot"??? What kind of revisionist history is this? They didn't WANT our help, and resisted almost rabidly any time some was offered.

I agree that the situation was sad, but let's not let our imaginations get away from us.

Re:Checkmate.

[lexsird]

Look you goofy bastards, all of you.

The Cold War ends, do you think the nukes magically vanished into thin air? What do you think happens to nukes when the commander of the base is out farming potatoes to not starve to death? In Capitalist Russian, everything is for sale? Have you ever heard any numbers on how many rogue nukes are floating around from that era? Who the fuck needed to build one when they had a garage sale on them?

You see, establishing healthy relationships with your neighbors in the world is a good thing. The world is a very small place, and we have better things to do than be fucking around with reptile brained, neolithic concepts of property and war, when the clock is ticking against us with global problems. You have to look to the horizon and see the bigger picture. This isn't about imperialism, it's about propagating the universe by getting our asses collectively to space. There are resources there for us all to chew on like Pacman. We need us all out there, we all make up the human equation. Once you poke your head up off the ground and look at things from a bigger perspective, and dare to dream, you might see it too.

Re:Checkmate.

[lexsird]

Our help? How often is "our help" nothing more than glorified carpetbaggers wrapped in flags of diplomacy? We don't have friends, we have interests. We don't call it imperialism when its a corporation. How fucking handy, huh?

Have you been following what it's like in Russia? I mean even if you don't give one human fuck about them, then at least be concerned about how their well being can be used against you? If the ways of the West prove to be a poison to these people, they will hate us. I don't know about you, but I could do without that kind of potential problem. At least consider how their organized crime has become a monster. These elements have no respect for diplomacy, rules, boundaries, decency.

As far as profits are concerned? Why aren't we smart enough to flip the industrial war machine into a industrial space program? Peace can be massively profitable for everyone, where as war is hell. It's illogical as fuck, people need slapped.

Re:Checkmate.

[Jane Q. Public]

"Have you been following what it's like in Russia?"

Yes, I have. Likely better than you have.

"I mean even if you don't give one human fuck about them..."

Who said anything even REMOTELY resembling that? You are letting your imagination get away with you again.

"... then at least be concerned about how their well being can be used against you?"

I am acutely aware of this. Even though it is totally off the subject that was being discussed.

"If the ways of the West prove to be a poison to these people, they will hate us."

Did you even READ what I wrote? They haven't been exposed to "the ways of the West"!!! They have suffered under a faux-capitalism that has been run by the same thugs who ran the faux-communism!

"At least consider how their organized crime has become a monster."

That's exactly what I'm talking about! Except that unlike you, I know that it hasn't "become" a monster, at all. It's the very same monster that was there before, under the old regime. Otherwise -- get a clue, man -- how is Putin still in power?

"These elements have no respect for diplomacy, rules, boundaries, decency."

Correct.

"Peace can be massively profitable for everyone, where as war is hell. It's illogical as fuck, people need slapped."

You won't find any argument from me there.

Re:Checkmate.

[LordLimecat]

More than anything, this sort of thing should give slashdotters pause before they say "The US is as bad as it gets in terms of human rights."

Re:Checkmate.

[Opportunist]

One has to wonder...

What makes Russia, or rather, the Soviet Union, such an enemy? Nukes? The USSR didn't have any nukes when the cold war started. And the US didn't cut all ties with England and France when they got their nukes. And the relationship with China even warmed up when they separated their "brand" of communism from Moscow, long after they got nukes at their hands.

I think it's ideology.

The powers that are seem to be terribly afraid that people might consider any social or economic system more favorable to their needs than the one we have currently running. As soon as anyone comes up with a society model that differs from ours, we vilify them. Why? What happened to our spirit of competition, have them compete and let's see which one works out? Instead we fight economy battles of proportions few people even know anything about, something that is actually anathema to our own economy model that allegedly enshrines free trade as sacrosanct.

What are we afraid of? Isn't our system the best there was, is and will be?

Re:Checkmate.

[Opportunist]

Democracy is the system where so many people get a say that it's guaranteed that a few smart guys can't upset the apple cart.

Where communism is the dictatorship of the proletariat, democracy is the dictatorship of the proles.

Re:Checkmate.

[Opportunist]

Living in Europe you sure get a prime time view on the developments of crime in Russia. 'til the fall of the iron curtain, I sat right next to it with a perfect view of dictatorships and what it's like to live there. Now I get a perfect view on the Russians buying multi-million real estate around me.

Personally, I consider the latter more disconcerting.

Re:Checkmate.

[Shompol]

to pull out the old "The US is just as bad" nonsense

It is not. Very far from it, but we are getting there:

- Mass media is a government's pet. They either lie (Fox News) or hide facts. There are a few exceptions, like NYT, but they are not read by an average Joe. This is the beginning of a disease.

- We got a common enemy to keep populace in fear. "Look, the Terrorists, they are everywhere! Watch out for the terrorists!"-- This is an old Russian Stalin-era trick to grip power with iron fist =~ s/terrorists/imperialists/

- Phones and other communications are eavesdropped, a-la 1970's KGB style.

- Wall Street peaceful protest members arrested, media members arrested

- Police requested Twitter to provide tweets by Wall Street protest organizers. WTF for? You gona charge them with "hooliganism" now?

So the same shit is happening here, but it is more civilized and convoluted as not to raise too many red flags.

Re:Checkmate.

[Shompol]

Excellent post, but you arrived at a wrong conclusion. Who do you think will safeguard nukes better, a Supreme Dictator with a rule by Iron Fist, or a Wild West style hungry democracy?

Everybody knows that dictators are easier to deal with: transfer a few million to his Swiss bank account and you can harvest all his national resources and dump toxic waste back. You can do the same with democracy but the price tag will be much higher :) This is why we installed our personal pet pocket dictators in Iran and around the world.

So for the West this is a good news. As for battling Global Warming -- I am sorry but the US is the worst offender. You see, Big Coal and Big Oil say global warming is a myth, and they just happen to have our government in their pocket. Expect US not to make a move in the right direction until crops seriously dry out and world hunger begins. Then they will point their fat finger at Russia and say "that big bad Wol... Putin, he is the enemy here!"

Re:Checkmate.

[shutdown -p now]

"Let them rot"??? What kind of revisionist history is this? They didn't WANT our help, and resisted almost rabidly any time some was offered.

That is patently false. The situation in USSR, and then Russia, in late 80s to early 90s, was such that a lot of people clamored for everything even remotely Western, and especially American, solely on the grounds that it has to be awesome if it comes from people who live so great. You guys could have easily go in and do some actual good there, there was so much goodwill to fall back on it was insane.

Instead you did the usual shit, which is to say, promote extreme rapid economic liberalization - "shock therapy" is what they called it - which resulted in this. And, eventually, people elected Putin, because "democracy" became a swear word associated with utter economic collapse and extreme poverty.

So, gee, thanks for that.

Re:Checkmate.

[shutdown -p now]

Arresting a national hero like that probably wasn't the wisest thing to do. We are talking a Russian Chess Champion, something which is what we measure high end super computers against.

Your mistake is assuming that people would treat him as a chess champion and not a politician. He has been acting primarily as an opposition politician since 2004, and that's the capacity in which most people would first remember him these days. Given the popular support that Putin enjoys - which has waned compared to past years, but is still strong enough - this translates to considerable antipathy against Kasparov.

Re:Checkmate.

[PostPhil]

Let's put aside for a moment the issue of whether or not Russia's problems is the fault of the U.S. government. But when it comes to saying the U.S. government or rather U.S. politicians are just as bad, we need to look no further than to RTFA. Kasparov mentions,

A spokesman for the Obama administration called the sentence [for Pussy Riot] "disproportionate," as if the length of the prison term were the only problem with open repression of political speech.

Re:Checkmate.

[tobiah]

WWII started because WWI ended with a big FUCK YOU to Germany.

Re:Checkmate.

[Jane Q. Public]

"The situation in USSR, and then Russia, in late 80s to early 90s, was such that a lot of people clamored for everything even remotely Western, and especially American, solely on the grounds that it has to be awesome if it comes from people who live so great. You guys could have easily go in and do some actual good there, there was so much goodwill to fall back on it was insane."

I don't dispute this. Maybe you misunderstood me. That's what The People wanted, but the powers that be would never let them have it. Any attempt by the US to help or educate or aid the Russian people was rebuffed -- with prejudice -- by the government.

I have said this for many years: it is clear that what The People want is not what they're getting. And yes, to say that attempts to help from outside were "discouraged" is an understatement.

"Instead you did the usual shit, which is to say, promote extreme rapid economic liberalization - "shock therapy" is what they called it - which resulted in this. And, eventually, people elected Putin, because "democracy" became a swear word associated with utter economic collapse and extreme poverty."

Don't blame outsiders for what was engineered from the inside. I repeat: assistance was offered. Not only by the U.S. government but by many private organizations around the world. It was refused by the people in power. This is the ever-present problem with any kind of economic or political revolution: you have to be extremely careful who or what takes the place of the old power structure. Often, the result is disaster.

But you can't blame that on outsiders. Nobody "conquered" Russia, to be able to impose their will from the outside. That isn't what happened here. And pretending that it did is not productive.

Re:Checkmate.

[Jane Q. Public]

The real problem is that from an outside perspective, it's almost insane to support Putin.

But then, from an internal perspective, it's pretty insane to support either Obama or Romney. Both are disasters.

Re:Checkmate.

[tobiah]

If you read the article, Kasparov appeals to the "Free World", in particular the United States government. That gave me a chuckle, if you don't like it feel free to protest in the designated free speech zone (Usenet or 4chan).

Re:Checkmate.

[metallurge]

Ideology was the rationalization, IMHO. You're right that it wasn't nukes. I think the Cold War is best understood as a sort of continuation of WW2.

The US and the USSR were pretty much the only major powers which weren't gutted by WW2. The USSR nearly was, and probably bore the true brunt of the defeat of the European Axis powers. It was just big enough to absorb its losses, whereas Britain and France were not. The Soviet entry into the Pacific theater against Japan was probably at least as significant in the Japanese acceptance of unconditional surrender as was the use of atomic weapons by the US, which is not really understood by the public at large.

Churchill was very conscious of Stalin's ambitions, and sought to position the West favorably for the postwar period for probably a year before the end of the war. But the British star was already waning and it was America which was already sitting at the head of the table. Truman and Eisenhower were looking more toward ending the war in Europe with fewer American casualties (looking to finally focus on the Japanese), and were willing to let the Soviets bleed Hitler from the East, and let the Russians pay the price in lives for doing so. Which made the loss of Eastern Europe into the Soviet sphere of influence inevitable.

I give Stalin a lot of credit for quickly building the Soviet economy after the end of the war, despite grievous losses. While Americans were demobilizing and reaping the peace dividend and building the consumption economy, the Soviets were making sure their near-defeat never happened again. It took a while before the American public noticed there was a new global competitor, so it became necessary for American leaders to propagandize the matter, and make the public afraid. Which is where the anti-communist ideology and space race and nuclear arms race came in so handy. People who are afraid are more easily led.

The Baby Boom generation has been rather non-introspective about these matters, as has America as a whole. We haven't really figured out what it all means and drawn mature conclusions because we just haven't bothered to examine it very closely. Godwin's Law is a great illustration of this.

Re:Checkmate.

[should_be_linear]

The truth is, from EU perspective, that unfair trials and abusing law system (Gitmo, Manning) is comparable in US to Russia (Chodorkovskij, Kasparov, Pussy Riot). Unfortunate truth is: from GWB days, USA lost ability to protest against human rights violations anywhare, which is sad.

Re:Checkmate.

[shutdown -p now]

I don't dispute this. Maybe you misunderstood me. That's what The People wanted, but the powers that be would never let them have it. Any attempt by the US to help or educate or aid the Russian people was rebuffed -- with prejudice -- by the government.

That is also not true. Early Yeltsin's government was stuffed with people who all but fapped on the American system of government as they understood it (and they understood it as idealized laissez faire). And they were helped by various economic advisers from American think tanks and such. Same guys who ran Argentine to the ground.

Note, I'm not talking about the Soviet period. I'm talking about what happened immediately after it.

But you can't blame that on outsiders. Nobody "conquered" Russia, to be able to impose their will from the outside. That isn't what happened here. And pretending that it did is not productive.

I'm not saying that anybody conquered Russia or imposed its will. Instead, the people were stupid (or rather idealistic) enough to buy hook, line and sinker into supporting politicians who chased the American ideal that didn't exist anywhere but in their head. The only issue I have with US is that your private (indeed!) organizations were quite happy to feed that myth of totally free markets solving every problem, and that your government didn't do anything to prevent them, and - some say - even encouraged this kind of naive thinking. End result was running the industrial capacity of the country into the ground, widespread poverty, and a severe demographic slump that the country is still recovering from. Yes, we did it - on the advice of some of you, though. So there's certainly some sour attitude there.

Anyway, that's all matters of days long past. It's different people in US today, and different people in Russia, and the situation is much different as well. I just wanted to make it clearer as to why anti-Americanism is rather pervasive in Russia - it's kinda important, not the least because the present govt channels that sentiment, converting it into support for themselves and anger at the opposition, by painting it as pro-West (which, frankly, it is - nothing wrong with that), and then saying "well remember these guys in the 90s? it's the same thing now; you wanna starve again?"

Re:Checkmate.

[shutdown -p now]

The real problem is that from an outside perspective, it's almost insane to support Putin.

On the contrary, it's very sane, just short-thinking.

The way it goes is this. Under Putin today, a guy has an apartment, a family, a job with a decent pay - enough for good food and maybe even a car - basically, some sense of stability and security. He also remembers how, fifteen years ago, it was practically wild west on the streets, and jobs were few and hard to come buy and paid little. Now the government tells him that "those guys" basically want to rewind the clock back. And, indeed, when he looks, he spots some of the same figures in the opposition camp that led the country in the 90s. It doesn't matter that most there aren't, his attention is focused on those few. Then he's told that the rest are no better, and that they also want to "destabilize" everything. And he goes votes for Putin because, even for all the flaws that he can see around, he lives well enough that he has too much to lose - and he's afraid to lose more than he desires to win.

Re:Checkmate.

[TheRaven64]

Look for 'permanent revolution' in your favourite reference source. The Communist philosophy required expansion and continued conversion of new countries to communism. The goal was to spread to the entire world. Marx suggested that capitalism was just one stage in the development of a society that eventually ended with communism[1].

Immediately after the second world war, the Russians had an enormous army, including massive numbers of tanks and economy geared to their production. Within a few years, they had nukes too. When you have a well-armed country that espouses a philosophy of turning every country with your political system into one that you oppose, along with a very well funded and organised intelligence arm that exists to promote revolutions in other countries, you have a reason to worry. Oh, and the USSR wasn't that far away. If you take a look at this map you can see how close it came to the USA (specifically, Alaska). They had a large staging area for an oversea invasion, with only a slightly larger distance at sea than D-Day invasion.

By the later stages of the cold war, it wasn't about capitalism or communism - both sides were practicing slight different forms of oligarchy and having a Big Scary Enemy was very useful. Since the end of the cold war, the USA has flailed around trying to find a replacement.

[1] It's still not entirely clear that he was wrong, although the Soviet approach of skipping most of the other steps clearly did end up with totalitarianism rather than communism.

Re:Checkmate.

[ne0n]

With an IQ of 149 just in my penis alone, I assure you it makes perfect sense. If only you had the extra IQ points required to understand the joke. Sorry mate, no pun intended.

Re:Checkmate.

[Jane Q. Public]

"Instead, the people were stupid (or rather idealistic) enough to buy hook, line and sinker into supporting politicians who chased the American ideal that didn't exist anywhere but in their head."

That's THE PEOPLE. It isn't the people I was talking about, but the government. They would brook no "assistance" from the outside.

I have said this many times: it's not our people who have conflicted so much as it has been our governments.

Re:Checkmate.

[Jane Q. Public]

"It's different people in US today, and different people in Russia, and the situation is much different as well. I just wanted to make it clearer as to why anti-Americanism is rather pervasive in Russia - it's kinda important, not the least because the present govt channels that sentiment, converting it into support for themselves and anger at the opposition, by painting it as pro-West (which, frankly, it is - nothing wrong with that), and then saying "well remember these guys in the 90s? it's the same thing now; you wanna starve again?"

First: no, it's NOT different people. It's still Putin and his crew.

And they have ALWAYS been pointing at "pro-West" as the enemy.

Remind me now, why you think this is a new thing?

Agreed, their expectations (along with unrealistic promises by their "leaders", who knew full well what they were doing), resulted in relative disaster. It was designed to.

Re:Checkmate.

[Jane Q. Public]

No... that's still insane.

Taking the short-term out even though you know it will run into long-term disaster is very close to the very definition of insanity.

Re:Checkmate.

[BlueStrat]

Oh, and saying that corporations own the US government is like saying favored shop keepers own their local mafia. It is completely backwards and utterly ridiculous. This economic fascism(corporatism to use a newer definition describing the nominal private ownership of the means of production directed by the state) is a function of our government, the ones with all the guns, not those that pay off our government to point them somewhere else. Just imagine the power disparity between one institution and the other. Saying these insignificant corporations own the government is an obvious distortion of the truth to shift blame away from the violent actor(the state) to the one benefiting from the violence(the corporation). They are certainly not blameless, not because they own this vast state, but rather because they actively participate with it. That is a far more accurate description of events.

Thanks for that.

Good to see at least one other person commenting that grasps the reality. Government has the exclusive power to use violence and imprisonment, and writes the laws and determines who is breaking them. The government has the power to do a "Darth Vader" - "I have altered the deal. Pray I do not alter it further." and has done so in the past.

As has been famously said, it is the nature of government to grow. A government "grows" by increasing the amount of wealth, capital, and property it controls, and it's power and control over the population.

Corporations/businesses/industries sitting on all this wealth, property, and capital that the government wants ultimately to control (along with individual wealth/property/capital) are effectively forced to make "deals with the devil" because their competitors are attempting to do so, in order to gain regulatory/legislative advantage to force them out of business.

This in no way excuses the behavior, but one can clearly understand the reasons for it without condoning it. It's sort of like trying to be "the last one killed" by helping the murderer(s) tie the other soon-to-be victim(s).

It's predictable and one of the biggest reasons to keep the central government relatively small, domestically weak, and spending only a fraction of the total GDP is does currently. And a pox on both major US political parties. Both are equally guilty of expanding government, particularly after the '50s.

Strat

Re:Checkmate.

[dunkelfalke]

Frankly, you sound the same as the Americans who believe that Stalin ruled USSR from 1917 until 1989. In the early nineties Putin was just an errand boy for Sobchak, then mayor of St. Petersburg. Different people ruled back then and these people were big fans of all American.

Re:Checkmate.

[_KiTA_]

You can play it several different ways.

Arresting a national hero like that probably wasn't the wisest thing to do. We are talking a Russian Chess Champion, something which is what we measure high end super computers against.

Yes, but from the Article:

Mr. Kasparov, a contributing editor of The Wall Street Journal, is the leader of the Russian pro-democracy group United Civil Front and chairman of the U.S.-based Human Rights Foundation. He resides in Moscow.

He may be a chess champion, but he's also a Journalist, a political rival of Putin, and a known political dissident. Given Russia's history of problems dealing with all 3, Mr. Kasparov should probably count his lucky stars he's still alive today.

Re:Checkmate.

[dunkelfalke]

The "permanent revolution" policy was abolished by Stalin, who adopted the "socialism in one country" policy. Your argument was correct for the early interbellum, but after, say, mid thirties exporting communism was not really an issue anymore.

Re:Checkmate.

[shutdown -p now]

They don't know that it's going to run into long-term disaster. They think it can keep going like that indefinitely, and they're willing to take that deal over any kind of change, which they are too afraid would be for the worse.

Yes, realistically, it's not going to last indefinitely. The present prosperity was in a large part bought by trading resources, esp. oil & gas. This is not a viable long-term strategy, and once that runs out (or the market for it contracts, if/when First World goes all nuclear or solar/wind or whatever), there will be change either way. But govts are pretty good at convincing citizens that they have a long-term plan that's gonna work, so...

Re:Checkmate.

[shutdown -p now]

There was plenty of free speech around in the 90s. Didn't really help. Problem is that government sucked, and it self-identified with democracy and liberalism (to contrast itself with commies), so when they failed hard, those very terms got smeared for decades to come.

The problem with Iran, so far as I can see, is that protesters weren't really a single unified block. Rather there were liberals and there were islamists, and liberals thought that islamists share their vision of a democratic government where they can all seat around a table and discuss things all civilized like. And Khomenei did everything to promote that image initially. Then, after the Shah was deposed, turned out that was not quite the plan. It also turned out that islamists were more willing to kill and die for their ideals than liberals (not exactly surprising there), so they had the upper hand.

Re:Checkmate.

[tlambert]

Thanks for that.

Good to see at least one other person commenting that grasps the reality. Government has the exclusive power to use violence and imprisonment, and writes the laws and determines who is breaking them. The government has the power to do a "Darth Vader" - "I have altered the deal. Pray I do not alter it further." and has done so in the past.

Except for terrorism, of course. For terrorism, the power is non-exclusive, and anyone can opt in, even if wielded as if by an idiot with a wiffle-bat.

Re:Checkmate.

[Forty Two Tenfold]

a failed philosophy that was communism

You, sir, are an idiot.
— written on a communist operating system (GNU/Linux) in a communist web browser (Firefox).

Re:Checkmate.

[Forty Two Tenfold]

Define terrorism.

Re:Checkmate.

[BlueStrat]

Define terrorism.

Terrorism and terrorists are whatever and whoever those controlling the discussion decide they are at any given time

For instance, according to the DHS, US military vets are definite domestic terrorist threats but members of the Muslim Brotherhood get invited to the White House and are given positions in the federal government and access to sensitive information.

Ain't it funny how that works?

Strat

Re:Checkmate.

[martin-boundary]

A spokesman for the Obama administration called the sentence [for Pussy Riot] "disproportionate," as if the length of the prison term were the only problem with open repression of political speech.

What do you expect? This is the exact same week that Assange got temporarily saved from the US led persecution against him. The current bunch of yahoos in power see nothing wrong with imprisoning people for speaking out, on both sides of the world. I'm actually surprised that there's even this much rumbling in the West about the Russian trial, although it *is* an election year.

Re:Checkmate.

[martin-boundary]

It's just not that simple. There is no foolproof way of rebooting a nation. It's never been done. Nobody knows how.

Russia suffered the same fate many companies suffer when they bring in outside consultants to reorganize them. You get a lot of layoffs, department mergers and splits, and when the consultants go home, nobody knows how the new system is supposed to work, and those who knew how the old system worked are gone or lost themselves.

This also happened in Iraq and Afghanistan more recently. First, all the people who knew how things worked over there were purged for political reasons ("debaathification"), then some half baked plans were made by the provisional authority, finally the mess was handed over to the locals, who got accused of being corrupt and too primitive ("tribal") when things obviously failed. Oh yeah, and all this also caused civil war.

Re:Checkmate.

[DuckDodgers]

After Germany was wrecked during World War 1, we said FUCK YOU and were rewarded with World War 2. After Germany was wrecked during World War 2, we helped them out - and now they're a stable democracy. We might not always like what the German government does, but it's a lot more truly democratic today than it was during the 1930s or than the Russian government is now.

Re:Checkmate.

[cayenne8]

Enough about all this trivia.....

What about this so called Pussy Riot?!?!?!?

Somehow, gentlement, I think we've managed to glaze right over this important part of the story.....?

Re:Checkmate.

[Teancum]

Russia and the USA engaged in open warfare against each other where over a hundred thousand U.S. and Russian soldiers (on each side) died in that warfare... sometimes in pitch battles and large scale engagements. There is a large monument to one aspect of that war in the middle of Washington DC listing the names of many of those U.S. soldiers who died in that warfare, and other monuments are found elsewhere. That sometimes "proxies" were put into play is also true, but when you cut through the BS, it was America vs. Russia.

To say that it was waiting for who was going to pull the trigger first is mainly to say it was a concern about which country was going to stop pretending this open warfare was done on behalf of proxy governments and instead just go all out and finish the war. That the casualties stayed at the hundred thousand (give or take a few) level instead of escalating to the millions is sort of fortunate, but there were still a great many people who died in that struggle.

The sad thing about Putin is that he sort of wants that "low threshold" warfare between Russia and America to start up again. I'm trying to say.... why?

Re:Checkmate.

[Teancum]

Then there was the massive Warsaw Pact tank armies poised to drive through Western Europe at a moment's notice.

You forgot 'so they could jump out of their tanks and apply for political asylum.' or perhaps 'Turn them around and start to fight'.

You also forget that those Soviet soldiers also had "political officers" who made sure those soldiers wouldn't jump out of their tanks to apply for political asylum, that there were massive defense barriers designed explicitly to keep people in (ever hear about the "Berlin Wall"?)

For the most part the people of the Soviet Union, particularly Russian nationals, were very patriotic and loved their country. They also didn't really worry about the politics so much other than wanting a warm house to sleep in, a bottle of vodka to drink, some bread in the belly, and perhaps making sweet love to somebody (usually the opposite sex) on a cold Russian night. That they might have thought the leaders of their country were a bunch of jerks, I think that could be said about most countries.

Re:Checkmate.

[Teancum]

The United Kingdom lost World War II?

I guess that could be a reasonable conclusion, seeing that their empire pretty much collapsed following that war. It just took a little longer for the USSR to have the same fate.

Re:Checkmate.

[russotto]

Putin also seems to be misunderstanding the purpose of basic freedoms such as free speech, freedom to assemble peaceably, and the freedom for ordinary people to decide the next government leaders: By granting these freedoms, the society and the government in question can have an orderly transition from one governing philosophy to the next and "revolutions" take place at the ballot box instead of at gunpoint. By trying to suppress these kind of voices of opposition, Putin is insisting that he get assassinated and that his legacy will be seen as being a tyrant.

It's not that he misunderstands. It's that he disagrees. As far as he's concerned, an "orderly transition" means he rules until he dies, and then his picked successor rules until he dies, ad infinitum. It's worked for long periods of time, though usually in hereditary monarchies.

And Kasparov is exactly right about Obama's comments about the sentence being "disproportionate". If Obama wanted to be "hands off", there should have been no comment at all. That would have been craven, but by saying the sentence was disproportionate Obama is endorsing the conviction, which is worse. Hell of a day when a man born in the Soviet Union correctly lectures the US President on freedom.

Re:Checkmate.

[Teancum]

It's not that he misunderstands. It's that he disagrees. As far as he's concerned, an "orderly transition" means he rules until he dies, and then his picked successor rules until he dies, ad infinitum. It's worked for long periods of time, though usually in hereditary monarchies.

That worked out real well for the Romanov family. I suppose that they enjoy living in Paris with a death threat against them if they step back into their homeland. The "handpicked successor" didn't work out very well for Mikhail Gorbachev either.

Re:Checkmate.

[poopdeville]

It's not merely ideology.

Free trade is (more-or-less) impossible with a planned economy. The planners can manipulate prices to effectively control the global market. Closing trade with the Soviet bloc was meant to prevent that.

On the plus side, there was never really a large threat of armed conflict with the Soviet bloc. Carving up the third world to increase each bloc's resource endowments was about the only source of armed conflict.

Re:Checkmate.

[russotto]

It mostly worked for the Romanovs for 300 years, so it's not without precedent. I don't think Putin can make it work, though. And perhaps he doesn't care what happens to Russia after he dies.

Re:Checkmate.

[phantomfive]

Western decadence will not be tolerated I am sure.

You think this is about Western decadence? Do you know anything about what's happened to Russia in the last 20 years? There is a lot of western decadence.

Re:Checkmate.

[Johann Lau]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russian_political_jokes

Re:Checkmate.

[dbIII]

Vietnam was no "proxy" war, it was an opportunist trying to get a cheap and popular US victory in a French colonial war which escalated when the Russians and Chinese got involved as well. Korea had Chinese involvement so had very little to do with Russia.

Re:Checkmate.

[dbIII]

Churchill was very conscious of Stalin's ambitions

He was truly horrified by how naive the US diplomats were at Yalta and other places, and the perception that "Uncle Joe" with his "jokes" about mass murder was a good old boy. I get the impression that the start of the cold war was due to a feeling of betrayal when the leaders of the USA finally woke up to what Stalin really was despite having been told for years.

Re:Checkmate.

[dbIII]

Which is depressing considering that Russia have the excuse that they are being run by ex-KGB people yet the USA has no such excuse and is supposed to respect the rule of law.

Re:Checkmate.

[Mashiki]

- Mass media is a government's pet. They either lie or hide facts. There are a few exceptions. This is the beginning of a disease.

Here, I fixed that for you.

The NYT is bad, actually it's terrible in terms of "not lying" hiding facts? You can't get much worse than MSNBC, ABC, CNN or CBS, they're worse than Fox despite what the liberal left thinks. Those exceptions? They're the citizen bloggers who report both sides of the story, but have their stories stolen by the media without credit, where it's simply dissected down and presented with one view. There's a very good reason, why CNN's levels are at 1985 levels. And why the rest outside of Fox are plummeting. Fox for most people, are as close to centrist as they see from the 80's and 90's, and in turn their ratings continue to increase from it.

Re:Checkmate.

[metallurge]

Betrayal may be too strong a word. More like the end of naïveté, IMHO. The US, despite our limited intervention in WWI, was not a global power. Our initial WW2 strategic plan, once we became involved, revolved around hemispheric defense. That's just how we thought, militarily. And the US public had a strong tendency toward noninterventionism. After WW2 ended, there was a tension between the military-industrial complex's desire to remain relevant and ordinary Americans' desire to get back to what we were doing before we had to go deal with what seemed like other people's problems. Eventually, the military-industrial complex prevailed when they convinced people that there was an exaggerated Soviet threat. And then cue the anti-Communist and anti-Russian propaganda. So, IMHO, through naïveté, America initially underestimated the Soviets' intentions, then realized their error which paved the way for the same sort of overreaction we have today with the forever "war on terror." Given we still misunderstand the Cold War, mostly seeing the ideological propagandistic side, I'm not too sanguine on how quickly we will come to see the "war on terror" clearly either.

Re:Checkmate.

[Teancum]

Right, and so was the war in Korea, Afghanisan, Czechoslovakia, Cuba, and elsewhere.

I'll also point out that almost all of the equipment that was used in the Vietnam war came from Russia (the bullets, the weapons, even the MIG fighters which flew against the USAF). The Chinese had almost nothing to do with that other than grudgingly allowing those supplies to be trans-shipped across China as a gesture of goodwill to their fellow communist brethren. The only reason the USA "lost" the Vietnam War was mainly because the U.S. Congress didn't have the balls to formally declare a state of war against North Vietnam, and thus have the U.S. Army occupy Hanoi... and because the U.S. government at the time (all three branches I might add) didn't want the U.S. military engaging in a bombing campaign against the factories which supplied the arms. That is something which was routinely done in World War II, so it really was a change in policy.

What kept Afghanistan going was the nearly constant supplies of arms coming from the USA, in particular Stinger missiles that proved very effective against helicopters and even Russian MiG fighters (compared to the cost of making those missiles). For some reason the USSR didn't want to go on a bombing run over Los Angeles County where those missiles were made... for largely the same reason that the USAF didn't go bombing the suburbs of Moscow.

Don't get high and mighty here, this was a blood and guts war that happened in Vietnam and it was a clash of two huge empires, mainly that of the Soviet Union and the USA. That the USSR found somebody else to take the bullets and "die for their country" is more of a stroke of strategic genius, and something the Vietnamese people unfortunately suffered disproportionally because of that sacrifice. It was the Vietnamese people that ultimately got the shaft in that war, and I blame the USSR for screwing it up and not America. It is still a screwed up nation with an incredibly oppressive government and a legacy from that war that yet has to be written.

BTW, China and Vietnam are hardly "allies" and in fact rather bitter enemies. One of the first things that happened after the USA finally left Vietnam was to engage in open warfare against China, and a very uneasy truce currently holds on the northern border of Vietnam that is in some ways worse than between North & South Korea. North Korean support is laughable at best, especially seeing how they were then and still are one of the most poverty stricken nations of the world (or did you mean South Korean support for Vietnam?) North Korea couldn't build a tractor today without killing a dozen of its citizens. I'll also note that China and Russia (even before the collapse of the USSR) barely get along and in fact the largest commitment that the "People's Liberation Army" has for national defense is against Russia. That was also true in the 1960's, but they kept a public face of goodwill towards the USSR in the interest of "International Communism". China still sees modern Russia as their most significant military opponent, even though they are trying to prepare to take on the USA if the need arises.

Re:Checkmate.

[MrSteveSD]

Fortunately the US, despite its other flaws, had the 'minerals' (translation: testicles; for those in the US), the capability, and (most importantly) the will to contain communist expansion around the globe"

The threat of communism was largely used as an excuse to target any left-wing/socialist government or even those that just wouldn't play ball. If a country started doing things the US didn't like e.g. nationalizing an oil company, angering a US company etc, suddenly they would be considered as a communist threat. In the case of Guatamala it was the Union Fruit Company. They owned 42% of arable land due to purchases and/or land being ceded by military dictatorships. When the government of Guatemala tried to free up that land, Union Fruit went crying to the US government. Before long there was a US-backed coup. The official excuse was that Guatemala was going to become a "Soviet beachhead".

We have a similar story when it comes to the Iranian Coup in 1953. The government there wanted a better deal when it came to oil revenue from the AIOC (Anglo Iranian Oil Company, later it became BP), so they nationalized their oil industry. Although AOIC wasn't a US company, the nationalization was seen as a threat to US oil assets. An example that other countries in the region might follow. The US and Britain arranged a coup know as operation Ajax which replaced the democratic government with an unpopular dictator (the Shah) and a brutal CIA-trained secret police (SAVAK) to keep him in power. Again the threat of communism was used as a smokescreen.

Here are just a few US-backed dictators from central and south America alone.

• Nicaragua - Somomza Dynasty
• Guatemala - Carlos Enrique Castillo Armas (and others)
• El Salvador - Maximilliano Hernandez Martinez (and others)
• Chilie - Augusto Pinochet
• Argentina - Jorge Rafael Videla
• Paraguay - Alfredo Stroessner
• Bolivia - GEN. Hugo Banzer Suarez
• Cuba - Fulgencio Batista

We know the anti-communism crusade was an excuse, not just because of specific evidence in each case (Union Fruit etc), but because US policy towards left/socialist governments has remained largely the same despite the end of the cold war and break up of the Soviet Union. There has been continued interference in the governments of Central and South American states. e.g. Bolivia, through selective funding of parties opposed to Moralez and the coup attempt against Chavez (there is significant evidence of US involvement). Communism was used as a smokescreen during the cold war just as terrorism is used as a smokescreen today.

Re:Checkmate.

[HiThere]

That's sort of a true reply, as long as you carefully remember that the "c" of communism is lower case.

Even then it's not really true. GNU attempts to be a meritocracy, though like all human institutions is fails miserably at it's goals. But *SOME* of the top people rise to the top in some projects. It would be fair to mention Linux, Larry Wall, Guido, Matz...I'm sure there are others, but my interest in largely in programming languages.

Note that there isn't more than a pretense of equality. And you can never get away from politics.

Also note that this communism isn't an economic system. Or a government. And it's accompanied by an extreme libertarianism that's close akin to anarchy. Anyone can fork any project at any time for any reason. Convincing people to support the fork is something else. (OTOH, I think Oracle may be convincing people to support SOME fork of MYSQL. And the forks of Java may be gathering steam. [Is the major one Iced Tea?]) Certainly there was an adverse fork of X-Window several years ago, and a bit earlier a fork of gcc became the official one. (I think that was a "friendly fork", but I wasn't close to the action.)

So it's as much anarchy as communism. And neither works well as a coercive system handling sole access to rivalous goods among large numbers of people. (communism can work well in groups up to around 150-200. I doubt it can handle much more. And note that even though it was the first word of the sentence I didn't capitalize communism. This was to avert confusion.)

Re:Checkmate.

[SplashMyBandit]

I suggest you go and research the Iran Tudeh for a reason why Mossadegh was replaced. Originally Mossadegh was not in favour of them but IIRC as time wen't on their influence grew. This was a large contributing factor in his removal (along with oil concerns - but don't make the mistake of thinking it was only about the oil).

> Communism was used as a smokescreen during the cold war just as terrorism is used as a smokescreen today.
Rubbish. The opposition of communism was the reason the US acted so forcefully - despite having to support some shady characters. The US realized if they didn't oppose the communists then the communists themselves would carry out anti-democratic actions to place their own people into power in the places you mention. You have got the reasoning backwards. The US did dodgy thinks to fight communism, it was not the US said it was fighting communism so it could do dodgy things. You are repeating typical revisionist claptrap and thinking it is insightful. Adjust your tinfoil hat.

Re:Checkmate.

[Jane Q. Public]

"There is no foolproof way of rebooting a nation. It's never been done. Nobody knows how. "

Yes, it has been done. Very often. Just not usually very successfully.

Re:Checkmate.

[Jane Q. Public]

"Problem is that government sucked, and it self-identified with democracy and liberalism (to contrast itself with commies), so when they failed hard, those very terms got smeared for decades to come."

I am aware of this. But the "liberal" government still consisted of mostly the same people, who had a "change of heart".

The difference is that I don't think it was ever intended to succeed. It was intended to fail. Hard.

Re:Checkmate.

[Jane Q. Public]

"Frankly, you sound the same as the Americans who believe that Stalin ruled USSR from 1917 until 1989."

That's nice. I didn't even know such people existed. You learn something new every day, I guess.

Re:Checkmate.

[Jane Q. Public]

"They don't know that it's going to run into long-term disaster."

Yes they do. They had disaster before, and they're opting for more of the same.

"The present prosperity was in a large part bought by trading resources, esp. oil & gas. This is not a viable long-term strategy..."

Yes, it is. They have a VAST amount of resources in proportion to their population. It is probably their ONLY viable long-term strategy. And the First World is nowhere near going all-nuclear or anything even remotely like it, for decades. AND when it does, it will still need oil and natural gas as raw materials for manufacturing.

Re:Checkmate.

[Forty Two Tenfold]

So it's as much anarchy as communism. And neither works well as a coercive system handling sole access to rivalous goods among large numbers of people. (communism can work well in groups up to around 150-200. I doubt it can handle much more

Read this and this and come back to me about that capacity of communist communes. As long as it's not hindered by backwards capitalist agitators, communism thrives. And I mean that sincerely and I mean the proper communism - economic as well as social. You really can't separate economy from society or you get an unsustainable freak called "unregulated free market" which inevitably turns into monopolistic fascism.

Re:Checkmate.

[Caetel]

A 'communist' OS (whose developers are paid by capitalist companies) in a 'communist' web browser (the development of which is funded by Google, a capitalist company).

Re:Checkmate.

[Creepy]

hmm... that depends on implementation - if the government decided to provide for the people, it would technically be a plutocratic communism, as plutocracy is a governing system and communism is an economic system. Personally, I predict the regime will be overthrown when it gets divided into a tiny elite rich and massive poor and the currency collapses. America will probably end up being feudalism for a while, where the surviving rich hire poor to provide food and stuff in exchange for protection and housing (after they buy the US military, of course, and have the firepower to destroy any rabble that comes near). This is pretty much the exact situation that created feudalism the first time - a bankrupt government that degenerated into anarchy and professional military horsemen offering their services to protect the rich because the government couldn't afford them.

Re:Checkmate.

[Creepy]

We also divided their lands and occupied them for 10 years with some governments hostile to one another, so there was always a massive military build-up. One government (Soviets/USSR) refused to give their part up when the others did, keeping it as a satellite state for 35 more years.

The Russian government now is borrowing some of the past fascist ways - crush dissension, use military and police power on own people, rig "elections," etc. The only major difference is now they have a flat tax and free market giving the rich more money through less taxation and creating more and more poor as the bulk of taxation is on the middle class and poor.

Re:Checkmate.

[Forty Two Tenfold]

paid by capitalist companies

See? Marks was right, communism is just matured capitalism (as opposed to infantile capitalism shown by Apple, MS and such).

Re:Checkmate.

[wwphx]

I have an IQ of 156 and used to direct chess tournaments. In fact, I've met both Kasparov and Anatoly Karpov. (Karpov was much more pleasant and personable than Garry). There's several possibilities after checkmate, and that is if checkmate is made as a statement after a move. It's possible that the move of checkmate was an illegal move, or that an illegal move was committed earlier in the game, in which case the game can be rewound if sufficient documentation in the form of the player's score sheets support the allegation. Another example is if the checkmating move is made after the flag on that player's clock has fallen and the checkmated player still has time on their clock.

But as a joke, it's passable. Or en passantable.

Re:Checkmate.

[swalve]

The planners can manipulate prices to effectively control the global market.

Not for very long.

Re:Checkmate.

[swalve]

Thanks for the libertarian primmer. You have figured how to distill it down to almost its pure essence of ridiculousness. Watch out for the black helicopters and gray aliens!

Re:Checkmate.

[swalve]

The US has reduced it's CO2 emmissions since 1993. What other countries have done that?

Re:Checkmate.

[Shompol]

I am sorry, that's due to a random variation, calling it "reduced" is far fetched.
US is still the global leader at polluting our planet, outdoing other industrialized countries and whole continents by a large factor. And given that our government is still doing nada about it, it sits deep in the pocked of the energy industry.

Re:Checkmate.

[nobodie]

"As someone alive when the USSR was still around. FUCK YOU! Those assholes got what they deserved!"

Which "those assholes" did you mean?

Because of the fall of the Iron Curtain, (which was, as is always true, two sided), the Russians got a massive injection of money from petroleum extraction in Siberia which has funded government control by corporations and allowed "them" to become a plutocracy.

While at the same time, roughly, the US got a smaller infusion of pettro dollars from Alaska and the Caribbean , over a longer period of time which has leveraged the funding of government control by corporations and allowed "them" to become a plutocracy.

I was around too, my friend, but i was also paying attention to what was happening. The US took the money from Alaska and the Cariibbean early on, used it to pump the economy and feed the corps who allowed the government to pour tons of cash into defense spending because it suited the corps to make money that way. That leveraged the failure of the USSR to keep up in defense spending which pushed us to the brink of war which the Russians "knew" they would lose. The economics of the situation: because they didn't do the extraction early they fell behind the curve of defense spending and "lost" the war before it became hot. Reagan pointed out to Gorbachov that they had lost and that they didn't have a chance. And that he was bat-shit crazy enough to use his advantage while he could. (think Iran/Contra). Game over.

Now the Russian plutocrats have the advantage and we are about to get torn up because they can buy us if they want to.

Re:Checkmate.

[Boronx]

Exactly. They didn't lose as badly as they could have, but they didn't really win, nor did France.

Re:Checkmate.

[randyleepublic]

Good misdirect. Sure it's silly to say "corporations" control the government, however something does control the government. Clue: look at who controls the money supply. Hint: it ain't the government!

Re:Checkmate.

[rocket rancher]

Hmmmm. In your first paragraph, you condemn the Sovs for their tactics, but give the US a pass by not pointing out that the US engages in the same tactics. In your second paragraph you then attempt to deflect criticism of the US use of those tactics by strongly suggesting that, at least in the US case the ends justify the means, but not in the Soviet case. In your third paragraph you attack the Sovs again from a different angle, again without acknowledging that Americans, if you take the same angle that you took on their Sov counterparts, are acknowledging (look up the Occupy movement in your favorite search engine) that the American system is a mistake.

Which brings us to your fourth paragraph - a masterpiece of irony, given the preceding three paragraphs - asserting that context is necessary to understanding history.

Tell me -- are you practicing to become a script writer for Fox news, or a research assistant for Rush Limbaugh? Or are you honestly unaware that your "answer" is just propaganda, and doesn't really answer the question posed by the GP?

Re:Checkmate.

[SplashMyBandit]

> In your third paragraph you attack the Sovs again from a different angle, again without acknowledging that Americans, if you take the same angle that you took on their Sov counterparts, are acknowledging (look up the Occupy movement in your favorite search engine) that the American system is a mistake.

Incidentally I'm not from the US. I can see plenty of its flaws. However one would have to be a total retard to try and place what is wrong with the US system in the same scheme as the flaws in the Soviet system (arbitrary arrests on a massive scale, closed courts (if there was even a trial), widespread execution, wholesale shipment of political prisoners to the gulags, etc etc).

> Tell me -- are you practicing to become a script writer for Fox news, or a research assistant for Rush Limbaugh? Or are you honestly unaware that your "answer" is just propaganda, and doesn't really answer the question posed by the GP?

For an ad hominem that is pretty lame. Politically I'd be considered a socialist by US standards, but fairly mainstream by my own country's standards. Despite these views I'm well aware of the political left's rampant anti-Americanism (eg. your non-sensical and a-historical attempt to equate (the numerous) US flaws with the Soviet system - they are not in the same league). In fact, it was with great delight I discovered a book yesterday where your particular point-of-view is examined and dissected in detail. The opinion of the book is basically that anti-Americanism has now so blinded the left that their actions are now fairly contra to their original purpose. If you are interested in expanding your view you can have a look at:

• http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/140006435X/thedaibea-20/
• http://www.thedailybeast.com/newsweek/2012/08/19/bernard-henri-levy-stop-assad-s-slaughter-in-syria.html

It's ok (of course) if you disagree with Bernard-henry Levi's point of view, but at least be aware that he might just well be right - that is, the prevailing anti-Americanism of the left is blinding people to the fact that this results in support for regimes that are vastly more odious that the US one. This is not "giving the US a free pass" at all - IMHO this is choosing to condemn regimes based on their relative level of evil - which puts the US down the list somewhat (to be dealt with later).

Hmmmm

[Immostlyharmless]

Me thinks if Putin and his thugs aren't a bit more careful, they could start the 2nd coming of democracy in the former Soviet Union.

Re:Hmmmm

[CajunArson]

I'm sure Julian Assange will be right there with them!
(informing on the dissidents to Putin with his new Czarleaks site: http://crabbygolightly.com/mt/2012/08/julian_assange_the_pussy_riot.html

Re:Hmmmm

[lightknight]

Nope.

From the Russian's standpoint, they've given communism and capitalism a go, and neither has made them better off. From a purely academic standpoint, both implementations were so hopelessly banjaxxed that neither 'really counts' as an implementation of either ideology. Now, the younger generation, having heard stories from the older generation about how things were 'better' under the older regime, are falling back into a dictatorship (meet the old boss, same as the new boss). 'Tis Politics 101 -> actual change requires a vast amount of resources, while the appearance of change can be had for a whistle and some bubble-gum, and is often times seen as 'just as effective.'

I imagine what they really want is for the people who've been holding power to 'disappear.' The absolute saddest part of it all is that by the time that happens, an entire new generation will have been corrupted; and thus, this is how this virus continues throughout space and time. Killing it requires a simultaneous attack from everywhere, all at once.

 

Re:Hmmmm

[SplashMyBandit]

> Russian culture is different. They want a great strong leader.
No country wants a weak leader. The Russians are no different to anyone else in this regard (this should be no surprise, they are generally intelligent human beings too). The Russians don't want a dictator either. The Russian "Strong Leader" myth is nothing more than propaganda put out by the ruthless and opportunistic dictators the Russians have been cursed with. Please don't justify the subversion of democracy in Russia by using such statements - it is not helpful for the people of Russia.

Re:Hmmmm

[Jane Q. Public]

"From the Russian's standpoint, they've given communism and capitalism a go, and neither has made them better off."

They haven't done either one!

Their "communism" was never more than a very bad form of Socialism, and their "experiment" with "capitalism" was nothing more than the same thugs making their profits in different ways. In other words, it wasn't "capitalism" at all, but a form of "crony-capitalism" the likes of which even we haven't seen.

No, they did not do those things, and no, they do not know what is good for them. They've been lied to for generations.

But "The People" there can probably see that true Capitalism and a real Republican (not in the party sense) government probably would do them some good. But it has to be real, not lies.

Here in the United States, in the meantime, people have been letting it slide from real, to lies.

Re:Hmmmm

[Opportunist]

And that's different from US culture in what way? I mean, aside of the missing appeals at some sort of deity during speeches?

Re:Hmmmm

[FatLittleMonkey]

Except it isn't a sign of strength. It makes the Putin regime look weak. "These guys used to kill journalists without fear of consequences, now they can't intimidate three little girls?"

People will feel increasingly emboldened to speak out (at least privately). Particularly people in regional government, police, judges, etc. It eats into the margin of error for mishandling a crisis; things that would have worked before will only increase opposition (for example, if they poison Kasparov, there'll be outrage, but if they release him, it proves they are weak. Manufactured corruption charges won't be believed, and a judge just might feel bold enough to throw them out.)

Re:Hmmmm

[Opportunist]

Pretty much this, with a twist. Following the collapse of communism, there was a very brief period that could best be described as some sort of organized anarchy. Anything goes. Most people I know in Russia kinda liked this time, I mean, think about it: You're living under a repressive regime that wants to control your thoughts, and suddenly it's gone and you can breathe freely and do whatever you want.

People sure went nuts about this. The various "we love Russia" movies littering YouTube give you a bit of a taste of it, but just as much as a drop of Tabasco gives you a taste of a burn-your-guts-off chili. These times sure were batshit crazy.

Of course such times are not everyone's cuppa Java. Most people actually crave order and predictability. Putin offers that. The limited freedom is some kind of necessary evil to most.

Strangely, not unlike it was in Germany around the 1930s. Somehow I fear we'll be soon living in interesting times.

Re:Hmmmm

[shutdown -p now]

Me thinks if Putin and his thugs aren't a bit more careful, they could start the 2nd coming of democracy in the former Soviet Union.

What do you mean, "start"? They already did by falsifying the parliamentary election.

The problem is, enough people want the "strong hand" that those have effectively fizzled. You can't have the 2nd coming of democracy when half of the country citizens think that 'democracy' is some kind of a swear word. Which they do because they remember the 90s, when there was democracy - but also poverty and rampant crime. Not that there isn't any of that, today, just much less of it.

Re:Hmmmm

[shutdown -p now]

Pretty much this, with a twist. Following the collapse of communism, there was a very brief period that could best be described as some sort of organized anarchy. Anything goes. Most people I know in Russia kinda liked this time, I mean, think about it: You're living under a repressive regime that wants to control your thoughts, and suddenly it's gone and you can breathe freely and do whatever you want.

Most people like those times in retrospect (I've seen that change of attitude first-hand with my mom). Few actually liked them back then, after the first two years or so under Yeltsin - when they suddenly understood that adopting democracy and capitalism, like America, won't actually make us America overnight - and, in fact, short-term it suddenly made things a lot worse. Sure, you could say what you want, but many people found out that they don't have much to say when all they want is some, any food on the table for themselves and their kids.

Re:Hmmmm

[shutdown -p now]

The younger generation is actually predominantly anti-Putin. Most Putin supporters tend to be older, and have experienced the 90s firsthand with full understanding of what's going on - and that left a mental scar on them. Now they're scared. They want stability at any cost.

Re:Hmmmm

[Alex Belits]

No, that's a comparison with American Social Conservative ideology that touts the wonders of weak leaders/government and "The People" (corporations and ultra-rich) in control of everything.

The rest of the world, including Russia, went through this crap over Industrial Revolution, and wants none of it. US had feudalism surviving in the South through the whole 19th century, then artificial economic crisis, then war, then more war, so people were distracted from the horrors of industry-financial oligarchy until the end of 20th century. In other words, Americans are a century and a half behind.

Re:Hmmmm

[tobiah]

Interesting hypothesis, but the conclusion doesn't follow.

Re:Hmmmm

[Jane Q. Public]

"Which they do because they remember the 90s, when there was democracy - but also poverty and rampant crime. Not that there isn't any of that, today, just much less of it."

Which is a grossly distorted viewpoint. There is no way their highly corrupted form of "democracy" or "capitalism", for that matter, was going to be their instant savior. Apparently many people felt that way, but it isn't even remotely realistic.

To this day, most of them don't have a solid idea of what "capitalism" is. Which should be no surprise, because it has come to my attention that a great many Americans don't, either.

And if you think their crime is down now, you just aren't looking high enough.

Re:Hmmmm

[shutdown -p now]

Which is a grossly distorted viewpoint. There is no way their highly corrupted form of "democracy" or "capitalism", for that matter, was going to be their instant savior. Apparently many people felt that way, but it isn't even remotely realistic.

Well, we had real democracy for a very brief time. I'd say that 1993 and 1996 parliamentary elections in Russia were really free. Of course it was still in the same naive/idealistic atmosphere, which is why a lot of freaks and cooks were elected; but people at least really wanted them there. Presidential election of 1996 was falsified to not let the commies win. From there it went downhill.

We did have real capitalism for a while, too - a while longer, in fact. I know because my mom actually created her business back then. Her main headache was actually organized crime / racket, not the government, but that's what you get in a "wild west" capitalism. Other than that, people could make fortunes out of air with effort and cunning (and, often, with deceit and treachery - but again that's laissez faire for you), and did just that.

The problem is that many people in the USSR thought that, if private businesses were allowed, then anyone could do it and be successful - themselves included. Turned out that's not how it works. A few people got insanely rich. A fair few people, like my mom, were stubborn and lucky enough to persevere and get a decent fortune out of it. Most people got nothing out of it, and their lives became worse, not better. It's why by '96 already more people were willing to vote for a commie president than for Yeltsin, and why they had to falsify those elections.

And if you think their crime is down now, you just aren't looking high enough.

It's certainly down from where it was in the 90s. Again, I would kinda know because I lived there before and after. It's still very high compared to most Western countries, sure, but it's all relative.

Thing is, back then, the government was very inept, and corruption where it existed was local - so e.g. cops would be conspiring with the criminals. Which is why you had to pay to the criminals if you ran a business. These days,corruption still exists, but it's now streamlined and confined to the government & the ruling party. They don't deal with criminals anymore; they take it from you solely for themselves, and every bureaucrat who does it shares with his higher-up. It's a slightly better arrangement because there's no competition (which, in case of criminal gangs, often means burned shops and shot owners).

Re:Hmmmm

[Jane Q. Public]

At least you realize that their short-term problems were not an inherent problem with "capitalism", as many people there -- and even here, in this /. topic, have tried to assert.

Their short experiment was corrupted early on, by many of the same power-mongers who corrupted their attempts at "communism" early on. And let's be honest. The Soviet Bloc was never anything close to being actually Communist. They weren't even good Socialists. THEY might have pretended it was communist, but it has never met any reasonable definition of same. And even THEY didn't actually call it Communist: they were the Union of the Soviet Socialist Republic. It was only the West that pretended that they were Communist. Actual Communism has never existed in the history of this planet.

But I ramble. Pardon me. My point was that they were never given an honest shot at capitalism. Their fake-capitalism has been run by the same criminals who ran their fake-communism. Why should anyone expect different results?

Re:Hmmmm

[Jane Q. Public]

"We did have real capitalism for a while, too "

No, you didn't.

"Her main headache was actually organized crime / racket,"

And that is why. A point I made elsewhere.

"but that's what you get in a "wild west" capitalism"

No, it isn't. Even many Americans get this wrong. Coercion, blackmail, protection rackets and monopolies have NOTHING to do with capitalism. At all. Not even close.

"The problem is that many people in the USSR thought that, if private businesses were allowed, then anyone could do it and be successful - themselves included."

No, it wasn't. The problem was that they expected that this could happen OVERNIGHT without much effort. Without a lot of struggle and strife. It just doesn't happen that way. Nobody promised them a magical power that could cause this to happen THIS YEAR.

Freedom isn't free. You have to be willing to struggle for it, and shoot the neighborhood gang member through the brain. It takes work, and struggle.

I realize that there are many people, like your mother, who bit the bullet and worked hard and got it done. And I am proud and grateful for such people. But from my understanding (and I know a lot of Russians who have come to the US), most people seemed to thing it was just something that would fall from the sky, and became angry when it didn't and they found that the same gangsters they had to deal with before were still running things, just under a different name.

We fought wars against our own government to get freedom. We didn't expect it to come from there.

I don't mean to lecture, but it must be said. If the people want something else, they are going to have to stand up and demand something else.

Re:Hmmmm

[shutdown -p now]

The irony is that the place is still run by people from the same clique!

Some people have seriously proposed that we should just ban from politics (i.e. being elected or voting) anyone who was a member of the CPSU of any rank, or in any way affiliated with the organization, and their children. I'm thinking maybe that's actually what's needed to make it work. Problem is, it would disenfranchise a large part of the population.

Re:Hmmmm

[shutdown -p now]

Even many Americans get this wrong. Coercion, blackmail, protection rackets and monopolies have NOTHING to do with capitalism. At all. Not even close.

Capitalism is private ownership of the means on production. It's completely orthogonal to the existence or non-existence of coercion, blackmail, protection rackets or monopolies. You can have capitalism with them, or you can have something else without them.

Their mistake was actually that they thought that capitalism was inherently immune to all those things. That if you just liberalize the economy, things magically get better because of the "invisible hand of the market" and such. It doesn't. The government still has to actively work to prevent coercion and blackmail, and regulate naturally arising monopolies. Of course, they made it even worse by themselves partaking in coercion and blackmail, and taking over monopolies while maintaining them.

The problem was that they expected that this could happen OVERNIGHT without much effort. Without a lot of struggle and strife. It just doesn't happen that way. Nobody promised them a magical power that could cause this to happen THIS YEAR.

The people were actually promised just that. The leaders... some of them knew they were lying. Others were naive enough that they actually believed it themselves.

I realize that there are many people, like your mother, who bit the bullet and worked hard and got it done. And I am proud and grateful for such people. But from my understanding (and I know a lot of Russians who have come to the US), most people seemed to thing it was just something that would fall from the sky, and became angry when it didn't and they found that the same gangsters they had to deal with before were still running things, just under a different name.

You misunderstand the source of the anger. It's not just that they didn't get what they thought they'd get. It's that other things were taken away from them before, and it was explained that only by taking those things away they can move on to that next better stage, which would be any day now. And the things taken away were things that people happen to value - things like having bread on your table every day, for yourself and your wife and your kids. Having clean water and electricity. Having open schools stuffed with teachers. The state provided them all in USSR, and as part of the reforms of that state they were taken away, and people grumbled, but they were told that they'd get much more and better from a flourishing private market than that if they only just persevere for a year or two. When the promised riches didn't happen, people treated that as theft - and I cannot really blame them for it.

Re:Hmmmm

[Jane Q. Public]

And I should add: that is as true of the United States today as anywhere else. It is time people started standing up.

Re:Hmmmm

[Jane Q. Public]

"Capitalism is private ownership of the means on production. It's completely orthogonal to the existence or non-existence of coercion, blackmail, protection rackets or monopolies. You can have capitalism with them, or you can have something else without them."

Um... that's pretty much what I wrote. But thanks for reiterating.

"Their mistake was actually that they thought that capitalism was inherently immune to all those things. That if you just liberalize the economy, things magically get better because of the "invisible hand of the market" and such. It doesn't. The government still has to actively work to prevent coercion and blackmail, and regulate naturally arising monopolies. Of course, they made it even worse by themselves partaking in coercion and blackmail, and taking over monopolies while maintaining them."

Okay, but it still boils down to the fact that people thought it would happen pretty much automagically, without a lot of work and struggle and figuring things out. We agree on this too.

"The people were actually promised just that. The leaders... some of them knew they were lying. Others were naive enough that they actually believed it themselves."

So? What's your point? Hey, man, their government had basically just collapsed, and they're listening to promises from POLITICIANS? Okay... maybe they had been lied to for generations, if you ca. But still. Comes a point you have to think for yourself.

"You misunderstand the source of the anger. It's not just that they didn't get what they thought they'd get. It's that other things were taken away from them before, and it was explained that only by taking those things away they can move on to that next better stage, which would be any day now. And the things taken away were things that people happen to value - things like having bread on your table every day, for yourself and your wife and your kids. Having clean water and electricity. Having open schools stuffed with teachers. The state provided them all in USSR, and as part of the reforms of that state they were taken away, and people grumbled, but they were told that they'd get much more and better from a flourishing private market than that if they only just persevere for a year or two. When the promised riches didn't happen, people treated that as theft - and I cannot really blame them for it."

I didn't "misunderstand the reason". I agree with your assessment. But it's moot. Because for whatever reason, they expected the unrealistic, and became angry when it didn't materialize. What you did not seem to pick up is that I wasn't criticizing. I am completely sympathetic to their plight. But however we judge it personally, objectively it still comes down to grossly unrealistic expectations. Fostered by their own "leaders". And then exploited when those expectations did not come to pass.

Pardon me if I word things plainly without apparent emotion. It's not that I don't have any, but I am trying to report objective facts as best I know them.

Re:Hmmmm

[32771]

Russians have only ever had tyrants and dictators and they have only a minority asking for something better it seems.

Re:Hmmmm

[khallow]

Well, what makes Russian communism not communism? The fact it didn't work? I don't see that a label is inappropriate merely because it's not pure.

Re:Hmmmm

[Jane Q. Public]

BTW, maybe I should clarify a comment of my own.

I did say that they did not have "capitalism" because of organized crime. I agree that in general, such crime is orthogonal to capitalism. But even so: when markets are dominated from the outside via force, you still don't have a free market, and therefore you can't have Adam Smith capitalism. The two things may not be directly related, but they can interact destructively.

Re:Hmmmm

[Jane Q. Public]

"Well, what makes Russian communism not communism? The fact it didn't work? I don't see that a label is inappropriate merely because it's not pure."

There is a very big difference between being "not pure", and "not even close to real".

Look up the definition of "Communism". Or better yet: actually read Karl Marx! Because you will get a better actual definition there than you can pull from any dictionary. As a middle ground, consider Wikipedia, but take it with a grain of salt.

Communism was Marx's "ideal" social system in which there is no government. Everybody lives in harmony, free from oppressive government from above.

"Socialism" was, according to Marx, a necessary stepping-stone to get to Communism. Here's the problem: Socialism requires a strong central government. But EVERY TIME, in the history of the world, that an aspiring "communist" country got to that point, for some strange reason those members of the central government refused to give up their power.

I wonder why that might be.

Re:Hmmmm

[Jane Q. Public]

">>Freedom isn't free.

It most certainly is. Now go fuck yourself, parrot."

Wow. That was pretty hostile, even for an AC.

I would challenge you to a face-to-face, except that I don't think I want someone like you knowing where I live.

If you ever grow the balls to actually confront me, you're on, asshole.

Re:Hmmmm

[martin-boundary]

That's wishful thinking. America would never invade Russia, especially not to liberate a chess player.

Re:Hmmmm

[Anonymous Coward]

Yeltsin's crap was not 'fake' capitalism, it was indeed Actual Capitalism red in tooth and claw. And communism has existed in at least three places for brief periods of time before an invading force put an end to them: the Paris Commune, anarchist Catalonia, and the Free Territory of Ukraine. Anyway, I agree with you generally.

Re:Hmmmm

[gl4ss]

Well, what makes Russian communism not communism? The fact it didn't work? I don't see that a label is inappropriate merely because it's not pure.

Well, simply because it was an oligarchy. Just like it was before the revolution, just a mild shuffle on who assholes held the power. When communist system crashed there was a mild shuffle in the elite, with some people being able to garner wealth from the state to themselves in such amounts that it gave them individual power and broke the clique a bit - but it's still all the same on the high level.

Re:Hmmmm

[Rich0]

I think the fundamental issue is that any kind of government that relies on leaders to conscientiously look out for the public interest is doomed to failure. So, communism will never be implemented in practice. Capitalism is only marginally better - it counts on selfishness, but makes little provision for taking care of those who cannot compete economically, which is increasingly trending towards just about everybody.

Re:Hmmmm

[Opportunist]

That it never was communism at all, probably.

Russia had before the revolution, after the revolution and even now essentially the same kind of government: An "aristocracy" clique (however they may ascend to that aristocracy, be it inherited (feudal system), true to the party line ("communist" era) or money (today)) rules the country, with the peasants having little to no say and little to no power to change even the slightest thing, with an overreaching state police making sure that everyone who steps out of line gets whacked.

Re:Hmmmm

[khallow]

They had communal sharing of property and capital.

Re:Hmmmm

[wmbetts]

It's Irish slang that basically means ruined beyond repair. Google isn't to hard to use.

Re:Hmmmm

[Jane Q. Public]

"They had communal sharing of property and capital."

With a strong central government. That's called Socialism.

Re:Hmmmm

[khallow]

I don't see a strong central government as being relevant. Pure communism was alleged to be stateless by Marx, but that's not the only form of communism.

Re:Hmmmm

[Jane Q. Public]

"I don't see a strong central government as being relevant. Pure communism was alleged to be stateless by Marx, but that's not the only form of communism."

It's relevant because that's the definition of socialism. Like communism, except a strong central government.

Re:Hmmmm

[khallow]

So we see here communism and socialism overlap to some degree.

Re:Hmmmm

[Jane Q. Public]

That doesn't make them the same things. Or even close.

Capitalism and Socialism overlap "to some degree" also. That doesn't mean they are very similar.

not the first time

[Trepidity]

Here's a 2007 /. story on a previous arrest.

Re:um... ok?

[dkleinsc]

3 reasons:
1. He's a chessplayer, which necessarily makes him a giant nerd. Hence news for nerds.
2. This is stuff that matters, especially if you're Russian.
3. The potential for "In Capitalist Russia ..." jokes is obvious.

The importance of grouping

[dkleinsc]

The reporting on this mentioned protesters outside holding signs that translated to "Free Pussy Riot". They didn't comment on whether they meant "Free (Pussy Riot)" or "(Free Pussy) Riot".

Re:The importance of grouping

[wierd_w]

When his re-election comes up (hahahah...ha.. sorry.), Vladimir should use the slogan:

"The president of ill; RE:Putin!"

Re:The importance of grouping

[sycomonkey]

Then why do they keep saying they're a punk music group, they obviously can't be a group if they're not associative.

Re:The importance of grouping

[Jane Q. Public]

They may be associative but they're probably not transitive.

Iron Gary Kasparov

[tehlinux]

Vladimir Putin, I'm coming for you man. My style is impetuous. My sicilian defense is impregnable, and I'm just ferocious. I want your heart. I want to eat his children. Praise be to Caissa!

Chess less relavent than politics

[Relic of the Future]

His former chess level is less-relevant than the fact that he's a leader in the political movement opposing Putin.

Re:Chess less relavent than politics

[fredprado]

Important as his political position may be his chess level is extremely relevant. He was probably the best player this world has ever had.

Re:Chess less relavent than politics

[fredprado]

Fischer was really good, and for a time he was indeed the best, but many better players came after him.

Regarding chess players and governments it is not unusual for really smart people who become celebrities to go into politics. Everybody has his political views and intelligent people are usually very able to defend them. Einstein did a lot of politics, so did Oppenheimer (at great cost to himself) and many others.

Re:Chess less relavent than politics

[Trepidity]

His chess level is also a significant part of why he has the political position. If he were just some guy he would likely not have the public standing he does when it comes to politics.

Re:Chess less relavent than politics

[VortexCortex]

Chess? Wouldn't you rather play a nice game of Thermonuclear War?

Re:Chess less relavent than politics

[Bigby]

Would the be on the level of our government arresting Neil Armstrong or John Glenn for protesting?

Re:Chess less relavent than politics

[tftp]

If a country is ruled by law then it would definitely arrest them if they did something against the law. Otherwise you are creating untouchable people ("Don't you know who I am?")

Re:um... ok?

[Anonymous Coward]

People don't care about Kasparov being arrested half as much as the judicial farce that was just inflicted on Pussy Riot.

The reason you should care is because the members of Pussy Riot that were given 2 year prison sentences are political prisoners (per Amnesty International and almost every other human rights organization). And if you don't care about political prisoners, then you suck at life.

Re:THIS IS PERFECTLY OK

[DarkOx]

Oh boy now comes the endless discussions of just who ought to be stood against the wall.

Re:Not to worry

[wierd_w]

Why would anyone care about that? It isn't like being a jew grants you magic powers for evil or something.

Kasparov is famous for being a world chess chamion and a leader opposing putin. Being a jew is only important if you are a fucking stupid bigot.

Just sayin.

Re:In Soviet Russia

[binarylarry]

In Soviet Russia, democracy liberates you! (from your earthly bonds).

ISR

[Altanar]

In Soviet Russia, Czar Putin purges you. Wait... I did that wrong.

Re:ISR

[Trepidity]

In Soviet Russia, the massed proletarian forces led by the revolutionary vanguard party purge Czarist Putinists without mercy, comrade.

Re:um... ok?

[Anonymous Coward]

shrug last time I saw pussy riot was when they announced a designer handbag sale.

Smart people are dangerous

[iiii]

Smart people are a threat to those who hold power. Especially the subset of smart people who are politically engaged and willing to put themselves at risk to protest and demand change. And among them, the subset who are world famous and therefore have easy access to the press, well, they are just beyond dangerous.

There is a long history of new dictatorial regimes wiping out, killing, or scaring away all of the educated class, thus making the general populace less likely to organize, garner international attention, or outsmart anyone in the regime. This fits the pattern.

Re:Smart people are dangerous

[couchslug]

The Orthodox Church endorses Putin, describing his era as a "miracle of God".

Dear "former Soviet" friends:

You didn't kill nearly enough priests when you had the chance. Now they are licking the boots of your new Tsar.

Re:Smart people are dangerous

[SternisheFan]

The Orthodox Church Patriarch who got caught when he had photoshopped his very expensive Rolex watches out of photos. http://freethoughtblogs.com/pharyngula/2012/04/06/who-needs-a-30000-watch/

Re:Smart people are dangerous

[wierd_w]

Whoever shopped the grizzlebearded old far needs to be shot. They forgot to shop the damn reflection in the table.

Incompetence abounds.

[/sarcasm]

Re:Smart people are dangerous

[Mike Buddha]

Reading that article you cited, I don't see any cozy relations between the nazis and the Catholic Church at all. I see a lof of mistrust and a lot of deception on the part of the Nazis and a falling out even before the the second world war began.

Re:Smart people are dangerous

[zill]

It was cozy for a little while, but later Hilter betrayed them (surprise, surprise!) and dissolved all monasteries in Nazi Germany while sending the more vocal clerics to concentration camps.

I feel there's a allegory for the Orthodox Church in here somewhere...

Re:Smart people are dangerous

[Cederic]

Rolex or Breguet?

Anyway, just wtf is the issue with someone owning, wearing and liking expensive jewellery? Maybe he's saved up his income for two decades to buy that? Maybe he inherited it. Maybe it was an unsolicited gift from someone that wanted to recognise the great work he does.

Just because some people can't afford a watch like that doesn't make it implicitly bad for others to wear one.

(Of course, my personal belief is that as a senior religious figure he's probably acquired the watch via corrupt and/or exploitative means, because I don't trust anybody that peddles myths for a living)

Re:Smart people are dangerous

[shutdown -p now]

The issue is that Christian faith generally teaches one to be humble and modest. Even more specifically, "it is hard for a rich man to enter the kingdom of heaven. Again I tell you, it is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle than for a rich man to enter the kingdom of God". We kinda expect the clergy to live what they preach.

And some do. For example, the late patriarch of the Serbian Orthodox Church, Pavle, would ride a bus or walk on the street, without fancy clothing other than what's required from him by his rank. Meanwhile, the current patriarch of the Russian Orthodox Church, Kirill, rides a black limo with a special flag and license plate (so that he doesn't get stopped by the cops when he goes twice the speed limit).

Re:Smart people are dangerous

[wierd_w]

quite right, there was more than just a little bit of sarcasm in that post.

We are in the honeymoon stage still, with the Orthodox Church, and Putin's government. Putin still needs allies. When he no longer does, he will butcher the orthodox church.

Re:Smart people are dangerous

[Rich0]

Yup, the outright denial of having worn the watch following by the admission that he did wear it is just the icing on the cake. I mean, it isn't like lying is a sin or anything...

I've got nothing against the clergy living in conditions better than those in monasteries, but it is a bit hard to embrace a call to "take up your cross" when apparently his cross costs $30k.

Re:Smart people are dangerous

[tqk]

Reading that article you cited, I don't see any cozy relations between the nazis and the Catholic Church at all.

Try this one instead.

Re:Smart people are dangerous

[MysteriousPreacher]

We need to find a way to generate electricity from cognitive dissonance. Guys like this live in luxury that Jesus couldn't have imagined, and likely would have rejected, yet they claim to be following the teachings of this itinerant rabbi who preached against materialism. The massive quantities of cognitive dissonance required to swallow this bullshit must be harnessed for some good!

Any priest with more than two pairs of shoes is missing the point.

Re:Smart people are dangerous

[shutdown -p now]

We need to find a way to generate electricity from cognitive dissonance. Guys like this live in luxury that Jesus couldn't have imagined, and likely would have rejected, yet they claim to be following the teachings of this itinerant rabbi who preached against materialism. The massive quantities of cognitive dissonance required to swallow this bullshit must be harnessed for some good!

The official answer from the patriarch's public relations guy (yes, he has one) was that these are all "symbols of ranks", and the patriarch actually doesn't like them at all and wouldn't use them, but he's forced by his position. Furthermore, they said, the faithful want to see their patriarch accorded due respect - including any material possession - such that it matches or exceeds that of leaders of similar rank in other churches; so that their patriarch does not "look poorer".

Yeah, you could probably power a city from that if you manage to harness it.

Re:Smart people are dangerous

[Mike Buddha]

Hmm, looks like another single source wonder. Well, if Aarons and Loftus said it was true, it must be.

Comment removed

[account_deleted]

Comment removed based on user account deletion

Congratulations Russia

[circletimessquare]

From the Czars, to the Reds, and now to Putin, you're still serfs, all these centuries later.

Oh I know, you look to "strength" in the Kremlin. Well you got your "strength": crush all dissent. Rendering you an antiseptic den of ass kissing and tyranny and oligarchs. You're greatest weakness is your "strength", fools.

Depressing. Pathetic. All hail imperial 17th century Russia, for all time apparently. Still playing at strong man games. The West moves on to Democracy, China gets rid of its warlords. But not you Russia: still stuck in the past with your lame belief in the big strong man, like a bear! Disgusting.

Unless you Russians actually fucking do something about it. Win your country. The Russian Revolution, take 2: democratic this time.

Don't be a fucking serf!

Re:Congratulations Russia

[irwiss]

A democracy*

* For whoever has the deepest pockets :)

Re:Congratulations Russia

[shutdown -p now]

Unless you Russians actually fucking do something about it. Win your country. The Russian Revolution, take 2: democratic this time.

Most of my compatriots seem to be perfectly happy at the present state of affairs, and get mad at anyone suggesting something along these lines, calling us "sellouts to the west" and saying that we must be on the "washington payroll" etc. I figured if they want to see it that way, I might as well make that happen.

Don't be a fucking serf!

I'm not, I bailed out - just got my Canadian permanent residence this year, finally, and not looking back. If they insist of riding that train all the way back to the Middle Ages, with autocracy and trials for blasphemy, I'm not going to stand in its way and get run over. It's not like you can even meaningfully be a martyr for the cause there; nobody cares.

It's a pity about other people who don't want that, but they're in the minority - we've seen that during the protests that happened last December, and also from the results the most recent presidential election (yes, our elections still mean something; not much, but something). 50% still enjoy Putin's dick. Who am I to tell them they shouldn't, especially when they won't listen?

Re:Congratulations Russia

[gdy]

Thank you, sir. One revolution was enough.

Re:Congratulations Russia

[circletimessquare]

Same in the USA: we have idiots who willfully do not want, for example, better and cheaper healthcare. Propagandized by healthcare financial interests who want to keep their parasitical rent seeking arrangement whereby they extract cash from the healthcare system and provide nothing in return. This is not capitalism, it's cronyism, but that won't stop the idiots from wanting to fight "evil socialism."

It's a shame, how here in the USA, Russia, China, anywhere, demagogues will appeal to the stupidest prejudices of the people, such as "Russia needs to be strong, like bear! GRUNT SNORT DROOL", "Profits for some decimillionaire who is not a capitalist, but a monopolist, are more important than my health and my own financial well-being GRUNT SNORT DROOL", and these idiots have made their societies weaker, poorer, stupider.

Re:um... ok?

[lexsird]

The last time I saw pussy riot was when I changed cat foods.

Video

[Issildur03]

BBC video of the arrest:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-africa-19300149

Rough transcription: "What are you doing? I'm being detained? What am I charged with? What am I charged with? What am I charged with? What am I charged with? What am I charged with? What am I charged with?"

Re:Video

[Riddler Sensei]

Hiram Mightor: We're going to have to take you into custody.
Mentok: Ha ha. That's outrageous. What am I charged with?
Hiram Mightor: Don't have to tell you anymore. Clearly you haven't been reading your Scalia.

Re:Video

[shutdown -p now]

They have recently enacted a law where pretty much any mass gathering of people is considered a demonstration. And another, where you must give a written notice in advance, and they then grant you permission to hold one; if you don't get a permission, then it's an illegal gathering which is a crime. There have already been cases where people were harassed and even arrested under those laws when the "gathering" consisted of only 3 people. According to the news, there was a crowd of about 300 near the court building...

Re:Video

[Anonymous Coward]

Wait, what? They have those American laws in Russia too?

Re:Video

[shutdown -p now]

Yeah, good ideas tend to spread around quickly.

Re:Not to worry

[Anonymous Coward]

The radical leftist press, e.g. alternet and the Huffington Post will of course either ignore this or suddenly decide to defend Putin.

But Bush looked into his very soul and the voices in his head told him he's a pretty cool guy!

Re:THIS IS PERFECTLY OK

[MightyMartian]

Tell that to Alexander Litvinenko.

Re:um... ok?

[roc97007]

In Capitalist Russia..... sorry I got nuthin.

Re:THIS IS PERFECTLY OK

[CajunArson]

Hey Chairman Mao may have intentionally starved 20 million of his own people to death in China BUT:
1. He didn't like America.
2. He didn't like capitalists.
3. The CIA did something bad once so therefore Chairman Mao is the good guy and all Americans and Kasparov (that dirty Jew but fredprado uses the term "CIA" to cover over his bigotry) are EVIL!

Now lets talk about how great Pol Pot was because he made 100% sure that 2 million Cambodians were never forced to see evil Capitalist Marketing from Evil US Corporations!

Re:Not to worry

[Sponge Bath]

The radical leftist press, e.g. alternet and the Huffington Post will of course either ignore this or suddenly decide to defend Putin.

Huffington Post has several articles about Pussy Riot on the front page. Here is a sample. FTA: "One more thing: Fuck Putin!"

Re:THIS IS PERFECTLY OK

[MightyMartian]

How about the poisoning of Viktor Yushchenko? We can go on all day. Russia didn't become some nice delightful place governed by law abiding men just because the USSR collapsed.

Re:THIS IS PERFECTLY OK

[ultranova]

Russia didn't become some nice delightful place governed by law abiding men just because the USSR collapsed.

Which rises some questions about whether said collapse said something about the viability of Communism after all, instead of merely of the nature of the place it was tried on. And that, in turn, leads to some questions about whether our current love affair with free-market Capitalism as the only "realistic" choice despite the corruption it has led to is really such a good idea.

Re:um... ok?

[gaelfx]

...King checkmates you!

Gentlemen, this is BIG

[Penurious Penguin]

This is way bigger than you think. Big, like in SPACE. To understand, you should first affiliate yourself with the origins of chess, particularly from the view of former President of the Republic of Kalmykia, Kirsan Ilyumzhinov.

Well, soon you will begin to see what started this whole affair in the first place. The President of the Republic of Kalmykia has powerful friends, and Putin is not at the top amongst them. These friends have spaceships and don't piddle around, especially with chess. In other words, Gary fucked with the Aliens by criticizing their Kalmykian friend, and Putin, the incredibly patient fellow he is, is finally closing in -- in service of the KGB (King's Gambit Bezopasnosti).

Gentlemen, I assure you, chess is far stranger than Go.

Re:Gentlemen, this is BIG

[SplashMyBandit]

... after Putin having completed his "rokirovka". In english this is the chess move "castling". In this case, the rokirovka was the dictatorial and anti-democratic switch Putin used with Medvedev to get around the Russian constitution (which was designed to stop people like Putin from becoming President for longer than was healthy for the State).

The amazing thing is people don't see Putin as the dictator he is - there really is little difference between Putin and the North Korean crew, Putin is just much much better at manipulating apparently democratic rules to achieve non-democratic results (and just as good at staging bizarre photo opportunities).

Re:Gentlemen, this is BIG

[tftp]

The amazing thing is people don't see Putin as the dictator he is

Russian people do see Putin as a dictator. However he is a dictator by consent of the people. They keep him because his policies are in line with desires of most people. North Korean dictators' actions are against their people and they are hurting the country. Saddam Hussein's actions were neutral, modulo his sons. Pinochet's actions were bloody during the coup, but then he was accepted by the country for many years as a generally beneficial ruler. If you are given dictatorial powers in your country you could use them for good and for evil. It's entirely up to you what to do with those powers. You can assign a trillion dollars to space research, or you can assign the same trillion dollars to promote poverty and dependence on the government.

Now, if you want to ask why his policies are accepted, it's a completely different story. Voters want "a good czar" in power because he can make things happen. As voters saw in previous years, "democrats" are only concerned about stealing what is not nailed down. If voters vote them out they have to vote new thieves in. It's cheaper to feed one Czar than a thousand of lackeys. Besides, the Czar is there for a while, so he has to take care of the country. Lackeys are temporaries, they are content with stealing what they can and then escaping with the loot, to live somewhere in London, for example.

Re:Gentlemen, this is BIG

[SplashMyBandit]

> However he is a dictator by consent of the people.
Aha! but here is the trick. No-one who was a realistic opponent to Putin were even allowed to stand for election. What were allowed were "strawmen" who were clearly not going to appeal to the masses. I'm a bit surprised anyone who has an interested in Russian events fell for this - since it was very obvious that is what happened. So, Putin was elected by default. Fortunately the educated Muscovites and Lenigraders are now awake to these schemes - that is why the bravely protest despite Putin changing laws left, right and center to repress them (eg. fines for protesting have been increased by 15000% ! all foreign NGOs now registered as "foreign agents" such as independent political/electoral observers).

So, I suggest you reconsider your position on Putin, and see him for what he really is. He is a dictator that manipulated the electoral process and electoral commission (not to ) to remove any realistic opposing candidates (going so far as to trump up charges for some opponents) - which resulted in an apparent election by popular vote but was actually as rigged as any election could be without outright seizing the throne. Recognize a man who will actually stop at nothing to retain power - as the more intelligent Russians wake up to his scheming and oppose him he will become more ruthless. He is not merely a power-hungry politician, he is actually rather deluded and I daresay, "evil".

> Saddam Hussein's actions were neutral, modulo his sons.
Completely wrong. Hussein murdered colossal numbers of his people, particularly the Shia. Then there is the famous Halabja massacre were poison gas was used against Kurdish civilians.

Please dig a little deeper on both history and current events.

Re:Gentlemen, this is BIG

[SplashMyBandit]

... oops, the "(not to)" should read "(not to mention the outright vote rigging)". Apologies for my bad editing.

Re:Gentlemen, this is BIG

[tftp]

No-one who was a realistic opponent to Putin were even allowed to stand for election.

There are many opponents - anyone and his dog can sign up as one. However how many opponents do you know that would be on par with Putin, in terms of "good deeds" ? Zhirinovsky? Zyuganov? Yavlinski? Who?

You need to understand that the "street opposition" is deeply undemocratic. Instead of publishing their platform, setting up a party, explaining their beliefs and their plans, the street opposition depends on violent protests perpetrated by a handful of fanatics (if not by hired people.) Noone who is bypassing the functioning mechanisms of democracy can be a democrat. Russian parliament is large enough, why doesn't Casparov become a leader of his party and is elected? Because he has nothing to offer. His chances of democratic election are zero.

Kasparov is in opposition because he wants power. He has no platform other than "Putin, go away!" His goal is to plant his behind in the captain's chair and then proceed to rule as he sees fit. Why would I vote for him instead of Putin? Kasparov is a born dictator; he is already dictating people who should and who shouldn't be in power. Putin means stability and slow but gradual progress. Corruption is high on all levels of power, but I fail to see how this can be stopped, short of putting all current bureaucrats against the wall. They outnumber the police, and you can't watch everyone all the time. (Police is corrupt too.)

Recognize a man who will actually stop at nothing to retain power

Nobody in Russia would even lift a finger to stop him as long as he is a good czar. Your points about his way to power may or may not be correct, but they are irrelevant. The voters do not judge him on how he got there. They judge him on what he does up there. The current opinion is that he is doing better than most since Stalin's death. (Yes, there is a link.)

Hussein murdered colossal numbers of his people, particularly the Shia.

Yes; likely Saddam had very few admirers among the Shia. However the Shia started a rebellion per US instructions. What was Saddam supposed to do? What would you do in his place? Will you allow a handful of people - who put themselves above the law, armed themselves and started killing citizens of your country - to overturn the established law and order? Again, who is the democrat here? Will the US democracy simply fold if some two-bit anarchist decides to start a rebellion in the USA?

Anyway, Saddam was certainly a rough political operative. His political opponents were often murdered. However the Iraqi people did not seem to be against Saddam. This is because Saddam did not oppress them at that time. As I understand, Iraq is a patchwork country; what is bad for the goose may be irrelevant or even beneficial to the gander. With three major cultures (Shia, Sunni, Kurds) Saddam could oppress one and still have solid support from the other two.

Re:Gentlemen, this is BIG

[SplashMyBandit]

> There are many opponents - anyone and his dog can sign up as one
Totally wrong. Anyone who had even a slim shot of being a realistic opponent is prevented from standing, often from technicalities. Putin's regime will trump up charges against all opponents, they will murder journalists, they will poison Ukrainian leaders to ensure "their man" is installed and they retain access to Sevastopol, they will run "kangaroo courts" against girls that refuse to listen to any evidence. Instead of making Russia strong (as in "stable equilibrium") he is turning it into a banana republic (unstable equilibrium). As someone once said, Russia is "Upper Volta with missiles" (meaning, not exactly a civilized European country, but one that is feared because it is dangerously armed).

I'm ok with the Russian people electing Putin through an actual democratic process. However, that is not what has happened and your earlier statement that Putin was elected through the will of the people is false when scrutinized - the rules and officials were set to ensure the dictated outcome came to pass. Now if Putin actually reflected the will of the people he wouldn't need to having cheating election officials, bus voters around different polling stations, or prevent measures used in other countries (even little poor ones) to prevent fraud. With that in mind are you still willing to repeat your fiction that Putin represents the will of the people (of course, this fiction comes from Kremlin controlled sources, like Russia Today).

> The voters do not judge him on how he got there.
Bollox. The Russian voters clearly see Putin as having usurped power illegitimately. That's why they have taken to the streets despite Putin utilizing fascist tactics against them (and Kasparov).

> You need to understand that the "street opposition" is deeply undemocratic.
More rubbish. The street opposition is the only way the people can show the democratic feeling. What is in question is whether this is representative. Perhaps it is not representative of the whole country, but democracy is about letting these groups represent the proportion of the country that feels the same way. Each group represents a segment of society and together they arrive at consensual government. Instead, the Kremlin are so afraid they crush any diverging views. This is the anti-thesis of democracy. Why are the Kremlin so afraid? because they know they cannot retain power through legitimate means (that is, they actually understand that the will of the people is actually against them - despite what the State controlled media outlets say). Admit this to yourself, you know this is true.

With regard to Saddam and crew. Your original statement was that they were "neutral" (as in, not badasses). I'm glad upon reflection you have come to realise that in fact he was a murderous monster. With regard to the Shia rebellion, this was because Saddam oppressed (as in, slaughtered) the Shia so badly that armed opposition was their only recourse. No large scale rebellion happens without the people getting so desperate that the risk of death in rebellion outweighs their condition otherwise. Rather than brutal oppression Saddam (and Putin, and Al Assad) could do what civilized countries do, use the democratic process to negotiate with representatives of the disaffected and seek a just solution to the problem (making concessions in proportion to the size of the effected party). Many countries have been able to do this. You may argue that this would not work in Russia or the Middle East but I disagree - these countries are perfectly able to adapt and improve. Even if it is a rocky road you have to start along the road sometime. Putin and Al Assad are retarding the march of progress (and the will of their own people to define their own destiny). Hence, your arguments are on the wrong side of history, and are supportive of dictatorships. This is not enlightened at all.

The Russian people tolerate Putin at the moment. Again they have to be put under intense pr

Re:Gentlemen, this is BIG

[tftp]

Just a few comments, since your point of view is pretty clear.

The Russian voters clearly see Putin as having usurped power illegitimately. That's why they have taken to the streets despite Putin utilizing fascist tactics against them (and Kasparov).

You can easily find 1000, 10,000 and maybe even 100,000 people in any country that are not happy with the government. In the USA historically 1/2 of the country does not agree with the President. Yes, there were riots on occasion, but they hadn't reached the full rebellion because they were not externally supported and because their numbers were small. Change that and see what happens. Take over a city, for example. Will the US Army sit idly, or they will go full Fallujah on you? If your rebellion is so small that the police can take care of you you are not going anywhere. If you can stoke a sufficient fire you gain a lot of leverage. The UK police did not dare to intervene during London riots because it could set flame to the whole country. That did not happen only because rioters were not organized and had no political demands. Next time it can be different.

The Russian people tolerate Putin at the moment. Again they have to be put under intense pressure to rebel.

Russia is always full of people who are willing to rebel, against anything and anyone. This is not news. Putin made significant improvements in life of an average citizen. There are goods on shelves of stores. People are better off than they were under Yeltsin. People like Kasparov have an uphill battle now because Putin has a proven track record and they have none. But if Putin goes bad (much worse than he is now) then yes, he will lose power. That's why he has to tread lightly and collect good PR whenever it comes along.

the behavior of the US is still fairly largely dictated by the will of the people.

I wouldn't be so sure about the USA. Nobody wants troops stuck in Afghanistan, but they are. Nobody wants to build the victory mosque in NYC but the project was pushed ahead by politicians. Nobody wants to give free money to Egypt (or Israel, to that matter) but the money is sent. Nobody was in favor of TARP but it went through. Nobody wanted the government to buy half of GM but it did so regardless. Nobody wanted Obamacare but it was rammed through. I'm tired of typing now... those examples are endless. The will of people is summarily ignored at the congressman's level. Patricians with bluer blood never even see the commoners, and Free Speech Zones safely isolate the people from their lords and masters.

Russia (and Syria, and China etc) will not get better until there are proper free elections were divergent views get represented. This may be messy to begin with, and may not be the democracy you or I would choose, but it would truly be representative of the will of the Russian people

<style="Postal Dude">You don't say!</style> :-) Sure it will be messy, just like in 1917 and 1938 and in 1970s. Are you *sure* you want to experience that again? "With Lenin in the head and with Nagant in hand?" link

No political system can satisfy everyone. Monarchy whacks the unhappy with the authority of the king. Dictatorship does the same with a gun. Democracy does the same by allowing largely ineffectual "political process" through which one can change the law. But democracy is dependent on the free choice of unhappy people to NOT start a rebellion. The problem is that people quickly realize that this requirement is just a wishful thinking. Democracy cannot protect itself from undemocratic methods employed by some (even those as benign as black PR.) An evil overlord is free to gather supporters and take foreign money. In the end democracy falls, destroyed by a bunch of power-hungry hacks who found a way to game the system. In response the political system hardens itself with undemocratic methods. When was the last time an independent Presidentia

Re:Gentlemen, this is BIG

[SplashMyBandit]

Interesting points but you are diverging from the point of the debate. To get back on track, look at your statement, "US Presidents, for example, are temporary employees by law;". My argument is that this is true in Russian law too. Yet that is not what has happened, yes? Putin may be no worse than the law-breaking Nixon, but that still doesn't justify either's behavior in any way.

> Each time an idealist proposed happiness it ended up with rivers of blood in the streets.
This is the tyrant's argument. I'm afraid it is simply not true. A Ghandi or Mandela can change the system without there being mass slaughter. Yet your argument follow's Putin's megalomanical argument, that only he stands between order and chaos. This is total bullshit. It is the same bullshit that the Communist Party of China espouses. It is simply not true. In fact, because they are so oppressive they keep the lid on the pot until the pressure builds up so far until it explodes. Instead, if he actually obeyed the Russian Constitution there would be a decent chance that those outside the mainstream would get to have a say and actually influence things from time to time (which can be healthy: eg. environmentalists can be a PITA but they do have a role to play in keeping governments and industry honest through exposures [not possible under Putin; journalists exposing corruption have a habit of waking up dead]). Note also that if a Russian Ghandi-equivalent ever emerged he would never get a chance to bring peaceful progress, the current regime (aided by commentators like yourself) would condemn and destroy such people before they could bring such progress.

I understand your cynicism. Progression is not simple and certainly does not involve rainbows and ponies. However, that doesn't mean we should stand by and let a corrupt tyrant have their way (or worse, actually try and make apologies for them - as you do). On its current trajectory Russia is getting more oppressive and eventually that may not be much worse than a 'spring clean' that restores power to the people again. So why would one defend a tyrant on these forums?

As vulgar as Pussy Riot are and annoying as Kasperov may be they both serve a purpose that benefits society as a whole. The State handling of these cases has exposed Russian's totalitarian shift in a way that gets far more attention that reasoned debate would. This is why the West is calling Russia over this.

With regard to life for the ordinary Russian being better under Putin than Yeltsin. Do you actually think it some magic that Putin has done that has achieved this? If so, then I have some of the same magic to sell you. It is fairly clear that the Russian economy grew on the back of growth of natural resource prices and the boom has happened despite colossal corruption and graft enabled (encouraged?) under Putin's watch (remember, he will trade economic favors for power).

Do you really think that free and fair elections are to be feared? don't you think there is a chance that Russia could do democracy better than the West provided that appropriate safeguards were installed (since the Russia can learn from the West what not to do). If that is the case, then why do you oppose those who would like to bring this about? Again, if you do oppose it then you are on the wrong side of history (-1 Not Insightful) since Putin's reign will not last forever, although it is very likely to be worse over time.

Just because democracy is not perfect doesn't mean the yoke of a nascent dictator should be applauded, as your postings do. I'll leave you with two quotes:

• "Democracy is the worst form of government except, for all the rest", Lord Winston Churchill
• "Any government that is strong enough to give you everything you want, is strong enough to take it all away", Thomas Jefferson.

Democracy

[SternisheFan]

"Democracy does not come from governments. Democracy comes from the people."

Re:THIS IS PERFECTLY OK

[fredprado]

Russians are not the bad guys anymore. Not because they are morally superior or anything of the sorts, but because they lack the power and influence to be the bad guys.

China, although in a better economical position, lacks the opportunity to be the bad guys because of decades of neglect in international relation and consequent lack of real political influence in anything but itself.

As of now only US has both the economical power and political influence to be a negative force in a global scale. I am quite aware that the American population is not to blame for its government actions, at least no more than the general population of the affected countries, and I do sympathize with your feelings of impotence (and I share them rest assured), but that does not invalidate the fact that US as an entity is the greatest negative force in our World.

What Assange did needed to be done and with or without them needs to continue. Transparency, even if a feeble one, it is our only hope to be able to change anything in this world.

Re:um... ok?

[SternisheFan]

Those are very brave women.

Re:um... ok?

[Frosty Piss]

Every time I go out on the town there is a "pussy riot".

Re:He ran for President

[Anonymous Coward]

Someone needs to put a bullet into Vladimir "No Chin" Putin's head.

I am dead serious.

WSJ bias

[Anonymous Coward]

It would be refreshing to see the WSJ providing a similar pulpit for any of the many progressive, liberal, and leftist protestors arrested by police in the US.

Unfortunately, that day may never come.

In Soviet Russia

[wideBlueSkies]

In Soviet Russia, game plays YOU.

Re:THIS IS PERFECTLY OK

[fredprado]

Russia is not the only place where the communism didn't work. Everywhere it was implemented it eventually collapsed. Even in China. Today China is more a capitalist totalitarian regimen than a communist one.

I can't really tell if capitalism is a good choice for Russia, but I am quite sure communism is not a good choice for anyone.

Re:THIS IS PERFECTLY OK

[Mike Buddha]

They're all doing it wrong. If the leftist academics had a shot of running the show, I'm sure it'd work just fine.

Re:THIS IS PERFECTLY OK

[fredprado]

They certainly think so...

Re:um... ok?

[DigiShaman]

The last time I saw a pussy riot was when to women were fighting over me =). Encore. Encore!

Re:He ran for President

[AK Marc]

Dioxins don't show up on a Geiger counter.

Re:THIS IS PERFECTLY OK

[AK Marc]

China is, they are out-capitalisting the USA, so they are the enemy of the USA.

Re:um... ok?

[pla]

The reason you should care is because the members of Pussy Riot that were given 2 year prison sentences are political prisoners

Well, yes, but no. Google "petukhi". Google "Mikhail Khodorkovsky". Google "Sergei Magnitsky".

You should care because they will spend that time in the worst-of-the-worst "black" prisons. They will endure daily rape, by both fellow inmates and staff. They will leave (if they leave) with HIV and/or multi-drug resistant TB. They will most likely not leave... Or last a week, for that matter.

The court didn't need to sentence them to any crazy-long sentence, because the court sentenced them to death and hell. Simple as that.

Re:THIS IS PERFECTLY OK

[AK Marc]

They are communist. The government controls the means of production. That is all. Selling something at a profit is not a defining factor of either system.

Re:um... ok?

[pla]

I assure you that when she is out of prison

Do you mean that as a joke, or just naivete?

If she lives a week... If she makes it two years... She will leave broken, and with any of a number of fatal diseases.

She won't leave.

Fuck Putin. He deserves what the coming revolution will do to him.

Re:He ran for President

[drkim]

Yeah... "Excuse me sir - is THIS your umbrella?"

Re:THIS IS PERFECTLY OK

[fredprado]

The government controlling everything is totalitarianism, not communism. There is capitalist totalitarianism. There wasn't any communist implementation in the real world without it though.

Now about China, a lot of international companies have plants in China, have employees and pay salaries to these employees. China does not control all means of production and it is not a communist country anymore for a long shot.

Re:THIS IS PERFECTLY OK

[fredprado]

It is amazing that I have to speel to you that "US" means "United States". RBN is not a government entity, it does about as much harm as the Yakuza, the Mafia, and the Chinese triads, and a lot less harm than most US corporations.

Re:THIS IS PERFECTLY OK

[fredprado]

China lacks the political influence to be a negative force in a global scale anywhere near US today. It may change someday, but not in a near future.

Re:Russia or the US?

[SplashMyBandit]

The US is getting worse, for sure. However, the US is nowhere in the league of current day China or Russia in terms of repression, lack of transparency, killings of journalists, bias against of minorities, bullying neighbours, etc etc. It is not even close.

Re:Not to worry

[Nyder]

The radical leftist press, e.g. alternet and the Huffington Post will of course either ignore this or suddenly decide to defend Putin. Why?

He's not a rocker chick
He's a Jew.

Jews are the children of God, so they are better then us gentiles.

Re:Not to worry

[Nyder]

dang jewish god made me reply to the wrong post.

Re:Not to worry

[Nyder]

Why would anyone care about that? It isn't like being a jew grants you magic powers for evil or something.

Kasparov is famous for being a world chess chamion and a leader opposing putin. Being a jew is only important if you are a fucking stupid bigot.

Just sayin.

Jews are the children of God, so ya, they got magic powers for evil or something.

Re:um... ok?

[Tough Love]

People don't care about Kasparov being arrested half as much as the judicial farce that was just inflicted on Pussy Riot.

I don't think you understand just how important chess is in Russia.

Re:THIS IS PERFECTLY OK

[Tough Love]

Russia is not forcing extraditions of anyone in other countries for talking bad about them or for committing the heinous crime of file sharing.

No, instead they just go there and feed them polonium tea.

Re: "Free market capitalism"?

[fredprado]

Yes I am dead serious. Russia has a lot of problems and its government is very far from being decent and fair to its population, but regardless of all its past evil doings, currently its negative impact over the world is neglectable compared to US.

Boycot USSR WINTER OLYMPICS 2014

[cheekyboy]

A little threat by all of the western world would convince KGB agent putin to reverse the evil decisions.

Also in the same city is the new russian grandprix so perhaps all the F1 teams should boycot that too, or at least do a protest 50mph race that would take 12hrs to complete. hahahhaha.

Re:THIS IS PERFECTLY OK

[fredprado]

To their ex-spies. A thing CIA would never do, right?

Re:um... ok?

[Opportunist]

That's what you get for carrying Prada-Handbags!

Re:He ran for President

[Opportunist]

Hitting the crocodile is just a slap on the wrist of the puppeteer.

Re:THIS IS PERFECTLY OK

[Opportunist]

Can we simply agree on the bad guys sitting in the governments, no matter what country, with the people suffering under them?

Let's be blunt here, "the Russian" never really was an enemy of the people of the US. Quite the opposite, the US (or rather "the West" in general) were held in high esteem in the former East Bloc countries. The official stance is something really different.

I also don't hate "the US" for the actions of their leaders. I hate what the US leaders do to the world, but I know enough people in the US to know that the official position on most agendas is not reflected by its population.

What is that you say? They could get a different government if they wanted? No, they cannot. Whether you have a one party dictatorship or a de-facto two party dictatorship with zero chance for anything to change without some serious bloodshed doesn't really matter, and neither is easy to overthrow unless you are willing to not only give your life but also the lives of millions for it. Is it really that bad already?

Until then, just pity them. Help the people and fight their government, you might be surprised where you find friends in this world.

irrelevance

[petsounds]

It'd be nice if we had some Russians here instead of western europeans and americans giving their Very Important opinions about a culture they really know little about. I feel like in the Olden Days of slashdot the userbase was more international in flavor; for whatever reason it's become much more homogenous.

Re:irrelevance

[shutdown -p now]

There are a couple Russian posters hereabouts. I'm one, Cyberax is another who's posting frequently. Ironically, so is roman_mir (I dunno what's up with us, first we gave you Ayn Rand, now him - it must be some mental disease that's more prominent in our population).

So, what exactly do you want to know about the culture?

In Soviet Russia....well KGB still owns you

[mgideon]

I want to see tons of In Soviet Russia jokes people. Who said Soviet Russia had changed? It is just packaged with new fancy skin. Everything is still the same up there. Let the jokes begin

the bilderberg boy was arrested?

[quantic_oscillation7]

too bad!

it's just another color revolution attempt by the CIA boys and girls....

http://landdestroyer.blogspot.pt/2012/08/russian-punkers-get-2-years-jail-for-us.html

Re:the bilderberg boy was arrested?

[shutdown -p now]

And color revolutions are a bad thing?

Re:the bilderberg boy was arrested?

[quantic_oscillation7]

well color revolutions are associated with the CIA criminals, so i would say that are very dangerous things that have nothing to do with freedom or democracy....

Re:the bilderberg boy was arrested?

[shutdown -p now]

Why don't you ask the people that went through them? You might find that the reality isn't so black and white as you imagine.

Re:um... ok?

[shutdown -p now]

It's not at all important. Hasn't been since USSR days.

Re:Not to worry

[shutdown -p now]

Huffington Post is not radical left. Communist Party of the USA is radical left.

Unfortunately, once that important correction is made, you're actually right. Various commie and socialist organizations around the world these days seem to be really enamored with Putin (and others, like Assad) solely on the grounds that they are "standing up to the capitalist West". From there they then proceed to come up with various excuses about why they're not really dictators, and why their human rights abuses aren't.

Re:Russia or the US?

[shutdown -p now]

As a Russian currently living in US (and having lived in Russia up to 2009), I can tell you that there is a very, very big difference.

Doesn't mean you guys can relax. Indeed, the main reason why you need to fight to keep your rights now is because you can actually do that in this country without resorting to open violence. If you're going to wait until things really get as bad as they are in Russia, you'll suddenly find out that all peaceful means of effecting change are illegal. Don't let it get there.

Re:Why WSJ?

[shutdown -p now]

The reason why he writes an article for WSJ is because WSJ will actually publish it.

It doesn't even matter if Kasparov is getting western money - the mere possibility of such money is enough to make him, and people like him, make their case first and foremost to the west, and only second to the people on who's behalf they claim to speak.

I'm technically still a Russian citizen, so as far as I'm concerned Kasparov speaks on my behalf - and I don't see any problem with him taking money from the West if that's what he's doing. What matters is what he does with that money. And, sure, if he keeps receiving it, it means that he does what the people giving him money want him to do - but I don't see a problem with that either, since it just means that their goals happen to coincide with mine.

Re:um... ok?

[Havenwar]

Regarding 2:
No. Not especially if you are Russian - more like especially if you're a human living in the world of today, where a Russia that reverts to old habits is a dangerous fucking thing. As someone who was actually alive when the soviet union broke up in '91 and have visited some ex-soviet states in the time since, I've seen both sides of the coin. Trust me, this one is better.

Or was. It's getting bad again, and it's getting bad quickly. Putin sucking up to the church, smashing down on any political dissent... If this is allowed to go unchecked it's a matter of when not if russia will start the rearmament of their military forces, if they haven't already, and once more become a volatile player in world politics with their finger on the launch button.

Now I live in Sweden, so I'm close enough that maybe I should be worried for my own sake, but I'm not. We've got Finland between us and the Russians, and nobody fucks with those guys and get away with it. But on a political scale and a global relations scale, this is worrying news indeed. The fact that other countries just wave it off, well... that's no surprise. But you can bet your ass their military advisers have started drawing up plans for the worst case scenario.

Re:um... ok?

[nazsco]

So everyone in your prison system gets that fucked up in 2yr and you only going to complain now?

May i ask what got you all so worked up all of a sudden? Or better yet, so complacent before?

Re:um... ok?

[outsider007]

You're just not used to seeing 200lb women. In Russia that girl is *maybe* a 7

Big divide

[roman_mir]

There is a huge divide about the government's treatment of this punk band, Pussy Riots. They are now sentenced to 2 years in prison, which almost certainly means they are not getting out, but even if they do, they'll be broken and sick people after what they are going to be dragged through.

Unfortunately there is a huge chunk of the population that is cheerleading this injustice by the Russian 'courts', in reality by the Russian government. This is a political hack job, this has nothing to do with justice.

Supposedly there is separation of church and state in Russia, but I guess Putin is a shrewd politician, who figures he will play on the worst of the worst sentiments and feelings of the crowd.

Think about the crowds that gather to throw stones at the heads of poor women somewhere in Arab countries, where a woman was raped and then stoned for that 'crime'.

Now, the Pussy Riots weren't raped (yet, they will be now by the prison guards and prisoners), what they did was they offended some people's sensibilities.

It is TRUE, they did offend a lot of people's feelings, all that, but the criminal law that is used to throw people in jail shouldn't have provisions to throw people to jail for offending anybody or even groups of people. Should the law have those provisions?

I am thinking about Canada right now and the 'hate speech' laws, that can be used to throw people to jail for SPEECH.

Now, these girls went into a church and did something silly that they consider to be art, but AFAIC the more important part of what they did was political speech, because they spoke against Putin in the church. They specifically spoke against Putin and his rule.

They are being thrown into jail not based on any law, it's not even because they offended the church, they are thrown into jail for attacking Putin.

As to separation of church and state, these must be separate. If they are not separate, it means the law is not based on any logic, it's not based on reason, it's not based on anything that is rational. It's based on whatever the religions wants, and religion is not a rational, logical system.

ALL religions are irrational and illogical, they all have magic in them, they all require people to suspend the disbelief, to not think about the facts, to dismiss rationality and facts. Religions also have a very nasty tendency to punish the people who are 'heathens' (non-believers), religions have a very nasty tendency to use extreme forms of punishment. Stoning? That's nothing compared to what religions can do. Think - the Spanish Inquisition and worse. Religions are based on fear and punishment and suspension of rationality. Do you want your laws to be based on that?

But I am telling you, the forums, the blogosphere are full of people who are looking for blood, saying that 2 years in prison and rape and murder of these girls is not enough.

Do you think maybe religion and other types of tribalism appeal to the worst of the worst in people? I think so.

Re:THIS IS PERFECTLY OK

[cffrost]

The CIA did something bad once [...]

That's right... CIA did something bad, once.

Re:um... ok?

[X.25]

People don't care about Kasparov being arrested half as much as the judicial farce that was just inflicted on Pussy Riot.

The reason you should care is because the members of Pussy Riot that were given 2 year prison sentences are political prisoners (per Amnesty International and almost every other human rights organization). And if you don't care about political prisoners, then you suck at life.

I genuinely wish people were this upset when CIA was kidnapping people around the world, shipped them to Guantanamo, tortured them, then released them because they had no evidence.

But no, let's get all upset about some punks getting jail sentence (which will be overturned soon anyway, they were just made an example of) in Riussia.

Well, my IQ is your IQ + 2 and....

[tlambert]

My master made me this collar. He is a good and smart master and he made me this collar so that I may speak. Squirrel!

So basically you are claiming...

[tlambert]

WWII started because WWI ended with a big FUCK YOU to Germany.

...that the current European financial crisis is because WWII ended with a big FUCK YOU to Germany? The Deutsche Bundesbank is the most influential member of the ESCB. Just saying...

Re:So basically you are claiming...

[Creepy]

The Treaty of Versailles was brutal to Germany, requiring what would be over 400 billion today, but then taking away the mineral rich and heavy industrial center of the Saarland (as the Nazis called it and it is today - was Saar-something before that) and giving it to France as well. They then blocked banks from loaning Germany money to rebuild and without money or loans, hyperinflation ensued as people sought to snap up every hard currency available with what they had left.

Re:So basically you are claiming...

[rufty_tufty]

No he said screwing Germany over at the end of WWI caused a lot of resentment that lead to the conditions that started WWII. At the end of WWII therefore the powers that be made sure to help re-build Germany so as the conditions for another WW would not be re-created.
The OP made no reference to the current crisis.

Re:um... ok?

[misexistentialist]

What is their politics other than in fact "hooliganism"? Not sure how serious a crime that should be, but what kind of sentence would a white power band get for crashing a black church service?

Euroz

[filthpickle]

Hey Euros. Make this about how America sucks.

Re:Euroz

[dunkelfalke]

What exactly is your point? The fact that America sucks is completely unrelated to the fact that Russia sucks, too.

Re:um... ok?

[RandomFactor]

How about

In Putin's Russia...

Re:um... ok?

[gl4ss]

In Putin's Russia you don't get hit - you bite the police.

Re:Russia or the US?

[Hatta]

What we are close in is lack of control by the people. There's no choice in either system.

Chess geeks moving up in the world?

[Shoten]

I just can't believe that I've read a short paragraph that contained a reference to Kasparov by name along with the phrase "Pussy Riot." These are wonderful times we live in...

Re:um... ok?

[russotto]

What is their politics other than in fact "hooliganism"? Not sure how serious a crime that should be, but what kind of sentence would a white power band get for crashing a black church service?

In the US? They'd probably get charged with trespassing and/or disturbing the peace, and either the charges would be dropped or they'd be released with a fine and time served.

However, the US doesn't have a state church, so it's not really a good parallel.

"PUSSY PUTIN"

[SternisheFan]

That's the front page headline of the New York Post (Saturday, August 18, 2012) with a full color photo of these three woman looking up at armed guards, disgusting how theyare being treated and how they are going to be treated in Russian jails . For dancing! ***"History judges societies by how well they treated their women."***

Re:um... ok?

[dbIII]

4. This entire situation has had so much of an effect on the internet that an unfiltered google image search for "pussy riot" is entirely safe for work.
Now that's definitely a big enough change to be news for nerds.

In Soviet Italy...

[kunyo]

which is actually a 65 years old free market economy with constitutional rights for what concerns free speech, the crime of blasphemy is punished with up to three years of jail. Those chicks in Russia got two years. And they did not even get beaten by the police in the process. I would imagine if something like this happened in Italy, there would have been real RIOTS from christians and religious leaders asking for death penalty. Reality is, public opinion is angered just because this happened in Russia (which is of course far from being a free country but is neither the source of all evil like the "free press" of western world is depicting it)

Re:Russia or the US?

[SplashMyBandit]

Not really. There are many flaws in the US system but at least if the will of the people really wanted independent politicians in power they could have them (although the US populace are so borked in their thinking this would never happen, no matter how outrageous their mainstream parties positions become, eg Tea Party with some radical ideas mixed with a large dose of craziness; and the whole rabidly religious aspect of their politics).

This is simply not a possibility in present day Russia. Anyone who may have made a good alternative to Putin was simply not allowed to stand (not accidental, this was by design). The only possible candidates to Putin on the ballot sheet are people who had no chance of getting many votes, since any good person was disallowed (possible since Putin got courts to prosecute them or disallow them from being on the ballot). This is not the same as the US situation at all (and is far far worse, IMHO).

Re:THIS IS PERFECTLY OK

[makomk]

The definition of communism is that the workers control the means of production. Russia could come up up with all the clever arguments about how the government was really the workers that they liked, that still didn't make it so.

Back ...

[dave87656]

"Back in the US, back in the US, back in the USSR"