Slashdot Mirror
Zhirinovsky to "Send Viruses to the West"
In another of many terribly funny quotes from Russian ultra-nationalist Vladimir Zhirinovsky, he's stated that Russians don't drink anymore, and they are poaching money from the West. This is almost as funny as The Onion's parody of Patrick Buchanan, who's said some funny things himself. Perhaps we can get those two together somehow. *grin*
In contrast to 99.9% of posts here, I actually seem to think that everybody here is getting into an uproar. First of all, there is a ridiculous amount of western ethnocentrism (or whatever that word is) here. "He's obviously a dangerous psychopath because he doesnt agree with our beliefs, and we're always correct." All right, I'll concede that he is somewhat of an unstable radical, but let's not forget how many such radicals we have here at home: Buchanan, the whole religious Right, etc...
/. troll: he spouts off extremist dogma to generate controversy because he can't do anything on his own merit, just raise your threshold and ignore him and he wont bother you.
And I think these Hitler analogies are exagerrated. Zhirinovsky is in no way the capable policitican that Hitler was, nor does he really have an established, well-oiled propaganda machine that Hitler did. According the article, he has a fairly well running party and hes done some stuff in legislature, but I've seen this guy before. He's been around for a long time, and despite getting lots of attention through his extremist sayings (which is all he really seems to do: spout extreme quotes in order to get attention from the media). Hell, excite.com took the bait, as this article is worthless in itself, being solely a showcase for a few anti-west Zhirinovsky quotes. I'm not doubting the man's motives or agenda, I'm just saying he lacks the saavy to get them done. Look at our own nation's extremists, like Buchanan. He gets loads of press, but he's tried umpteen times to run for president and he's not even coming close. I realize that Russia is not the U.S. by any standards, but I'm sure their citizens have the same sense to keep him from getting in a position where he could pose a threat.
I know I'm gonna get blasted for this, but Zhirinovsky is like your typicial
Neither Ben nor I ever claimed that we don't live in the most violent and wonderful nation on earth. I never claimed that the electric chair was the best seat in the house. I never beat my slaves.
Also, at the threat of sounding like I'm issuing a flame of some sort, 1) National Socialism, by its very nature, was Socialism, so it wasn't exactly super-capitalism by any streatch. 2) I wasn't even alive for any u-boat attacks on the eastern seaboard, plus these were relatively few, and I've yet to meet a living American who is very bitter about them. 3) this isn't about citizens of the former Societ Union being bad or evil or pinkos-- this is about one lone, crazy guy who's rousing more rabble than the Klan.
Someone moderate me down, I'm writing mad and raving offtopic.
Much Love,
"S"HM
*****
(I refuse to spellcheck out of contempt for your belief system)
And it looks to me like something similar is happening in Russia. *Something* is causing people there to barter, whether it's a black market (which would imply those trade restrictions again), a government reduction in the money supply (trying to fight inflation, perhaps?) or simply the chain reaction of people pulling their money out of the country to avoid what they see as a financially dangerous situation.
While I am not up to date with the current development, I know how it started because I was there. I may omit or distort some details in this description, so I welcome other Russians (no American poltitcians and journalists, pls.) to correct me where I am wrong.
USSR economy originally was handled by the government. Government handled prices and planning of distribution of products, so while money and contracts existed and worked, government had power to determine possible relationships between "companies", import/export, prices, salaries, etc. Some things intentionally operated at loss, getting funds directly from the government.
When reforms started, originally the ownership wasn't changed, however some "companies" were switched to more money-based model -- they had to keep more of their profits, had more choice in prices, salaries and their relationships with others even though the "owner" remained the same -- government. In a lot of cases it worked, however old low prices became impossible to maintain -- "companies" became disinterested in keeping prices low enough to let the rest of the economy, still entirely sponsored by the government, coexist with them. At the same time government started encouraging the creation of small businesses that were privately owned and had nothing to do with government except paying (high) taxes. Of course, those businesses were interested in increasing prices, however since most of them had to buy raw materials and equipment from "companies" owned by government, they still benefitted from arftificially limited prices that were in use there.
After some time prices became split -- everything under strict control of the government tried to keep their prices low, everything else tried to keep them upper to reflect production cost, supply and demand. While unrestricted prices were growing, government had to increase their prices and funds allocated for government-sponsored production, education, research, health care and defense. Inflation started, however with no mechanism that balances government-handled part of economy in the presence of [semi-]independent and private parts of the economy, spending started to increase fast, pulling the inflation upper. To make things worse, salaries of people still working for the government (what was a majority of the economy) became significantly lower than employees of private companies, so large number of well-educated people left government-handled industry.
Government started industry "privatization" campaign in attempt to create a kind of balance in the economy that does not require government to constantly adjust things (what it was clearly incapable of), however "privatization" quickly turned into looting -- former managers and government bureaucrats became "owners" and "shareholders" of what they previously managed, and with their personal wealth increased by many orders of magnitude they didn't become interested in any kind of useful economic activity. The rest of population got nothing.
With still unbalanced economy, disinterested and incapable managers and businesses owners, choking government-sponsored education and health care, inflation continued to grow. Businesses started to switch to banking, trade, import-export from their original activities. Underfunded government became a victim of widespread corruption -- it became less profitable and safe to operate a legitimate business than to bribe bureaucrats to accept some bogus contract, make something worthless or near to worthless, get money, then use them to bribe more bureaucrats. Organized crime expanded, stability decreased even less, and businessmen started looking for means to secure their money. Since investment became unsafe in this kind of conditions, they had to convert money into stable currency and leave Russia, continuing to operate their still profitable businesses in Russia from abroad.
This caused more instability, less production and further deterioration of everything that remained in the hands of the government. In addition to inflation money became unreliable simply because the production decreased below the demand.
Contrary to the popular belief, there indeed is no God.
This guy had a huge amount of votes in the previous pseudo-election they had. This is not a joke! When I asked some of my friends that live there why the heck they voted for this looney -- their answer was, and I quote: "Because when he gets a lot of votes, the other russians will get scared of the possibility of him being the next president, and won't vote for him in the future." I lived the first half of my life in Russia, so I should be pretty versed in how they think. But there's no way I will ever understand the rationale behind their actions (probably cause there isn't any) in respect to voting for this clown.
They don't see it.
The help we sent got swallowed up in the general corruption. Despite our claims of sending help the average Russian peasant has never seen it so bad.
Let me give one example.
Around 40% of Russian male prisoners have drug-resistant TB. Given the size of the prison system and the huge turnover, Russia is turning into the epicenter of an epidemic.
Here in the US we can usually treat drug-resistant TB, even if it does cost thousands/person. In Russia? Not a chance. They get a shipment of drugs, throw it at the prisoners, run out and thereby produce perfect conditions to breed resistant diseases.
The US has forgotten TB, "consumption" is a quaint word that most people don't really recognize.
Well until the 40's it was the leading cause of death in the US. It is back in Russia, with a vengeance. Over the next 5-10 years a significant fraction of Russia will experience that endless cough, and watch their bodies slowly waste away as they are "consumed" by a disease that Western medicine is going to be helpless to prevent.
Don't be too complacent - it is coming here as well and public health officials don't have a clue how to handle it. The death rate has been rising since the 80's. Unless we have a miracle, we will experience what happens when diseases evolve past our ability to treat them. Welcome back to seeing your once young and healthy friend Johnny die for no greater crime than encountering "bad air".
Today this plague is theoretical in the West. But not in Russia. Russia once boasted universal health care. It was not great, but it was available, and people trusted it. No longer. The free market (and corruption, but people hear the words free market) changed all that.
Take a second look at Russia. The social chaos. The poverty. The diseases. The crime. The drugs.
They blame it all on the West.
Sure, the West claims to have sent money. What money? They never saw the money. They saw lots of other things come from the West though. Bite the hand that fed them you say? Many of them would see it as justifiable self-defence!
Regards,
Ben
My usual seat in the cluetrain is at A HREF="http://pub4.ezboard.com/biwethey.ht
Leave it to me to want to be serious about this...
Wow-
It sure seems like the US has pissed off every other 'Great Power'.
Again.
It makes me nervous enough that my (US) government
seems oblivious to a large percent of it's population, but when the powers that be show a
similar disregard towards this many countries, I get the shivers.
When these many people want to use the US as fuel
for thier religious/sectional/economic/political/personal vehicle, you have to stop and wonder what we have done to become a magnet for unified hatred.
Like a lot of others reading this (from whatever country) , I was in the service, and still feel a patriotism-of-sorts for a country that I saw from a younger man's perspective.
However, I'm starting to get embarassed, maybe even ashamed of my governments more than occasional arrogance towards the rest of the world.
Apparently Zhirinovsky sees the parallel between himself and Buchanan. Buchanan won't admit it though.
Here's an excerpt from a bio of Zhirinovsky:
In February, 1996, Vladimir Zhirinovsky hailed Pat Buchanan's victory in the New Hampshire presidential primary. He wrote a letter to Buchanan, saying: ``You say that Congress is 'Israeli-occupied territory.' We have the same situation in Russia. So, to survive, we could set aside places on U.S. and Russian territory to deport this small but troublesome tribe.'' Zhirinovsky called Buchanan a ``brother in arms'' and wished him a ``convincing victory'' in November's U.S. presidential ballot. Buchanan rejected Zhirinovsky's endorsement. Zhirinovsky then changed tone. "I thought you were really defending the interests of your nation," said the letter, the text of which was released by Zhirinovsky's office. "And you've turned out to be just like Clinton and other corrupt politicians, moved by greed and vanity, not by love for the fatherland."
Napster-to-go says "Fill and refill your compatible MP3 player", which is a lie. It's not MP3. It's WMA with DRM.
Please quote the place in my writing I am, whining all day is that everything non-western (in this case Russia) is evil or where I had the audacity to claim that Nazi Germany is not western.
You cannot for the simple reason that I did not say that. I did point out that Zhirinovsky appeals to a segment of the Russian population that is explicitly anti-Western. This is a statement of fact, and I believe that I did a pretty good job of summing up why they are anti-Western.
There were only two things that my post directly criticized. One was the ability for a a rabble-rouser with a convenient, disillusioned, and potentially violent minority to seize control. This is a pattern that has shown up in the establishment of dictatorships the world over. The other is the tendancy of people to dismiss out of hand the effects of a position that seems crazy to them. Well the position may seem crazy, but craziness is no obstacle to power.
Now please go back and read the post that I wrote rather than the one you thought I did. When you get through reading it and sorting out my writing from your fantasy, perhaps you will have the guts to both apologize and sign your name to that.
Sincerely,
Benjamin J. Tilly
My usual seat in the cluetrain is at A HREF="http://pub4.ezboard.com/biwethey.ht
Remember the hedge fund that went bust recently, at a cost of $18 billion or so? The Fed bailed them out. How? By "monetizing the debt" -- i.e., printing more money.
They also took money directly out of smaller investment firms' pockets (I know, I'm a partner in one), by manipulating market parameters such as interest rates the very week of a "triple-witch" expiration (something hitherto unheard of). The result was a market which behaved as they intended -- more or less the opposite of what would have happened if the Fed had not intervened. The little folks lost a bundle, but the big, insolvent funds whos mismanaged positions were so exposed were bailed out. In short, that money wasn't just "printed," much of it was stolen directly from the pockets of smaller investors and financial firms -- the very ones most critical to the success and continued functioning, not to mention prosperity, of the entire system.
That entire fiasco made a mockery of free market economics and is, to me, one of the more stark examples of just how subsidized our whole economy really is, and how much corruption is built in to the entire apparatus. There is allot more "central planning" in the west than any of the politicians let on, and than most of us realize. Greenspan may work in "six month" rather than "five year" plans (which he then tweaks every month or two), he may use capital, rather than (or in addition to) the gun as a tool of coercion, and, yes, the result may be a system that works better than what the soviets had, but it is by no means a truly "free" market, and hasn't been for decades.
BTW - Anyone else notice the rather large "bubble" in this year's markets?
The Future of Human Evolution: Autonomy
Tom Swiss | the infamous tms | my blog
You cannot wash away blood with blood
I've worked with 2 Russians, one of whom was a severe alcoholic and one who didn't drink at all. Therefore 50% of Russians drink, and this man is a liar.
Does narcissism count as a hobby? --Shawn Latimer
While you are correct in pointing out that many of the assumptions made in the west are a result of anti-soviet propoganda and downright wrong (athiesm == evil; communism can't work; Reagan was responsible for reform in Russia, not Gorbochov; etc.), you are wrong on a couple of points:
The same things happen within any large company [...] there is upper management in HQ, management in offices/branches, middle management, etc., all making their decisions on behalf of the company. The same kind of system was used in USSR. While I am not a fan of huge companies, last time I have checked, American economy is mostly ruled by them, so I don't see any fundamental difference.
The differences are twofold:
1) Central planning vs. unplanned "organic" self-organization. In the USSR, one government planned and executed the entire economy. In western capitalism, while each company (large and small) may or may not be autocratic, the economy is composed of thousands upon thousands of these autonomous entities operating within the economy. The only force even remotely "controlling" the economy is the Federal Reserve, and while it is in many ways far too involved in micromanaging the economy (see an earlier post I made), it is not the same as an economy centrally managed around Five Year Plans.
This is not to say communism couldn't work (it worked after a fashion for fifty years, though I wouldn't characterize the results as particularly stellar), but to point out that your assertion that there is little difference between an economy run by a central government and one in which numerous companies participate is simply false.
2) Democracy was IMHO the critical factor which allowed western capitalism to succeed in many areas where communism did not. Each economic system has its weaknesses and strengths, and both have lethal internal dichotomies and contradictions which, if left unaddressed, will consume their respective economic systems. Capitalism relies on free markets as its check and balance, with competition providing goods to consumers at the best price/product ratio. Unfortunately, unregulated markets become quickly dominated by one or only a few of the most successful producers, at which point competition dies, the free market ceases to exist, and the entire economic model begins to fall apart. Similarly with communism, the inherent notion that each contributes according to their ability and receives according to their need in an egalitarian context ignores the fundamental requirement that someone must administer the collection and distribution of goods. This administrator has inherent power over others, and the equality of the system is compromized. There to, eventually the economy devolves and falls apart. These are just a couple of examples, both systems have numerous other lethal flaws which I'm sure you'll recognize if you give it some thought.
The key difference is that, in the west, the democratic institutions provided avenues of generally peaceful (though often bitter and angry) feedback which resulted in legislation to curb the most extreme aspects of capitalism and provide dampening effects designed to prevent monopolists from destroying markets. Unfortunately for the communists, there was no such feedback mechanism to allow the system to recognize dysfunctions and remodel itself in order to alleviate those problems, until Gorbochov's 11th hour reforms which were too little, too late. Had that occurred in the 50's instead of the 80's I think history would have been much different, and we would be living in a world with two dominant and successful economic systems (which would probably be a more stable economic structure than an entire world with all of its eggs in the single capitalist basket).
The other point I think you miss:
Real prosperity is a bottom-up phenomenon.
This entirely depends on the society in question. Of course, in US concentration of wealth already made this point close to becoming moot.
Even in communist economies, it is the individual worker who produces the "wealth," whenever he or she converts a piece of rock into a statue, a piece of sheet metal, or a wrought-iron fence. In both systems wealth and prosperity are generated from the bottom up. Communism could have reformed to take this into account, had there been a democratic form of government in place to allow the necessary feedback and pressure to mandate such reform. (Think incentive, which capitalism, for all of its other problems, has down pat).
As to America being addicted to imports, the same goes for every country in the world (including the Soviets, who for many years as a communist nation received grain imported from the United States). Self-sufficiency is a myth. We live in a global economy, and have since at least the era of the Egyptians. Every nation is dependent on another for goods too numerous to mention. Neither the US nor the USSR were ever islands unto themselves, and although both met most of their internal needs themselves up until the early 20th century, neither could ever do fully without imports to (and exports from) their neighbors without suffering economic hardship.
The Future of Human Evolution: Autonomy
The really scary thing here is that this politician is real, and is actually getting votes. It's one thing when some right-wing wacko (in your home country or abroad) makes scary statements in an attempt to get attention; it's quite another when that wacko (and I feel justified in calling these people wackos) starts to get votes (8% and rising, according to the article). While I hope this guy doesn't mean what he says, some of it resonates strongly with what people in this country are saying. When he announces that they don't have AIDS in Russia (which they do, of course), he sounds awfully like some right-wing people here in the US who claim that AIDS only affects homosexuals, or the immoral, or people whose last name begins with T, or whoever.
I like this quote:
"Russia is a heavy drinking nation which is struggling to catch up with economically-advanced countries on the use of new technologies, such as the Internet, but a lack of resources and poor infrastructure confines progress to big cities."
So how is this different from here in the good ol' U.S. of A? Everyone knows Ted Kennedy can drink any Russian under the table, and I haven't seen many rural areas benefiting from (or even using) new technologies such as the Internet.
I think your political biases are showing by comparing Zhirinovsky to Buchanan...
Comparing the real life statements of Zhirinovsky to a parody of Buchanan is absurd. Perhaps you should grab a dictionary and look up "parody".
Zhirinovsky is an expansionist. He wishes to expand Russia to the Indian Ocean and reclaim the independent states. He is an economic socialist with nationist flavoring. Buchanan, on the other hand, is an isolationist. The opposite, in other words. He does not advocate making war on any nation. He is an economic capitalist with protectionist flavoring.
A Government Is a Body of People, Usually Notably Ungoverned
First I don't think that the Soviet system crushed itself. It just could not sustain an arms race with the most prosperous country on Earth. Additionally I cannot prove a thing, but I strongly suspect that the CIA had a part in the collapse of the Soviets. One of the more interesting articles that I have stumbled across is a 1984 article in the Whole Earth Catalog (not known for being a right wing publication) detailing how the 1982 events in Poland were orchestrated by the CIA operating with the Catholic Church in an experiment on using non-violent resistance. Given the events later in the decade I would not consider it beyond belief that said experiment was deemed a success and tried on a larger scale. (Proof, what is that? This is just a theory.)
Regardless of that, you are perfectly correct about what the Russian economy is. However the people were told that they were getting a free market economy, they have been told they have a free market economy, and that is what they are blaming their troubles on.
As for your dismissal, read some history. A signficant portion of economic reality is belief. What people believe is true, really is. Look again at Hitler. No, the Jews didn't hand away Germany in WW I. No, the Jews were not the cause of Germany's economic troubles.
Yet Hitler managed to come to power, and acting at odds with all accepted economic principles really did manage to take a ruined country and put it together (while the rest of the World was collapsing into the Great Depression). He really did rebuild the country. He really did produce the finest highway system ever seen. He really did make Germans proud to be German. He really did restore the military. He really did conquer Europe. Had he not been an idiot and nutcase, he would have kept it as well!
All of this despite the fact that his description of the causes of the existing troubles were completely loony, and despite (because of?) complete ignorance of how economics was supposed to work.
Just because someone is utterly mistaken does not mean that they cannot be very effective. Particularly in areas where belief is so critical.
Regards,
Ben
My usual seat in the cluetrain is at A HREF="http://pub4.ezboard.com/biwethey.ht
Please explain why it is you think command economies and a populace with no rights outside those granted by the govenrment are better than capitalism and personal autonomy and freedom. And don't rant about how bad the US is. Actually tell us what's so hot about the USSR, or any totalitarian socialist regeime anywhere. I'l admint to US isn't perfect -- especially since 1913. But I don't want to hear about how the US is "no better than" the USSR. I want to hear about why the USSR was so good, in your opinion.
Napster-to-go says "Fill and refill your compatible MP3 player", which is a lie. It's not MP3. It's WMA with DRM.
Heh heh heh.
Tom Swiss | the infamous tms | my blog
You cannot wash away blood with blood
There are large numbers of people who are still virgins and who have AIDS, much less being non-monogamous. They're called congenital victims of their mother's AIDS, or haemophiliacs, or other victims of tainted blood transfusions. The daughter of someone I know got HIV from a transfusion during cancer surgery when she was 1 year old.
And even that doesn't exhaust the list of people who are not non-monogamous and who have HIV. They're called spouses of people who practice unsafe extra-marital sex and contract HIV. Under your system of belief, there is still the presence of sin, but it is not that victim's sin that causes the suffering; for he/she is innocent.
And even that doesn't exhaust the list, but you can do the rest as a personal homework assignment from me to you.
"If one is really a superior person, the fact is likely to leak out without too much assistance" -- John Andrew Holmes
To quote you, what kind of fantasy world are you living in? They have had to import food staples for years. Don't tell me GUM was a lot of fun to shop at.
It was sufficient for its main purpose -- why shopping is supposed to be some kind of enterntainment (probably people here love having all their senses attacked with ads) is beyond me.
This difference is, companies fail when they plan wrong. They don't force anyone to do anything. They don't have an army.
After getting big enough company has as little chances to fail as a country with its government even when it makes completely bogus decisions at the upper level -- see GM, IBM, AT&T, etc. Even Microsoft in the very worst (for Microsoft) case will unlikely "fail" -- see examples of AT&T and Standard Oil.
Please explain why it is you think command economies and a populace with no rights outside those granted by the govenrment are better than capitalism and personal autonomy and freedom. And don't rant about how bad the US is.
I am not trying to defend abstract ideas of "communism", "capitalism" and "democracy". "No rights" isn't exactly how I can describe USSR, and "personal autonomy and freedom" is not exactly what I see in US. Discussion about extremes and utopias can be endless, and I refuse to even go into that direction. I am talking only about real countries and current political situation.
Actually tell us what's so hot about the USSR, or any totalitarian socialist regeime anywhere.
Where have I said that USSR or Communists were "good", or that I like or liked them? I only compare things and show the lies that anti-soviet propaganda put into americans' heads.
I'l admint to US isn't perfect -- especially since 1913. But I don't want to hear about how the US is "no better than" the USSR. I want to hear about why the USSR was so good, in your opinion.
Again, neither USSR, nor US were/are "good" -- both made more than enough of things that have nothing to do with "good". The problem is, Russians admitted them and even made a clumsy attempt of correcting the political system while Americans still insist that they are right in everything, that their political system is the best possible, that monopoly-infested economy works, and that they have a "right" to attack every country that they think, is not "democratic" enough for their taste. I find it to be hypocritic in the highest degree possible.
Contrary to the popular belief, there indeed is no God.
1) Central planning vs. unplanned "organic" self-organization. In the USSR, one government planned and executed the entire economy. In western capitalism, while each company (large and small) may or may not be autocratic, the economy is composed of thousands upon thousands of these autonomous entities operating within the economy. The only force even remotely "controlling" the economy is the Federal Reserve, and while it is in many ways far too involved in micromanaging the economy (see an earlier post I made), it is not the same as an economy centrally managed around Five Year Plans.
USSR was a Federation with 15 members, each with its own government and one central federal government. "Five Years Plans" never were detailed in the degree that can be called "micromanagement", AFAIK they mostly consisted of the planned volumes of production, and it "companies" were encouraged to exceed them in the reasonable range. Different branches of industry were handled by different "Ministries" (Departments) of the executive branch of government, and only finances and general planning/market prediction were centralized across the branches (Gosplan/Gossnab/...). Locally the decisions still were made by Directors of "companies" of various sizes, who were responsible to "the government" through various structures.
At least formally Ministries were responsible to "the people" through the government -- legislative branch of it ("Soviets") was elected just like everywhere else. Of course, since Communist Party had significant power over the whole this system, this mechanism quickly became screwed up, however this is not too unlike other countries where one or two similar parties taken over the whole political process.
Contrary to the popular belief, there indeed is no God.
Similarly with communism, the inherent notion that each contributes according to their ability and receives according to their need in an egalitarian context ignores the fundamental requirement that someone must administer the collection and distribution of goods. This administrator has inherent power over others, and the equality of the system is compromized.
This is a very common mistake about the nature of political/economical system that was present in USSR. While the idea of the "communism" was "from everyone according to abilities, to everyone according to needs", USSR never claimed to have actually implemented it. While the ruling party was called "Communist", "communism" was declared to be a distant goal of the development of _socialist_ country (USSR, Union of Soviet _Socialist_ Republics). It was declared that while people can't regulate themselves based on their own conscience, some system, in part based on governmental regulation, in part based on money, should be in place.
Contrary to the popular belief, there indeed is no God.
Sorry if I haven't made it clear -- socialist system that existed in USSR was _not_ supposed to implement "from everyone according to abilities, to everyone according to needs" principle precisely because it was declared to be not achievable by any means until people will voluntarily subscribe to this goal. While this Communists' final goal does not seem to be realistic, at least they admitted the imperfection of the system that they have used, and did not try to apply it to the things, it was useless for.
Contrary to the popular belief, there indeed is no God.
Sigh.
Napster-to-go says "Fill and refill your compatible MP3 player", which is a lie. It's not MP3. It's WMA with DRM.
Well, according to esteemed New York Mayor Giuliani, the Marxists never left the US and are still a menace today.
Just listen to the dishonorable senator from the state of North Carolina, Jesse Helms, who in 1995 argued for the cutting of Federal AIDS funding in as much as AIDS is a problem only facing "people deliberately engaging in unnatural acts".
And then there are plenty of other idiots espousing similar views, like Bob Enyart ("Gay stands for Got AIDS Yet?") and Fred Phelps (of godhatesfags.com fame, who leads protests at the funerals of people who die of AIDS).
Your other points are equally bogus, but I already fed another troll today. Look for an earlier post called "you depress me".
"If one is really a superior person, the fact is likely to leak out without too much assistance" -- John Andrew Holmes
All you Americans are whining all day is that everything non-western (in this case Russia) is evil If you truly believe this is what we say and we think, you don't understand Americans. We know Hitler was Western; we know he took a country of "good" people and created one of the most terrible forces in history. (It was Japanse subs that bombed the U.S., however; German subs confined themselves to sinking American ships within sight of the coast.) All it took was a charismatic, nationalistic lunatic who took advantage of terrible economic times. So what do we have in Russia? Looks like a disturbingly simi;lar situation. Look, Americans don't want to "keep Russia down;" we want an economically strong Russia that no longer feels a need for nukes, or at least no need to threaten anyone with them. If we could figure out how to build Russia's infrastructure to make that happen, we would. Unfortunately, our efforts so far seem to have done more harm than good, at least in Russia. (We do seem to have done rather better in Eastern Europe, and we're really hoping that starts to rub off.)
Ooh, a sarcasm detector. Oh, that's a real useful invention.
there was actually an SNL sketch about two weeks after that issue of the Onion came out (the week with Christina Ricci and Beck) that was exactly the same as the Onion article. It was called "who wants to eat" and had contestants from Bosnia, Etheopia, etc.
While it had some extremely clever interpretations of the Onion version (the set was the same wierd hi-tech thing as WWTBAM except the ceiling appeared to be made out of grass, the music was the same except it also had sitars.. the questions were rather funny, etc.) it's a sad day when you see the once-mighty Saturday Night Live stealing directly from the Onion.
Irritable, left-wing and possibly humorous bumper stickers and t-shirts
I must first put up a disclaimer of total ignorance: I'm not an economist, not a historian, and not even a closely interested observer. But I do have a point to make, and a question:
I (like most political pundits I've heard) was under the general impression that the primary cause of Russia's economic problems was simply endemic corruption caused by a too-fast attempt to switch to a free market system.
I'm not so sure anymore. Newsweek claimed recently that over half of the Russian economy was based on barter, as one of many figures they mentioned to demonstrate to readers that Russia's economy is in serious trouble.
I think it has more significance than that, though. People don't think to themselves, "I think I'll trade goods without paper money, because it will symbolize how screwed up our economy is." People barter because they don't have a trusted medium of exchange that they can use instead: either they don't have enough cash, or they don't have any cash they can trust.
We refer to "the Great Depression" instead of "the 1930 Recession" in good part because the U.S. government at the time didn't have a clue how to handle money; when the recession started, in a misguided attempt to preemptively prevent hyperinflation, the government cut back the money supply. Drastically. By over 50% on some indicators (It's been a while since I read this, and I don't so much as remember the difference between M1 and M2 now - the curious can check figures for themselves), and unemployment and GDP (in constant dollars) pretty much dropped in sync with the reduction in the money supply.
OK, I know this is simplistic, I know there were other major contributing factors (e.g. massive trade restrictions/tariffs) to the Great Depression... but the money supply may have been the largest single factor.
And it looks to me like something similar is happening in Russia. *Something* is causing people there to barter, whether it's a black market (which would imply those trade restrictions again), a government reduction in the money supply (trying to fight inflation, perhaps?) or simply the chain reaction of people pulling their money out of the country to avoid what they see as a financially dangerous situation.
Would someone who knows more about the situation in Russia than I do care to comment? Even if this was the problem, I'd have no idea how to solve it. Increasing the supply of fiat money (as eventually happened in the US when the government had to spend big in the late 30s and the 40s) would only work if inflation is in the single digits. Foreign aid and investment hasn't seemed to make a dent so far.
And this is a horrible situation, both for it's own sake and for what it implies for the future. People have already compared 1990's Russia to 1930's Germany, but even if Russia didn't end up in a political collapse, what would their economy's continued failure say about the development of a free market? That it's possible to kick an industrial economy into a depression state from which there is no return? That's almost too frightening to think about.
There, I think I made the guy's original point. "Immoral" in this context refers to the category that a particular religious group considers to be equivalent to the abstract notion of immorality. Whether or not they're right is another matter which I don't particularly care about.
This guy is a psycho. Listen to what he had to say in a press conference in April of 1998
... where there were too many Jews," he declared.
"The essence of the conflict around the Jewish people is that when their number grows too much in some country, war breaks out there," said Zhirinovsky, who leads the third-largest faction in the Russian parliament's lower house.
"That happened in Germany
Zhirinovsky, a former presidential candidate, has a flamboyant style and clearly relishes making provocative statements.
It was not clear why he called the news conference, which he turned into a monologue about his vision of the history of the Jews and their role in contemporary life.
"Many Jews were born in April," was the only explanation he provided.
Makes me sick. All I can say is that this guy will be put in his place, soon.
Old dude probably can't even turn on a fscking computer, let alone hack into the US. Now, I'm defintley not saying there are capable individuals in the former-USSR, cause there defenitely are. I just know that this guy is a racist nothing, and will be put in his place
The US probably has enough strings attached in Russia, to throw this guy with a nudge of a pinky finger, but that's left to be seen.
-----Transmission Complete----- If you want to email me...Don't
I realize this is pretty up-tight, but making Zhirinovsky out to be some fun-lovin', practical-jokin' frat-boy is probably not in anyone's best interests.
Its one thing to be cracking wise and making threats when you're in Delta House, but when you're a political leader who could (potentially) be controlling the world's second largest nuclear arsenal*, cracking wise about expansionism and assaults on other nations doesn't help your cred much.
It didn't work well for Reagan, and we shouldn't be laughing at this wacko either. I'd treat his threats seriously. It may be easy to dismiss him as a nut when he only has 8% share, but that 8% change rapidly (just ask anyone from Minnesota).
* alright, this may be FUD, I'm no longer sure of Russia's potential nuclear capabilities. Somehow I don't think they've gotten rid of everything yet though...
--sugarman--
He isn't stupid or crazy though. Never think that. His core constituency is anti-West. They have seen the West crush the Soviet system, lose them their empire, have a free market thrust down their throats only to bring utter poverty, disease, and hunger to them, and they don't like it. The more that he can make it seem that the West is afraid of him, the more they love him.
The resulting antics seem foolish, stupid, and bizarre to Western eyes. But don't dismiss him lightly. A violent, dispossessed, and easily manipulated minority in the hands of a rabble-rouser is a very effective hand to produce a dictatorship. May I remind everyone of a similarly audacious "lunatic" who unified a country, restored its economy, hope, and pride? I am speaking, of course, of a once-Austrian who wound up leading Germany, Adolf Hitler.
Sleep tight...
Ben
My usual seat in the cluetrain is at A HREF="http://pub4.ezboard.com/biwethey.ht
Although Slashdot may make him out to be a cuddly old bear with a sense of humor, Vladimir Zhirinovsky is actually a dangerous psychopath with a racist streak a mile wide. Look up his "terribly funny quotes" from the early nineties about Zionism and what he would like to do to recover the former Soviet empire. Hemos - please get a clue.
...led you to believe. I lived there for 23 years, and can definitely say that it was not "slavery" -- it was s system with significant flaws, however -- surprise -- the magnitude of human rights violations was in the same range a s what was practiced in most of the Western countries at the same time. The "economic engine" that Russia had was inefficient, however so is stock market -- contrary to the popular belief economic systems can be something other than capitalism. While I don't like Communists or their actions (and criticized their political decisions when I lived there), I have to acknowledge that they did have working and stable economy for at least half a century, and most of people in Russia (surprise again) didn't feel more threatened by the government and society in their everyday life than americans do now in US.
Eventually too many of the slaves drop their wrenches in the gears.
This is a blatant rewriting of history. At the time when political reforms started economy still worked normally. Only after that when unblalnced, screwed up reforms started, people started losing their income and started leaving their normal jobs for various kinds of "exploitation of the flaws in the system". USSR was destroyed because of political problems, not because its economy suddently became incapable of supporting itself.
As for your other point, why couldn't the USSR sustain an expensive arms rage with "the most prosperous country in the world?"
What kind of fantasy world are you talking about? Arms race was sustained for all duration of the Cold War with no noticeable advantage to any side.
They had more people, more natural resources. Rumor had it their populace was even "better educated." They didn't have any silly worker's rights and environmental laws to worry about.
Russian population was (and probably still is) better educated than american one -- US has probably the worst education system among developed countries, and Russians, with Communists or not, always taken education very seriously. Communists understood well that with their political and economical system they had to pay _more_ attention to education than other countries to keep the development of technology at the level and rate, comparable with others. And again, contrary to what propaganda led you to believe, there are worker rights laws, unions (however they are even more corrupt and affected by politics there than in US) and environmental protection laws.
They ignored age-old lessons. Rule of law (not men) and equal treatment under that law are essential.
Again, this is bullshit. While government often ignored their own laws when it could get away with it (what is not too much unlike US), laws actually existed and were enforced. One may say that those laws were unjust, however it's a different question -- IMHO american immigration-related laws are unjust, too. The part about "lesson" is especially ridiculous -- Russia, just like say, Japan, had no "age-old" traditions of democracy or capitalism.
You have to provide the means for people to succeed,
This (with "success" as multi-million income) is only specific to one particular kind of society. The remote possibility to "strike big" at the expense of all others (reality check -- most of people will never be able to reach anywhere close to the level of wealth they set their goals for because scarcity and concentration of wealth won't allow them) may be a valid driving force of human activity, however it's not the only one possible, and with the amount of blatant abuse that we see now (from Microsoft to Amazon.com) one can wonder if it more often works or being abused.
without mandating what they do and how they do it. Real prosperity is a bottom-up phenomenon.
This entirely depends on the society in question. Of course, in US concentration of wealth already made this point close to becoming moot. And considering that US depends on the import and dirt-cheap labor abroad like an addict on crack, it becomes even less relevant. With all its flaws USSR at least was capable of producing within its borders everything that was consumed there.
The Soviets tried to plan in advance, with some type of self-awarded omnipotence, what everyone was and was not going to do to make the USSR "successful."
The same things happen within any large company -- the same organization is responsible for all decisions. In companies there is upper management in HQ, management in offices/branches, middle management, etc., all making their decisions on behalf of the company. The same kind of system was used in USSR. While I am not a fan of huge companies, last time I have checked, American economy is mostly ruled by them, so I don't see any fundamental difference.
Contrary to the popular belief, there indeed is no God.
The dangerous thing about Hitler was that he could simultaneously draw the attention of the dregs of society while deflecting the attention of the politically powerful with the very same antics. "Reasonable" people thought he was just some kind of a colorful kook who got by by saying crazy things that made the disposessed feel a little better.
The Nazi party never won a real election, however they came to power because the political elite underestimated them and tried to use them as a political tool. Once they got a toehold in power, they surprised the politicians because they actually did everything they said they would so rapidly they threw everyone off balance and created an impenetrable climate of fear for any potential adversaries.
I wouldn't put it down to the Hitler's political brilliance, so much as the other politicians not understanding his agenda. Here's a kind of analogy. The responsible parties let the Nazis into the club to play a game of chess, on the proviso that they play only with pawns. Hitler accepted the invitation because he had a gun in his pocket, and his agenda wasn't chess but murdering everyone in the club and burning it to the ground.
The lesson -- you should never dismiss a bitter, violent fringe politician as an impotent kook, just because he'll never be able to put together an electoral victory.
Post may contain irony: discontinue use if experiencing mood swings, nausea or elevated blood pressure.
I am Russian, and I don't _ever_ drink anything "stronger" than coffee. You have problem with that?
Contrary to the popular belief, there indeed is no God.
Zhirinovsky is probably the most ridiculously-looking politician ever. Over all his political career he managed to spout insults on everyone but himself and ultra-right extremists, promised/threatened ridiculous things, and at least at one occasion started a brawl in the Parlaiment session, but so far haven't done anything visible to back his words. I have no idea who voted for him, but I suspect that such a vote could only be taken as a desperate expression of complete disrespect to Russian Parliament (Duma). In Russia no one except probably some drunken mentally sick types really cares what he says or does -- certainly not Russian hackers that mostly are intelligent people.
Publishing his rants in any non-tabloid place can mean one of two things -- either journalist is a moron, or it is done as an anti-Russian propaganda piece.
Contrary to the popular belief, there indeed is no God.
For a while I've felt that it would be useful
;-)
for me/somebody to make a web site outlining
the reasons that people might have for hating the U.S
...
Every time I read a Tom Clancy novel, the desire to make such a web site becomes almost overpowering.
Maybe the rest of the world hates us because we don't understand them; maybe we don't understand them because of where we get our ideas about them.
Seriously, having travelled a bit and known people from other countries, I would say it is an exaggeration to say that everyone hates Americans -- generally, I think the opposite is the case. People usually express very warm feelings towards Americans, and are very prepared to like you if you are one.
Now, attitudes towards American paternalism are a little less warm. The US is probably the most enlightened, least paternalistic super-empire in history, but the competition for this distinction is hardly challenging.
Americans tend to think we can do no wrong, so we paper over things we have done to others that they don't like, like meddling in their politics. It must seem surreal that Americans are getting bent out of shape because China might have funnelled an insignificant amount of money into the US elections, after the kind of bankrolling of political movements (not to mention propping up of dictators) we have done around the world. You can kind of see their point. I once had a colored South African woman working for me back during the 88 elections. She told me that she wished she could vote in the American elections, first because for once in her life she could get to vote, but also because the election of the American president had as big if not bigger impact on her prospects than it did for Americans.
On the other hand, I think the rest of the world sometimes overestimates what we can do, so that it seems like we want to call the shots, but not undertake the responsibilities that come with that authority. People who think this way naturally feel some contempt for the US government. Why this bothers Americans, I can't say -- reviling the US government is great sport here.
In the end, I wonder if all these issues are obsolete. Maybe the growth of international business will marginalize nations and governments as world actors.
Post may contain irony: discontinue use if experiencing mood swings, nausea or elevated blood pressure.
http://www.theonion.com/onion35 43/russian_meal.html
I literally snorted from laughter in Barnes & Nobles after reading this
Russians don't drink anymore? =P
This guy's a little pzykotic. He blamed Jews for the Holocaust and WWII, since "there were too many Jews"... this guys a looney.
"Kill all access, must kill all access"
-Mike.
-- "So, what's the deal with Auntie Gerschwitz et all?"
Others have addressed your other points, I just want to hit 2 of yours.
You ask, why couldn't the USSR sustain an expensive arms rage with "the most prosperous country in the world?" Well remember your history. In the 80's the USA massively sped up its half of the arms race, and provided a credible threat of developing an anti-missile system to protect itself against the USSR. The resulting over-expenditure was not really affordable by the US, and definitely could not be matched by the USSR.
As for the CIA, I read that article a decade ago, and would love to put my hands on it again. Essentially the policy that the CIA pioneered with the Solidarity movement in Poland was how to make a populace aware of their options for non-violent protest, help them organize, and bridge the gaps to let traditional sources of support (labor unions, Church, etc) be able to effectively help the movement.
These policies (for obvious reasons) can only work when the population is dissatisfied. Furthermore the alliance between the USA and the Catholic Church in the 80's is an open secret. Thirdly the collapse of the Soviet block happened as a series of movements that resembled Solidarity.
So given that in 1984 there were (very complimentary) press reports detailing how the events of 1982 in Poland were partly the result of a successful CIA experiment in encouraging non-violent protest, and given that a few short years later in Soviet country after Soviet country the governments came toppling down after very similar public protests, one cannot help but ask what the connection is.
Note that the CIA activity in Poland, while covert, was not unethical. It was largely a behind-the-scenes informing, teaching, and organizing role to encourage a democratic protest. In a system that blocks such protests, the effects can be quite...startling.
Cheers,
Ben
My usual seat in the cluetrain is at A HREF="http://pub4.ezboard.com/biwethey.ht
...if you have a border with Russia. This guy represents the dark side of Russia. The side we all want to forget about very quickly. However, Zyrinowski's party just got 25 seats in Duma (approx. 5.5%)
He made some headlines in Poland when he threatened to nuke Warsaw if Poland ever dared joining NATO. Imagine what is going to happen if he ever gets a majority vote. In a democratic country with a stable economy this guy would be considered a harmless lunatic and probably end up in an institution.
In a country that's effectively in an economic turmoil where the business, politicians and even the law enforcement is constantly suspected of corruption and democracy is widely confused with anarchy such demagogs have a rich basis for planting their propaganda.
Now that EU is actively trying to elbow-out the US forces from Europe by trying to create a European equivalent of NATO it could be the perfect timing to convince at least some Russians that there never was a better time to restore the former areas of influence...
Russia is in turmoil but that doesn't necessarily mean that its military force is weak. With the lack of prospects for decent living a lot of citizens will be more and more frustrated and generally become more prone to any extremist ideas. The victimizing of minorities, and politics of accusation will work in Russia's politicians favour (Mr Putin being the prime example).
Given that the majority of seats were won by the communist party and the pro-Chechnya-war 'Unity' coming close second it is clear that Russia is missing its communist past. Beware.
In support of Ben's observation-- as well as his analogy-- we should all bear in mind that Herr Hitler never had more than roughly 33% of the popular vote in Germany. Look at what a glorious mess he made with just 1/3 of the people. That Big Z (Newsweek, in an unchracteristic moment of decent writing, once dubbed him the "Laughing Fascist") currently only has an 8% market share is cold comfort.
Much Love,
"S"HM
*****
(I refuse to spellcheck out of contempt for your belief system)
Actually Zhirinovsky is very strongly loosing popularity. In the first Russian elections (~1992) he has got smth like 30% of all the votes and was a leading party in the parliamnet. Than his share was steadily slipping to the condition this year when there were big doubts that he will get 5% of votes that is a threshold to get in to parliament. Hi is a falling star. Surely he is a scary personality and, BTW, a former KGB agent. I hope that some time he will disappear from the Russian political scene.
Hehe.. hardly a day goes by on IRC where I'm not harrassed by a russian who wants me to read his latest virus source. In broken english he'll say how much he loved VLAD 4 and ask when the next mag is out. Unlike western virus crews, the russians have a real structure to their "virus clubs". I once received a newsletter from a russian virus club and they were saying that I could be come a "Wizard" if I liked. Oh please. The attitude to viruses is totally different over there. I just find it funny that Zhirinovsky's first name is Vladimir :)
You can read more about VLAD at http://www.virusexchange.org/vlad/.
How we know is more important than what we know.
- Their pride restored. During the U.S.S.R. Russia was a powerfull nations, whos armed forces could turn New York into a powerdercake, whos scientists were among the best in the world, where there was no unemployement, there was no crime, there was no AIDS and alcoholism was being fought against (if you were found drunk on the street, be ready to smell boots and loose your liver).
- Yankees go home. American cultural has infiltrated Russia much more then it has the rest of Europe. Every Russian girl dreams to be like an American slut. I doubt there is anyone in Russia who likes that.
- Order. Crime began to climb rapidly in Russia after the fall of Gorrbachev and the U.S.S.R. Streets are dirty, buttons in elevators are burned out, the whole country looks like a project in NYC.
If he comes to power, which he might, depending on how well Putin does (assuming he does get elected as the president) and how popular the communists become, many of US will know what a T66 is, just like we know what a Panzer is.Open letter to Zhirinovsky from his family:
Please, Zhirinovsky, we don't want to see you hurt yourself or others. We miss the old days when you didn't come home from the Duma in the middle of the night and urinate on the living room floor. There are people who can help you -- they've helped themselves and they've helped others before you. We have a book we want you to read. You don't have to do it if you don't want, but all the same we hope you'll do it. We love you. And little Sasha wants some help assasinating rival political opponents. Who will teach him if you don't? Please, if you won't do it for yourself, do it for us.
Tseluyem,
Vasha Sem'ya
"If one is really a superior person, the fact is likely to leak out without too much assistance" -- John Andrew Holmes