Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
The Courts Government News Entertainment Games

Bobby Fischer Found 1379

Posted by michael
from the governments-never-play-for-a-draw dept.
paulydavis writes "Former world chess champion Bobby Fischer, wanted since 1992 for playing a tournament in Yugoslavia despite U.N. sanctions, was detained in Japan for an apparent passport violation and will be deported to the United States."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Bobby Fischer Found

Comments Filter:
  • by LookSharp (3864) on Friday July 16, 2004 @09:41AM (#9715459)
    Kind of like busting Al Capone for tax evasion. The US has to bust him for playing in Yugoslavia in 1992 during sanctions, because since he's lost his mind he's been spreading all sorts of anti-US and anti-semitic propaganda around the world... even praising the 9/11 attacks. And we can't have things like unpopular speech going on during a war, eh? ;)

    Sad when a genius has his cheese slide off his cracker.
  • by amliebsch (724858) on Friday July 16, 2004 @09:42AM (#9715470) Journal
    There is a fine line between genius and insanity. Bobby Fischer erases that line.
  • So ... (Score:2, Insightful)

    by TheGavster (774657) on Friday July 16, 2004 @09:42AM (#9715476) Homepage
    We've been hunting a guy around the world for 12 years because he played a chess match in a country we didn't like at the time? Better ship him to Guantanamo - consorting with those chess players who happened to be in Yugoslavia must've been aiding and abetting those terrorists in some way!
  • Interesting. (Score:3, Insightful)

    by Tyranny12 (717899) on Friday July 16, 2004 @09:46AM (#9715502)
    What this says to me is he is suffering from serious delusions of grandeur, probably
    inspired by his need to run and hide for so long and proving himself the second time.
  • by Cavio (217880) <cavio@hotmail.com> on Friday July 16, 2004 @09:48AM (#9715521) Homepage
    Shouldn't there be some kind of rule against arresting somebody for violating a law that is no longer in effect?

    Heck, Yugoslavia doesn't even EXIST anymore. It's kind of a moot point.
  • by Swamii (594522) on Friday July 16, 2004 @09:49AM (#9715531) Homepage
    While it doesn't excuse any government for arresting a man, anti-semitic speech is always a bad thing, war time or no.
  • I can't sympathize (Score:2, Insightful)

    by erroneus (253617) on Friday July 16, 2004 @09:50AM (#9715539) Homepage
    At this point in the world's history, I cannot sympathize with anyone attempting to use false ID to travel. Further, if it's true, I cannot sympathize with his point of view regarding the senseless murder of thousands of innocent lives.

    If his only transgression were for the love of the game, the world would have forgiven him quickly... the court of public opinion would have ruled in his favor. This guy has hosed himself up pretty bad and now he's caught. If it's true that his views are against the people of Jewish faith and that he applauds the horror of 9-11, then the court of public opinion will rule against him if it hasn't already.

    I feel that there is a lot more going on than is being revealed though... I've seen crazy in a variety of ways, but there is something really weird about this case.
  • US Hypocrisy (Score:4, Insightful)

    by fpga_guy (753888) on Friday July 16, 2004 @09:51AM (#9715548)
    From the article:

    U.S. authorities accused him of violating U.N. sanctions imposed against Yugoslavia by playing the match.

    Yeah 'cos we all know about the US's unwavering respect for the UN [abc.net.au]...

    But only when it suits...

  • by Zak3056 (69287) on Friday July 16, 2004 @09:53AM (#9715568) Journal
    I actually don't think they should extradite either of them, but if you are going to do it, at least be consistent...

    Fischer isn't being extradited, he's being deported because his passport isn't valid. There's an important distinction there.

  • Of course he didn't take much flack. If a guy goes out and records an album for the sole purpose of increasing the awareness of an oppressed culture, you don't fault him for breaking the law you invented to inconvenience the opressors. It'd be political suicide.
  • by rifftide (679288) on Friday July 16, 2004 @09:57AM (#9715604)
    Not a bad idea. Memorization of openings has long been a dreary arms race, and machines have way more capacity than anybody else. Maybe they should try it on an exhibition basis during tournaments.
  • by Xiver (13712) on Friday July 16, 2004 @09:58AM (#9715607)
    Ah yes... since some people are not good at, or don't like, preparation / memorization they deem that it is cheating, not fun, and should be somehow removed from the game.

    <SARCASM>

    I can see that. I don't really like the dribbling part of basketball, maybe it would be more fun if I could just carry the ball across the court.

    </SARCASM>

    Other than moving pieces to where the should not be, how does one actually cheat at chess?
  • by flossie (135232) on Friday July 16, 2004 @09:59AM (#9715625) Homepage
    If his only transgression were for the love of the game, the world would have forgiven him quickly... the court of public opinion would have ruled in his favor. This guy has hosed himself up pretty bad and now he's caught. If it's true that his views are against the people of Jewish faith and that he applauds the horror of 9-11, then the court of public opinion will rule against him if it hasn't already.

    And since when has public opinion about someone's views been a legitimate means of determining whether or not they should be punished for breaking the law? Did you miss that whole "freedom of speech" bit in the US constitution?

  • by amliebsch (724858) on Friday July 16, 2004 @10:01AM (#9715650) Journal
    It's because his outspoken political views are not just unpopular, but based on premises that have little relation to reality.
  • by Anonymous Coward on Friday July 16, 2004 @10:02AM (#9715658)
    American officials apparently had been following his recent movements.

    We can't get enough forces into Afghanistan, but thank Gawd we're traking down Bobby Fischer...
  • by mumblestheclown (569987) on Friday July 16, 2004 @10:02AM (#9715665)
    What you say may or may not be true, but it bears noting that baseball and american football are two of the most intellectual sports around. In fact, off the top of my head i'm having a hard time coming up wih any examples of more intellectual major team sports (and mind you, I have been a rather serious futbol player for quite a number of years now - the beautiful game is more about skill, athleticism, and spur-of-the-moment creativity than intellect).

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

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

  • Re:Thank God!! (Score:1, Insightful)

    by Anonymous Coward on Friday July 16, 2004 @10:03AM (#9715667)
    We have another victory in the war against terror*.

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

    ** we = George W. Bush.
  • by Anita Coney (648748) on Friday July 16, 2004 @10:03AM (#9715676) Homepage
    While I'd never condone terrorist activity, I too would hate a country that tried to arrest me for simply playing chess. As an American I'm utterly embarrassed.
  • by No. 24601 (657888) on Friday July 16, 2004 @10:03AM (#9715677)
    who was a champion for the US during the Cold War. He's now the most wanted man [wikipedia.org] in the world.
  • by Rosco P. Coltrane (209368) on Friday July 16, 2004 @10:04AM (#9715683)
    Shouldn't there be some kind of rule against arresting somebody for violating a law that is no longer in effect?

    No. There's a fundamental principle in law called "retroaction" that says you can't be prosecuted for something you did in the past that contravenes a law that was passed after what you did, the only notable exception being war crimes and genocide (the Nazi atrocities were severe enough that the Nuremberg court simply ignored this rule and tried the Nazi officials with law made up after the fact).

    So Bobby Fisher should be tried for violating a law that existed when he did the deed, just as you shouldn't be prosecuted for driving at 70mph on a road that has a 50mph sign today, but had a 70mph sign when you drove on it.
  • by LookSharp (3864) on Friday July 16, 2004 @10:05AM (#9715686)
    Any generalized racial hatred is always a bad thing, anti-semitism included. Let's not forget that popular mindset in Europe right now appears to be that "Zionist Isreal crushing Palestinians is a very bad thing," and, less formally, "The US rails against 'religious extremists' (Muslims) while a good number of their people (fundamentalist Christians) seem to be equally as extreme."

    At least that's my take on it.
  • Hypocritcial?? (Score:3, Insightful)

    by Anonymous Coward on Friday July 16, 2004 @10:05AM (#9715698)
    They have a problem because he broke UN sanctions to go to Yugolavia to play chess?

    Didn't America and Britain go against the UN's wishes to send several thousand troops to Iraq to play war?
  • by AsbestosRush (111196) on Friday July 16, 2004 @10:07AM (#9715711) Homepage Journal
    Pardon while I feed the troll...

    and we understand that upper class tax cuts may provide a temporary "high" but will only lead to misery later on.

    Document this, and I *might* believe it.

    I don't know of a single person who doesn't want to keep more $$$ in their pocket. Those that make the most $$$ generally (not always, but generally) create jobs by doing one of two things:
    1. Becoming a consumer. These people purchase things that have to be manufactured, or want services that can only be met by someone else.
    2. Creating a business.

    Creating jobs broadens the tax base. Where's the loss for your "big government" needs there?
  • by Cecil (37810) on Friday July 16, 2004 @10:11AM (#9715755) Homepage
    There are altogether too many people on this story commenting what basically amounts to, "Oh, he's a crackpot anyway, who cares?"

    IT IS NOT OKAY TO ARREST PEOPLE FOR BEING CRACKPOTS.

    You can be locked up because you're insane, but only if you're a danger to yourself or others. I consider this a valid criteria. Bobby Fischer, despite doing things that you might consider insane, is in no way a danger to himself or to others, unless you consider it dangerous to hear things you don't like. And if you do, too bad, it doesn't make it true.

    Leave this man alone. He hasn't done anything substantially criminal. It's not like he was shipping food in violation of sanctions to the poor Yugoslavians or anything.
  • by miffo.swe (547642) <daniel.hedblom @ g m ail.com> on Friday July 16, 2004 @10:13AM (#9715773) Homepage Journal
    Would it be better if he was against people of muslim faith and if he applauded the thousands of innocent iraqis killed because of the UN sanctions and the ongoing war?

    I hate this double standard, cant take it anymore!
  • by Asic Eng (193332) on Friday July 16, 2004 @10:13AM (#9715777)
    Why should playing in a chess tournament be a crime?

    Well, I can see that one: it's propaganda support for a country his own country was at war with. (Not that the US had actually declared that war.)

    Still whatever he says, and no matter how offensive that is: he hasn't actually hurt anyone. I think even to bother looking for him for 12 years is way over the top.

  • by Richthofen80 (412488) on Friday July 16, 2004 @10:14AM (#9715778) Homepage
    It's certainly not considered that now (or in 2001).
    By Whom?

    The United States won the biggest brainiac contest in 1969 when we beat the entire world to the Moon. (although there was only one contender) The United States invented the motorized aircraft, the polio vaccinne, the internet, the light bulb, the movie camera. They discovered how to harness the atom bomb. We have a lot of intellectual achievement under our belt. Whether we won a chess tournament shouldn't contribute to that; I admire chess as a game or sport, but it is hardly an indicator of the intellectual capacity of a nation.

    I know what you're really saying; the rest of the world thinks we are loud, crass, and uncivil. They think so because we come with more common sense and know-how, and we call things like they are. Most Americans refuse to buy into the socialist dreams of the intellectuals of Europe. In Europe both the popular opinion and the opinion of the 'intellectuals' is one of self-sacrifice, egalitarianism, and anti-capitalism. In the US it is only our intellectuals. Our 'common folk' still believe in hard work and the self-made man, its why we've got a majority of the intellectual achievements of the last two centuries under our belts.
  • Re:Jesus! (Score:5, Insightful)

    by mirko (198274) on Friday July 16, 2004 @10:15AM (#9715794) Journal
    So, he's nuts, but did he kill anybody, how does this make him more dangerous than, say, some starving homeless guy with a knife ?
    And his views on history are his, which mean I do not give a fuck about conspiracy theorists as well as their opponents...
    Glorify him for what he is : a chess genius and do not publish things about what you think he doesn't do well enough.
  • by theJerk242 (778433) on Friday July 16, 2004 @10:15AM (#9715799) Homepage Journal
    wanted since 1992 for playing a tournament in Yugoslavia despite U.N. sanctions

    So this guy is in trouble for playing chess, while George W. Bush Jr. isn't (for waging an agressive war without the consent of the UN). It just goes to prove something....if you are going to go against the will of the UN, then do it big. And, also, make sure that your have the worlds strongest military backing you. After all, the U.S. military makes up a large chunk of the UN peacekeeper forces.

  • Re:US Hypocrisy (Score:2, Insightful)

    by EnglishTim (9662) on Friday July 16, 2004 @10:16AM (#9715804)
    I think if the chair on Human Rights abuses had to come from a country with a clear record on Human Rights, we'd need to import someone from another planet. Certainly I can't think of a suitable country off the top of my head... Iceland, perhaps?
  • heh (Score:1, Insightful)

    by Anonymous Coward on Friday July 16, 2004 @10:17AM (#9715812)
    He, like many others has fallen in for the romantic idea that somehow being good at chess makes you intellectually "better". This is patently not true.

    As I highly doubt he as any capacity in international relations, programming or physics next to graduates in those respective disciplines.... and I would put each of those many times ahead of chess in terms of importance to the world, and in the range of skills needed to be sucessful in them.

    The whole "crisis" that happened when the top human chess player was beaten by a computer was an example of that romantic myth of the chess player as representing human intellect. And yet even now computers STILL have trouble stringing sentences together.

    I would also like to point to the IQ myth in this rant as it too (through orgs like mensa) has been overly inflated. I say overly inflated because it is *one* metric. And that one metric should not be used to judge a persons worth. I would maintain that there is no master narrative of what constitutes intelligence - there is only synthesis of analysis that results in action.... which may or may not lead to benefit... that very benefit is also a subjective measure.

    There is a reason why rhodes scholars are often leaders of countries and in important positions (clinton, hawke etc.) and they may well have high IQs in addition to their other skills. But their defining characteristics are not their raw computation - and I would have to suggest that people who go on and on about chess and IQ and actually quite insecure.

    But I am not an important person, or a world leader... nor a member of mensa or a chess grandmaster. So I guess my opinion counts for shit right?

  • Clearly.... (Score:5, Insightful)

    by zandermander (563602) on Friday July 16, 2004 @10:19AM (#9715827)
    You've never had to escape from people bent on killing your entire ethnic group.

    Not that I have, mind you, but I would think you have heard of the Holocaust, Cambodia (ever see The Killing Fields?), Rwanda and even what went on in South Africa for so long.

    At this point in the world's history, I cannot sympathize with anyone attempting to use false ID to travel.

    I don't know about you but if were being persecuted and all I needed to do to escape harm was to use a false ID, I think I'd choose the false ID.

    Sometimes the right thing to do is to ignore and/or willfully break stupid laws.

    Sorry for sounding so harsh but that part of your comment was pretty dumb. Seeing mountains of skulls in Cambodia has a way of changing your point of view.
  • by MORTAR_COMBAT! (589963) on Friday July 16, 2004 @10:20AM (#9715833)
    Personally I think it's quite sad. Bobby has a serious mental illness of some kind, and as it has run un-checked for so many years he is regarded widely as just being a nut-job. When he mostly just needs to get some psychiatric help.

    I think it is a reasonable assumption that:
    1. Bobby Fischer will try to defend himself
    2. He won't be allowed and his lawyer will find him not guilty by reason of insanity.
  • by aePrime (469226) on Friday July 16, 2004 @10:20AM (#9715835)
    Pardon while I feed the trol...

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

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

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

    I'm no economist; this is just the say I see things.
  • by reidbold (55120) on Friday July 16, 2004 @10:20AM (#9715838)
    Every sport involves deep strategy. Just because you are not familiar with these strategies doesn not mean the don't exist.

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

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

    Maybe ultimate frisbee? All that requires is getting in the open. And even that requires some planning.
  • by lpp (115405) on Friday July 16, 2004 @10:20AM (#9715840) Homepage Journal
    And the toss it in the bank to earn interest.

    And the bank gets the money to pay the interest by loaning the money out.

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

    The homes are bought and money goes out to various individuals related to that industry. And the cars are bought likewise. And the personal loans are taken out to pay for various things around the house or what not. And the lines of credit likewise.

    And the business loans? The business loans pay for new equipment (which will operated by new employees) and new buildings (which will be occupied by new employees) and new employees, which will.. erm.. right.

    Anyway, while I'm not convinced about trickle down theory myself, to simply stop and say "Well, they toss it in the bank and that's it" is a bit short sighted.
  • Mentally Ill (Score:2, Insightful)

    by Black-Man (198831) on Friday July 16, 2004 @10:20AM (#9715843)
    His mother was Jewish, yet Jews are "lying, stealing bastards"? He's so intelligent, he uses phrases only illiterate morons would use?

    He needs locked up all right... in the mental ward.
  • Lame excuse. (Score:2, Insightful)

    by miffo.swe (547642) <daniel.hedblom @ g m ail.com> on Friday July 16, 2004 @10:21AM (#9715849) Homepage Journal
    Land of the free my ass. This is just an example of how the US misuse laws to detain uncomfortable people. Im just waiting for Michael Moore to be imprisoned for using the wrong kind of sunblock.

    How is it that in the US you can say pretty much anything about muslims but call Israel (not jews as a group, the country damnit!) something you are toast? Free speech cant be selective you know.
  • by TrentTheWiseA (566201) on Friday July 16, 2004 @10:22AM (#9715868)
    You might think about Nascar racing as an intellectual sport, if you get past the redneck stereotypes. Calculating pit times, average speeds, fuel consumption, drafting to save fuel, remaining laps, average lap speed, etc, etc, etc,..

    It's amazing how much skullwork goes into planning and managing a driver in a race.
  • by Anonymous Coward on Friday July 16, 2004 @10:24AM (#9715883)

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

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

  • by Anonymous Coward on Friday July 16, 2004 @10:25AM (#9715888)
    Unless Bill puts his money underneath his mattress, or buries it in the back yard, then the money is out in the economic system. And poor people tend to spend their money poorly, like lottery tickets, and another Dale Earnhardt commemorative plate, "I can't guarantee the plate will go up in value, but all the other ones have."
  • by Anonymous Coward on Friday July 16, 2004 @10:27AM (#9715904)
    All of those achievements were made by people from other countries, including European intellectuals like Wherner von Braun, who spent his childhood dreaming of the stars...
    Were would he be if his Dad was a loud obnoxious football-watching overweight moron who beats his 'nerd' son?
  • by Anonymous Coward on Friday July 16, 2004 @10:30AM (#9715936)
    The parent gets +2 Funny? +2 FUNNY for the same never ending "bush is st00pid" mantra these tools like to go on and on about? Is this the only joke you idiots actually comprehend?

    Wait, sorry.. I forgot I was on slashdot. Where people can say anything they want. Well, as long as they aren't a) deeped WASP, b) religious, or c) economically sound.
  • by torpor (458) <jayv@@@synth...net> on Friday July 16, 2004 @10:30AM (#9715940) Homepage Journal
    Whether we won a chess tournament shouldn't contribute to that; I admire chess as a game or sport, but it is hardly an indicator of the intellectual capacity of a nation.


    what you and your american grandparent (post) are failing to understand, entirely, is that this is a conversation about propaganda, and ways in which fischer was used as a propagandist tool, in that era.

    in such a realm, none of the bold, assertive, we-are-the-best american 'facts' you and your brethren spout forth, have -any- bearing whatsoever. propaganda is not a 'truth' realm, its not about whats real.

    it amazes me today that americans -still- know nothing about propaganda, and fail to accomodate it continually in their dialectic views of anything that might be 'anti-american'.

    whether or not america 'is the best' at anything, at the time of the fischer (propaganda) project, the fact is: general, popular culture, in realms all over the world, had a pretty dim view of american 'thuggery' and whether the holy american system really was any better than communism/socialism.

    fischer was not just about soviet-era 'games' (which we all know americans will always, always win, at), it was also about softening peoples upset over such things as vietnam, korea, etc... remember kids: the cold war was certainly not just between the soviets and the capitalists.

    propaganda. learn it, or suffer under its ever-dominant rule, its a religion holier even than The American Way ...
  • by RevAaron (125240) <revaaron@hot m a i l.com> on Friday July 16, 2004 @10:30AM (#9715941) Homepage
    No joke. One of the reasons the wealthy are wealthy is that they know how to save. How to put their money somewhere it gains interest, be it the bank or the market.
  • by Anonymous Coward on Friday July 16, 2004 @10:35AM (#9715993)
    he is using fake ids to travel?

    that is a pretty decent crime.

    the fact he is a crackpot just makes him more interesting.

    but the japanese arrested him, for a REASON, he broke the law.
  • by amliebsch (724858) on Friday July 16, 2004 @10:35AM (#9715997) Journal
    it amazes me today that americans -still- know nothing about propaganda

    Fancy that, Americans care more about reality than appearances.

  • by AmericanInKiev (453362) on Friday July 16, 2004 @10:36AM (#9716000) Homepage
    I would suggest that cheating involves getting to the front of the race by some route or means other than sheer force of personal intellect and a life free from intrusion.

    "memorizing" openings invented by great minds other than your own is akin to playing Bethoven's fifth - it's really great stuff - but it aint' YOUR stuff.

    Think of tic-tac-toe. I know all the openings - I know all the responses - and there isn't any fun left in the game. Admittedly my chess has not matured to that point - but in some circles it has pretty nearly - and I believe this is the fun he's talking about.

    Apparently he has got himself a world-class attitude problem. - I feel sorry - seems mostly harmless in spite of his vitriol.

    AIK

  • by Amarok.Org (514102) on Friday July 16, 2004 @10:38AM (#9716022)
    I know what you're really saying; the rest of the world thinks we are loud, crass, and uncivil. They think so because we come with more common sense and know-how, and we call things like they are.


    Yes, the rest of the word sees us as loud, crass, and uncivil. It's not, however, because we have common sense or know-how.


    (FWIW I'm an American, quite proudly)


    Travel somewhere else in the world where Americans travel or vacation. Pick a quiet bench somewhere and just watch. It's quite easy to spot the Americans, generally. They're loud, crass, and uncivil. As a stereotype, they tend to expect and demand status in their new locale simply based on their classification as "American". "I'm an American," they boast loudly to anyone who will listen. The fact is, no one really cares. Of course we have a long list of accomplishments to be proud of - but it doesn't give us the right to disregard foriegn cultures or customs - particularly when we're IN that culture.


    There's a reason the average American tourist gets treated poorly or at least indifferently in most countries - we don't make the effort to be sensitive to the environment we're in. There's a certain swagger Americans like to put on while travelling and it's quite insulting to the locals. We as a country get branded as loud-mouthed hicks, because those are the people that are most visible. If only more Americans would grab their own kind and say "Shut up, you're in someone else's country, be respectful," Americans would have a better reputation. It all comes down to respect. As Americans we're taught from day one that we're the superior, chosen country - and the weaker minded often try to remind the rest of the world of it too.


    All it takes to change this perception is respect - respect your own country enough to make a good impression, and respect your hosts enough to play by their cultural rules. If you don't like their cultural rules, go back home.

  • by Bob_Robertson (454888) on Friday July 16, 2004 @10:39AM (#9716033) Homepage
    Obviously an Enemy Combatant. Put the trator in irons!

    But seriously, let the guy live his life as he sees fit. Has he hurt anyone?

    Bob-
  • by raehl (609729) * <raehl311@@@yahoo...com> on Friday July 16, 2004 @10:39AM (#9716035) Homepage
    He's saying that people who play chess well need to be way smarter than people who play football well. Is playing football a more intellectual activity than say, tennis? Maybe, for certain positions.

    But there are plenty of really stupid pro football players. I don't know any really stupid chess players.

    Anyway, most sports are not really that intellectual at all - maybe in the COACHING aspect of it, and the analysis aspects (you can analyze snail movement if you'd like to, and do it in a way only smart people would be able to handle), but when you're PLAYING, it's performance is less "intellectual" than ingrained, trained responses.

    Learning to play most sports is a matter of learning the rules of how to play (through coaching) along with practice to make following those rules natural. It's not intellectual, it's memorization.

    You can't memorize all of chess - once you're a few moves in, you're going to have to figure out, right then, what the best move is.
  • Re:US Hypocrisy (Score:5, Insightful)

    by b-baggins (610215) on Friday July 16, 2004 @10:41AM (#9716054) Journal
    Oh, for crying out loud. Are you seriously maintaining the asinine argument that putting a brutal, oppressive, murdering, dictatorial regime as the Chair of the Human Rights Commission is no big deal because there is no nation in the world with a perfect record on human rights?
  • by RobinH (124750) on Friday July 16, 2004 @10:41AM (#9716058) Homepage
    The United States invented the motorized aircraft, the polio vaccinne, the internet, the light bulb, the movie camera.

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

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

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

    Check this out, brainiac: The History and Geography of Inventions. [krysstal.com]
  • by hraefn (627340) on Friday July 16, 2004 @10:45AM (#9716097) Homepage

    I beg to differ.

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

    It also requires the most cojones.

    ESPN.com did a nice article [go.com] that reflects this.

  • by arivanov (12034) on Friday July 16, 2004 @10:46AM (#9716114) Homepage
    The links from there make an even more interesting read. Especially this quote from a BF interview:

    Bobby Fischer: But it was in violation, apparently, of an order, an executive order which President Bush had signed, uh, I think in around May of 1992, that forbid Americans to, uh, do business with Yugoslavia, unless, of course, they had permission or an exception from the government, which I didn't get. Everybody got it. CNN gets it, all these Jew controlled outfits get it, and you know, you know how many people were involved in that match, nobody was indicted? Spassky wasn't indicted, he played. The [...] government didn't indict him. And I'll tell you something else about Spassky. He played in that match, nobody indicted him. That guy has been to the U.S. at least a few times since the match. He can go to the U.S. Nobody touches him. He played in the match just like me. The U.S. government doesn't give a damn about arresting him. They only want to arrest me. Eugene was over there. He made a nice pretty penny there. The Philippine government doesn't wanna put him in jail. There were a lot of people involved in that match. Nobody wants to put anybody in jail but me. They wanna put me in jail cause the Jews are behind all this. They're behind everything. They're orchestrating everything, this, uh, indictment, this movie, the forged Batsford edition of My 60 Memorable Games, this fake forged book, called umm uh, I mean CD-Rom called Bobby Fischer Teaches Chess. Now they're behind this mega-robbery of all my stuff at the Pasadena storage house, the robbery and auctioning off of all this stuff. You know, they grabbed this stuff on the cheapest, meanest trick. The most transparent ploy you can imagine. This fuckin Elsworth, deliberately, they used a secret Jew I'm sure...deliberately, behind my back, just stopped paying for six months. I sent him the check. You saw the check, Pablo.

    While the interpretation is rabid paranoia, the facts are definite. CNN made billions in advertisement time warmongering in ex-Yugoslavia. We used to stage bets where the next shootout will be based on where their crew went. Spasski was never indighted for the embargo. Noone dealing with any chess material from the games was indighted either

  • by neonduckshoe (642320) on Friday July 16, 2004 @10:48AM (#9716137)
    That's an excellent example. Bill gates is fairly representative of most tax payer after all... ACK..AHEM... ERR...
  • by Tassach (137772) on Friday July 16, 2004 @10:49AM (#9716138)
    One of the reasons the wealthy are wealthy is that they know how to save
    Yeah, it's easy to save 10% of your income when you're making $250K/yr, can afford to hire a top-notch tax advisor and can afford to put thousands of dollars into tax shelters. It's a bit more difficult to save 10% of your income when you're making $25K/yr and you have kids to support. The guy making $250K can save $25K a year effortlessly, with zero impact on his family's standard of living. The guy making $25K can save $2.5K a year but doing so will seriously hurt his family's standard of living.
  • by sbma44 (694130) on Friday July 16, 2004 @10:50AM (#9716147)
    Actually Utimate, when played at a high level, involves a lot of strategy. There are a number of different defenses and offenses. Interestingly, the entire defensive team needs to react in unison when the disc changes hands on the offensive side -- the person doing the guarding tries to force the thrower to one side or the other (to either a conventional backhand throw or a 'flick', depending on that thrower's individual strength). Everyone else needs to adjust the defense they're playing to anticipate the disc arriving from that direction. It's quite a trick.

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

    But I only played college ultimate for one semester six years ago -- I'm sure there's a lot more to it than I picked up, and that the strategy has advanced since then. In fact, the reason I stopped playing (besides not being physically competitive with the amazing athletes that succeed at the sport) was that there was too much strategy -- I had learned Ultimate in basic pickup games, with lots of quick cuts and flashy plays. Played at a high level, the sport was too disciplined and complex for me to find it much fun.
  • by shlaf (714970) on Friday July 16, 2004 @10:50AM (#9716149)
    It's ISRAEL, not ISREAL, for God's sake!

    As to the popular mindset in Europe right now appears to be that "Zionist Isreal crushing Palestinians is a very bad thing," -- the Europeans happen to be blissfully ignorant.

    Granted, Israel is a Zionist country(that's all Zionism is about -- creation of a state for Jewish people). The conflict isn't about "crushing" so-called Palestinians (more correct term is Palestinian Arabs, since Palestine is just a name for the region where Israel happens to be as well) -- it's about refusal of all Arab world (more than 20 countries) to accept existence of Israel. That is Arabs want to destroy Israel, whereas Israel wants not to be destroyed.

    Europeans chose to be on the Arab side for many reasons, partially for their historical anti-semitism, partially for their desire to appease their own Islamic population (more than 10% of citizens of Belgium are emigrants from Muslim countries), partially for their dependency on Arab oil and investments based on oil money.

    And sorry, but with all disgust I feel agains all kinds of extremism, Islamic extremists happen the most brutal and dangerous (based on their actual deeds). I never heard of a Christian fundamentalist fanatics blowing up a passenger bus or taking hostages or decapitating prisoners.

    Allahu Akbar, dear Europe!
  • by Swamii (594522) on Friday July 16, 2004 @10:52AM (#9716169) Homepage
    I'd say your mostly right, with the exception of fundamentalist Christians. We're trying too hard there to make all fundy groups sound bad. Think about it, fundamentalists Christians are people like Billy Graham and Pat Robertson. The closest thing I can think of is some wild hick bombing an abortion clinic, but even that happens rarely (once a year at most?) and is looked down upon by people like Robertson and Graham. Not trying to minimalize the horrific act of bombing an abortion clinic, just trying differentiate fundamentalist Christians (generally peaceful people) with fundamentalist Muslims (carrying out bombings almost daily in Israel, kidnapping and murdering Americans in Iraq and worldwide). I do heartily agree about the mindset in Europe though. It's sad to see anti-semitism rising there once again.
  • by multimed (189254) <.mrmultimedia. .at. .yahoo.com.> on Friday July 16, 2004 @10:55AM (#9716189)
    OK so he applied a judge's definition to his answers there. But whose definition was he using when he got in front of a national TV audience & said the same thing? While that very specific definition may have applied during the scope of his testimony, he knew full well that the rest of the country had no such limited connotation.

    What to this day still upsets me is the limousine liberal mentality that some how the rules don't apply. Most of the same people who fought so hard for society to take seriously sexual harassment and in particular, women taken advantage of by their bosses or other men in authoritative positions, were so quick to completely excuse and defend Clinton for doing it. And no it's not relevant that she was a willing participant--he was the President of the United States and she was an intern!

  • by aananth_s (609832) on Friday July 16, 2004 @10:56AM (#9716203)
    They discovered how to harness the atom bomb

    And how many german scientists worked on it ;)

  • This reminds me of the whole cold-war artists-being-deported-to-Russia mentality brought to the screen in the White Nights. Baryshnikov got to play a thinly disguised version of himself in White Nights, but Fisher probably doesn't have the acting skill to pull the same trick off here.

    Of course in the movie version they'll have Fisher passing secrets to terrorists in chess moves, and they'll haul him off to Guantanamo for questioning where a quirky hero-worshiping chess-playing chaplain will change Fisher's mind about jews and help him escape to Cuba...
  • by evan_th (791330) on Friday July 16, 2004 @11:00AM (#9716238)
    I disagree. There is a lot of memorization involved in chess - attack and defensive strategies. I know that it takes a lot of improvisation and personal technique once you get farther into the game but being able to recognize these and utilize them during a game is very important to any serious chess player.
  • by Brian_Ellenberger (308720) * on Friday July 16, 2004 @11:01AM (#9716248)

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

    Two points:

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

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

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

    Brian Ellenberger
  • by dogbowl (75870) on Friday July 16, 2004 @11:02AM (#9716257) Homepage
    While I can't deny *everything* you've said, the traits you mentioned above certainly are not unique to Amercians.

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

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

  • by Deathlizard (115856) on Friday July 16, 2004 @11:04AM (#9716280) Homepage Journal
    In the case of Bill Gates, most of his wealth is tied to the stock market, where he heavily invests. That's why he lost a ton of his wealth when the stock market blew up in 2000.

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

    It drives me nuts that people actually believe that the rich are all like "Scrooge Mc'Duck" and have a huge 5 story safe where they put all the money in. That may be true for some rich eccentrics, but most wealthy entrepreneurs tend to invest a majority of their wealth in the stock market for the long term.
  • by Smeagel (682550) on Friday July 16, 2004 @11:06AM (#9716301)
    He's not talking about trick down, he's talking about money growth through investment. If you invest 10 dollars, and there's a minimum hold of $1 for the bank, it can loan 9 back out. That 9 is deposited back in the bank, now they have to hold 90c and can loan 8.10 back out. The eventual effect is that the money grows VERY fast. Many more people have more money to work with, lots more investment and production.

    You give it to the government, they spend it -- poorly on something that is HORRIBLE for the economy (like Unionized workers). Then it's done. In our society there seems to be some crazy notion that leaving your money sitting in the bank is going to stagnate our economy, which is only true if no investment is taking place at all. In truth the more money sitting in the bank (theoretically, government regulation can change this) the lower the interest rate is, and the more appealing it is to invest.
  • by Anthony Boyd (242971) on Friday July 16, 2004 @11:06AM (#9716310) Homepage
    Leave this man alone. He hasn't done anything substantially criminal.

    Substantially? Who gets to define that?

  • by TamMan2000 (578899) on Friday July 16, 2004 @11:09AM (#9716342) Journal
    But whose definition was he using when he got in front of a national TV audience & said the same thing? While that very specific definition may have applied during the scope of his testimony, he knew full well that the rest of the country had no such limited connotation.

    I agree it was slimy of him, but was it illegal? If bold face lying to the american public was an impeachable offence, I have no doubt that every president since Carter (and probably him as well), would have been impeached.
  • by Anonymous Coward on Friday July 16, 2004 @11:12AM (#9716374)
    I don't give my money to the government, they take it. The greatest powers that the common person has is the right to vote and the ability to spend their money wherever they choose. Government doesn't really listen to the common people except once every four or so years but it listens to business all the time. Businesses, however, MUST pander to the consumer in order to survive. If people stopped buying gas from Exxon, Exxon would be in trouble very quickly, if the government cracked down on them it may take a decade or more to work out -- Valdez anyone? Business must ask me for my money -- they cannot take it. Government can take it. Once I lose that power they no longer have to come to me for my money. Then, I am at the mercy of the state.
  • by Anonymous Coward on Friday July 16, 2004 @11:15AM (#9716434)
    And how is this different from our current president "lying" to us and starting a war? Sure he didnt tell intelligence to find WMDs he just said "Find anything on Saddam so we can attack him", then lied to start a war and kill Americans. Not much different in my opinion, and a whole lot more immoral. But I am sure you will find some nit picky difference.
  • Re:Jesus! (Score:3, Insightful)

    by Toadpipe (606624) on Friday July 16, 2004 @11:18AM (#9716490) Homepage

    Seeing as most autistics tend to be very very good with mathmatics, him being a chess genius and an aut would make a bit of sense.

    His paranoid conspiracies aside, the only thing this man did that was illegal was play a chess game in a country we didn't like. Not exactly a dangerous criminal mastermind. Just a guy would played a game in violation of sanctions.

    This is total bullshit, Bobby Fisher should be freed.

  • by Anonymous Coward on Friday July 16, 2004 @11:20AM (#9716518)
    its amazing, all these foreign born people keep coming to the US? But We're so Loud, and Crass, and Anti-intellectual.

    He states his residence as Salem. He might not have been an American Citizen, but he moved here and became a de-facto american. The 'brain drain' is nothing new. the brightest minds know america. they come here because we, at least still somewhat, honor achievement and talent and greatness.
  • by radish (98371) on Friday July 16, 2004 @11:21AM (#9716539) Homepage
    Formula 1 racing is a team sport, and is probably the most technical in the world. From the car designers, software engineers and mechanics through to the team strategists who plan how much fuel to load and when, with what tyres and how to respond to the actions of the other teams. And that's without even considering the drivers....

    IMHO, that qualifies as intellectual.
  • by Slime-dogg (120473) on Friday July 16, 2004 @11:23AM (#9716578) Journal

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

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

  • by Xiver (13712) on Friday July 16, 2004 @11:24AM (#9716596)
    Osama Bin Laden [wikipedia.org] was never a champion for the US.

    Like many allies we once had a common enemy.
    Even then he viewed the US as infedels to be dealt with later.
  • by qeveren (318805) on Friday July 16, 2004 @11:28AM (#9716653)
    *laugh* Uh... yeah.

    So... the United States pays for every other nations' enlightened rehabilitative justice system, sure.

    You DO realize that the prison industry in the United States is exactly that: a private industry? It's in their best interests to have as many people as possible in jail at any given time. That's how they get paid, silly.

  • Re:Mentally Ill (Score:3, Insightful)

    by ajs (35943) <ajs&ajs,com> on Friday July 16, 2004 @11:28AM (#9716665) Homepage Journal
    Ok, I didn't listen to the recording (will try to get a chance later), but I'm curious: did he say anything that was actually antisemitic or did he just express the opinion that the holocaust was a hoax? The latter is almost certainly an incorrect opinion (I've met too many people who were there or whose parents were there not to believe), but holding that opinion does not make one an antisemite... obviously, it is in the political favor of an antisemite's arguments to hold such an opinion, and for their opponents to label anyone who holds such an opinion as either a crackpot (probably true) or antisemite (unfounded).

    However, I would think that this late in the game, we would understand the difference.

    Worse, labeling someone who doesn't acknowledge that tragedy as being against any one group devalues the lives of the other groups (e.g. homosexuals, Gypsies and political prisoners) who were killed.
  • by danheskett (178529) <danheskett AT gmail DOT com> on Friday July 16, 2004 @11:37AM (#9716824)
    Ok, IANAE (I am not an economist),
    Imagine that. A person without economic background trying to tell policy makers what to do.

    but from what I understand the "trickle down effect" just doesn't work the way people want it to.
    There isn't any thing related to "trickle down" going. Behind the rhetoric is something called Supply-Side economics" [wikipedia.org]. It's a serious topic that academics and policy wonks debate.

    Giving them even more isn't going to
    It's not "giving" them more. It's adjusting everyone's rate equally. For example, if the top rate was 25%, another rate 16%, and the bottom rate 12%, a 50% tax cut would mean that rates were 12.5%, 8%, and 6%. A person making 20,000 year taxed at the bottom rate would go from paying 2400 to 1200, a savings of $1200. A person making 150,000 would go from paying $37,500 to $18,750. That means in political rhetoric terms "The rich were given 94% of the tax cut with the poor only getting 6%" is completely accurate.

    big an impact as doing the same to a poorer person.
    See, now, that is just silly. If you are trying to get capital back into the marketplace, would you rather send back $1200, or $18,750?

    Secondly, the rich still only make up a small percentage of the world's
    Yes, but what you don't realize is that the rich pay the VAST majority of income taxes. The top 50% of income earners pay 96% of all income taxes paid. (link [ustreas.gov]).

    And lastly, the money spent by a rich person doesn't really trickle down to the needy
    Can you trace the history of a rich person from point a to the pocket of poor person b? Of course not. It's a complex system that takes *years* to fall into place. Again, it is way more complicated than I think you can grasp in this situation. Additionally though, it was claimed that the "rich" were going trickle down to the poor.

    When they buy up-market products, the money will very quickly "leave" the local area since it's likely to be imported (no matter where they live).
    Wrong. The total value of goods and services consumed in the US is 10.40 trillion for last year (link [wikipedia.org]). The trade deficit totals about $200B (link [caltradereport.com]) a year. That means we import more than export. Even if you figure the rich will tend to import more than your average person, it is not reasonable to assume that most of their spending will go overseas.

    The money goes to some company, and executive pay is almost universally improportionate to the worker's pay.
    This is a major issue: productivity and profitiability are way up, but so far wages are flat. This however has nothing to do with "trickle down". What does happen however is that employment increases. Which is what we have seen. So far this year it is estimated that 1.4 million jobs have been created (link [nzherald.co.nz]). That is significant.

    tax cut for the poor would have made a much better and longer lasting impact to many more people
    Here is the little dirty secret that people who don't know what is going on don't realize. The poor in this country pay very, very, very little income tax. If you are literally poor, as in impoverished, you not only don't pay any income tax, you get a refund for taxes you never paid. Yes, that's right. It's an "Earned income tax credit". A tax refund for taxes you never paid (link [wikipedia.org]).

    People could pay off debts, get a better education, spend more time with the kids, start a small business, etc.
  • by Anonymous Coward on Friday July 16, 2004 @11:38AM (#9716829)
    Be creative and/or change your priorities. I'm guessing that gaining wealth is less important to you than any aspect of your current quality of life. Nothing is wrong with that. It's your choice. But don't think that a lot of rich people didn't sacrifice quality if life for a time to get where they are. Many who made their money through business are workaholics who ruined marriages and families with their priorities. For any given rich person, there is often a very good reason not to envy them. A good rule of thumb is this: if you aren't happy now, you probably wouldn't be happy if you were rich, either.
  • by boarder (41071) on Friday July 16, 2004 @11:38AM (#9716832) Homepage
    First, read this:
    http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=114715& cid=971 6190

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

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

    Poor people NEED the tax cuts. Rich people do not.
  • by Anonymous Coward on Friday July 16, 2004 @11:39AM (#9716852)
    Bullshit. Almost everybody spends everything they earn. It's about discipline. I was saving a larger percentage of my income when I was making under $30K then I am now making about $50K. You have a nice theory, but it doesn't hold up to humans. People want to spend what they have.
  • Re:Jesus! (Score:2, Insightful)

    by mirko (198274) on Friday July 16, 2004 @11:41AM (#9716885) Journal
    Sounds a drunkard to me, I don't applaud but I don't hate him, simply because I do not care.
    The fact is that is being jailed because he fucking attended a chess match in a country when his country law forbid it...
    So, it was forbidden to have an innocent play somewhere...
    I guess he's as extreme as that law sounds like the system he grew in was.
  • by Colonel Cholling (715787) on Friday July 16, 2004 @11:48AM (#9716967)
    First of all, the grandparent post was not expressing the view that American fundamentalist Christians are equally extreme; he was simply saying that that is what Europeans generally think. You have no reason to get upset with him.

    Second, I can think of several fundamentalist Christian individuals and groups in answer to your queries, from those who bomb abortion clinics, to Fred Phelps [godhatesfags.com] preaching the extermination of all homosexuals. Of course, you can always argue that those individuals and groups don't "really" represent Christian fundamentalism, but then, that's what everyone's been saying about Muslim terrorists as well. Only by a kind of arbitrary ideological gerrymandering can you make it look like your religion is absolutely clean while the other guys account for all the murderers and lunatics.
  • by Anonymous Coward on Friday July 16, 2004 @11:50AM (#9716998)
    But there are plenty of really stupid pro football players. I don't know any really stupid chess players. ... maybe in the COACHING aspect of it

    Correct -- the intellectual aspect of American Football belongs to the 'chess players' up in the booth. The players are mostly just doing what they are told to do.

    Also, the NFL gives IQ tests, and if someone is genuinely stupid, they probably won't be drafted. Big Dumb Guy is sorta an act for jocks.
  • by kmankmankman2001 (567212) on Friday July 16, 2004 @11:55AM (#9717065)
    Proof once again that Mr. Bush is making America safer! Sure, maybe we can't find Osama (guess that might take 12 years?) but we've finally located Bobby Fischer (thanks, Japan!) and all Americans can sleep better, no longer having to fear a mentally ill 61 year-old recluse. I know I feel better.
  • by mykingdomforahorse (744451) on Friday July 16, 2004 @11:56AM (#9717088)
    I quite disagree. People who are genuinely poor buy food, clothing, and housing, and often do not have enough money to have all 3. Disregarding health care, education,etc. The true sources of "spending money poorly" lie in the rich...expensive cars, big rims, ice statues of Michelangelo's David that urinate vodka, etc etc. What do those really do to drive the economy, and how does that money "trickle down?"
  • by pgilman (96092) <never@[ ]in ['ga.' in gap]> on Friday July 16, 2004 @11:57AM (#9717103) Journal

    "
    Even I, a complete amateur, know more than a couple dozen opening lines past the 8th move."

    dude. if you know more than a couple dozen opening lines past the 8th move, you're hardly a complete amateur. 8-P

  • by tnmc (446963) on Friday July 16, 2004 @11:58AM (#9717108)
    > We had the impression that the Soviets were a
    > bunch of automatons with no respect for human life
    > that were just waiting to go war for any reason.
    > How the Soviets were just dying to use chemical
    > and/or nuclear weapons!

    Substitute "Muslims" for "Soviets" and read today's propaganda. Plus ca change...
  • Re:Chess a crime? (Score:2, Insightful)

    by rguiu (472301) on Friday July 16, 2004 @12:08PM (#9717230) Journal
    Thinking may be a crime, western media is ready to accuse Iran of banning chess after the revolution. Chess was allowed again some years ago in Iran, and a Iraning chess players got qualified for the world championship in Las Vegas. He was not allowed to enter the US, the us inmigration office didnt gave him a visa to play the world championship...
  • Re:Yes, it's 2004, (Score:3, Insightful)

    by frank_adrian314159 (469671) on Friday July 16, 2004 @12:09PM (#9717244) Homepage
    If I were president I'd never trust the CIA again.

    And if I were the CIA (given the fact that there appears to have been quite a bit of pressure on them to get the desired information rather than accurate information, I don't think I'd trust the president again...

  • by prisoner-of-enigma (535770) on Friday July 16, 2004 @12:10PM (#9717271) Homepage
    I'm one of the Americans who, while travelling abroad, is as sensitive as I can be to the host country I'm in, and I resent being lumped into a generalized "ugly American" category simply because of the land of my birth. When I was in Germany, I took the time to learn enough German that I could be reasonably functional in my daily travels. I didn't demand everyone speak English to me (although most did, voluntarily, when it became obvious my German wasn't up to the "conversational" level). I did the best I could and asked for no special favors.

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

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

    But in reality, both sides of this "ugly American" thing are in the wrong. Americans, in general, need to be more observant of foreign cultures. Whether you admire it or not, it's worth learning about at the very least, if for no other reason than it's different. Other nations, on the other hand, need to not pre-judge traveling Americans, treating them with contempt and disdain on sight. After all, aren't the liberal idealogues always griping about how unfair it is when people are stereotyped?
  • by Anonymous Coward on Friday July 16, 2004 @12:14PM (#9717345)
    Archangel Michael, you are a nut.

    Wasn't Tim McVay (oklahoma bomber) a christian?
    Don't Neo-Nazis associate with fundamentalist christianity? Don't fundamentalists break laws and enact (decidedly un-christian) violence in their anti-abortion efforts?

    Do you recall that the inspiration for our government comes not from christians but from pre-christianity greeks?

    Your nonsensical views are rightly left at the fringe by our society. I urge you to consider a more tolerant world view.
  • by TXH-88 (636821) on Friday July 16, 2004 @12:25PM (#9717526)
    Muslim != Terrorist s/muslim/terrorist
  • by plague3106 (71849) on Friday July 16, 2004 @12:28PM (#9717580)
    Look at the growth we had in the 90's, to which Clinton applied a poor policy that helped in the short run (blowing the bubble), but killed us in the early 2000's (pop!).

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

    So shouldn't any current improvements in the economy be actually due to clinton, b/c it takes time?
  • by ThousandStars (556222) on Friday July 16, 2004 @12:29PM (#9717586) Homepage
    Exactly. Some of the replies make comments about how easy it is to save 10% on 250K; that is true. But it's also easy to save 10% on almost any amount above $20,000 a year. However, what separates the wealthy is their ability to save relative to their income.

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

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

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

  • by aero6dof (415422) <aero6dof@yahoo.com> on Friday July 16, 2004 @12:46PM (#9717859) Homepage
    Yes, but what you don't realize is that the rich pay the VAST majority of income taxes. The top 50% of income earners pay 96% of all income taxes paid. (link).

    That seems about right (or a little low), because it seems that the top 50% also control 97.2% of the wealth. (link [faireconomy.org]) A Google [google.com] researcher goes into it a little more. Following the news I've also continusouly heard about the continuing growth of the gap between the most wealthy and least, but I'm not sure if its real or just a statistical effect.
  • Re:Jesus! (Score:5, Insightful)

    by untaken_name (660789) on Friday July 16, 2004 @12:49PM (#9717898) Homepage
    Heheheheh. Nice troll. Forbidden to have an innocent play? Of course he wasn't. He wasn't told that he couldn't play chess in that country, merely that he could not play in a sanctioned tournament in that country. It's a bit of a distinction. It sends a message, and please make no mistake: Bobby Fischer knew exactly what he was doing. He sent the message he wanted to send, and while you may think that the reaction was too harsh, please do not make it like all he wanted to do was play a friendly game of chess.
  • by hackstraw (262471) * on Friday July 16, 2004 @12:54PM (#9717984)
    Actually, I work with a former Soviet citizen, and both of us grew up during the "Cold War". She said that they did not share our fear of nuclear war. Their press and media did not share the same attitude that we had where "At any minute, one of those crazy Commie Russians is gonna push the button and poof the world will be over".

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

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

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

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

    Now we have a war on terrrorism. WTF? As if there is anything that anyone can do to prevent a bombing. How difficult is it to simply walk across the US/Mexico border or even easier the US/Canada border?
  • by Anonymous Coward on Friday July 16, 2004 @12:57PM (#9718031)
    Dear Archangel Michael,

    But unlike you, I can name a few left wing extremists, some of which I suppose you support even tacitly.

    I post as LookSharp when my commentary is relevent to the thread, and I thought I identified myself as such. I have never voted for a liberal politican, or even someone who runs as a Democrat. For the record, in my 10 year voting history, I have voted exclusively for moderate Republicans or Libertarians. I find PETA and Eco-Terrorists not only useless, but counter-productive to the evolution of an informed and rational society.

    I say things for the sake of discussion... and because we use an inherently limited discussion forum, where we can only give/take a few lines or points at a time, it is hard to understand someone's full system of beliefs. That does not stop YOU, however from jumping to easy conclusions, attacking your completely off-base and incorrect assumption of my politics and dogma.

    Lastly, it's spelled INFIDELS, and welcome to my FOE list, you bloody idiot.
  • by be951 (772934) on Friday July 16, 2004 @01:20PM (#9718437)
    Now the government has invented a better enemy. One without borders. One without a clear identity. Gasp, Terrorists.

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

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

  • by CXI (46706) on Friday July 16, 2004 @01:24PM (#9718497) Homepage
    The post I replied to brought up the reason itself. Ted Kaczynski. I let you figure the rest out (as if it isn't obvious).
  • by Anonymous Coward on Friday July 16, 2004 @01:51PM (#9718855)
    Having spent many years studying natural science and taxonomy, I can assure you that semites are a racial group, like caucasians or negros.

    Not all followers of the Jewish faith are semites, but all Arabs are semites. Not all followers of Islam are Arabs.

    I have spoken english all my life, and I have discussed matters of race with taxonomists from many countries, and I can confidently state that "anti-semitic" means "opposed to semites".

    Judaism is a religion that is often followed by semitic people. Others are Islam, christianity, and Drusism, for example. In proper English, to be opposed to Judaism is to be "anti-Jewish" and to be opposed to Israel is to be "anti-zionist".

    I thought computer people were supposed to value logic and precision? Using "anti-semitism" when you mean "anti-zionism" or "anti-judaism" is politician's NewSpeak.
  • by jafac (1449) on Friday July 16, 2004 @02:04PM (#9719021) Homepage
    Bullshit.

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

  • by rbird76 (688731) on Friday July 16, 2004 @02:06PM (#9719038)
    In my opinion (I am a liberal, so you can take this with however large a grain of salt you need), GWB has other (legitimate) flaws that have been problematic. A lot of the problem rests in the way that he (and his party) have chosen to do business.

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

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

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

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

    GWB is made fun of for some reasons that are unfair, but his manner both provides legitimate reason to question and amplifies the effect of silly mistakes.
  • I don't think that it's the extremism that the "US rails against." It's the actions taken by those extremists.

    Every now and again, a "fundamentalist Christian" extremist will shoot an abortion doctor, or keep a harem of 30 wives in a compound in Texas. The railing against Muslim extremists really ramped up when they killed several thousand people a couple of years ago in New York.

    I'd go out on a limb and venture that there would be similar railing if Linux zealots started bombing Fortune 1000 companies that employ Microsoft OS fileservers.
  • by LuxFX (220822) on Friday July 16, 2004 @02:38PM (#9719454) Homepage Journal
    Oh, just give that Jeopardy guy a chance. By the time he tops $10 million, the country will be teeming with Brainiac wannabes...

    At some point along the way, I picked up this quote from a Slashdot post, that bears repeating (or at least paraphrasing -- and I wish I could tell you who said it):

    You know, if we had recruiters for Pharmaceuticals standing outside of colleges offering new graduates 10.2 million over 3 years, then cancer would have been cured 10 years ago. Why do athletes, that contribute NOTHING to society, get paid the most?
  • by Anonymous Coward on Friday July 16, 2004 @02:49PM (#9719609)
    The government didn't have to invent the threat, but they are blowing out of proportion the threat, and their ability to stop it. I think that's what he was trying to say. You may disagree, but if so, please answer these questions:

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

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

    Not to minimize the terrorist acts that have been commited, but compare death by terrorism to other causes of death for Americans, and then explain to me how the threat isn't being responded to disproportionately. For help with the stats, look here: http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/nvsr/nvsr52/nvsr52_03 .pdf
  • by JimmytheGeek (180805) <jamesaffeld&yahoo,com> on Friday July 16, 2004 @02:57PM (#9719733) Journal
    The Feds put a bunch of crap they'd wanted for years into the Patriot Act, because those pesky civil liberties that take the fun out of being a cop. 9/11 was like one of those contest promos where you get to fill a shopping cart in a certain time limit, or the cages with money blowing around - grab while you can!

    Now that the War on Terror is here, it is trotted out any time the admin's polls sag. Press conferences without a scintilla of evidence that the threat environment has changed. And a trial balloon over delaying elections...whew!

    Hell - even tax cuts were hyped as part of the war on terror.

    The fact is, spooks are by nature consiprators. And they are not drawn to the field by their love of untrammeled civil liberties.

    "There ought to be limits to freedom." - G.W. Bush
    (actual quote related to a parody website - my sig is just a paraphrase)
  • Re:Mentally Ill (Score:3, Insightful)

    by banzai51 (140396) on Friday July 16, 2004 @03:07PM (#9719913) Journal
    Care to point out where Bobby Fischer was arrested for what he said? Or was he arrested for what he did?
  • Define "invest" (Score:4, Insightful)

    by fluxrad (125130) on Friday July 16, 2004 @03:09PM (#9719941) Homepage
    Youre understanding of the market seems a bit skewed to me.

    Assuming Bill goes out and buys 50,000 shares of, say XMSR then in all actuality, the folks at XM Radio won't see a penny of that. We buy stocks from other people, not from the companies themselves, excepting an IPO, in which case, the price remains rather low to begin with. But this is just an infusion of cash, not a continuous stream.

    Now, you could be talking about corporate bonds, in which case you'd be right. But AFAIK, most investors aren't looking for high-risk bonds like those of small cap businesses. They're looking for large-cap investments to shore up whatever it is they're doing in the market. This will create a few new jobs, but nothing on the scale of what you're talking about.

    In reality, if you want to grow the economy, the best practice is to infuse money directly into the hands of consumers. Most people (unlike companies and the majority of the wealthy) don't stick their cash in a drawer somewhere; they spend it. And when they buy more goods, corporations' earnings go up. When corporate earnings go up, they hire more people, etc.

    But this all goes back into the argument against supply side economics. The money at the top of the economic foodchain has a wicked tendency to stay at the top.
  • by ryanmfw (774163) on Friday July 16, 2004 @03:10PM (#9719955)
    Do you think the propaganda is against terrorists or muslims? I, unfortunately, have to say that a lot of propaganda in the media does not mention muslims being terrorists, but does equate them, as, terrorist==muslim. It's sad, but, what can ya do, but read /.?
  • by scupper (687418) * on Friday July 16, 2004 @03:10PM (#9719960) Homepage
    It's interesting how the US, and many of it's citizens, selectively "recognize" UN authority and legitmacy, as in this case with the "UN Sanctions against Yugoslavia" and Bobby Fisher's case. When it's convenient politically to the US government, the UN is a righteous body of nations whose sanctions are tantimount US law. When it's not convenient, and the UN members don't please US leaders, it's inferred they are incompetent, scammming third world tour guides trying to screw the American People.
  • by Anonymous Coward on Friday July 16, 2004 @03:21PM (#9720104)
    In the past 20 years, average CEO salaries have gone up 2000% (that's 20 times). How much has minimum wage gone up? Well, back then it was around $4/hour, now it is around $5/hour.

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

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

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

  • by Anita Coney (648748) on Friday July 16, 2004 @03:21PM (#9720107) Homepage
    Everyone who responded negatively to my posting argued exactly the same thing: What Bobby Fischer did was against the law, he knew it was against the law, so he should be punished for violating the law.

    While that is technically true, none of you stopped to consider that maybe, just maybe, the law was wrong.

    For example, imagine if there was a law that stated that anyone wearing plaid would be shot on sight. The next day thousands are shot dead for wearing plaid. It was the law, they knew it was the law, and they were punished. Would any of you agree that justice was served?! I sure in hell hope not!
  • Re:Jesus! (Score:5, Insightful)

    by untaken_name (660789) on Friday July 16, 2004 @03:31PM (#9720293) Homepage
    I don't know. I would see anyone who participated in a formal tournament (supposedly representing the US) in a sanctioned country as supporting that country's actions. This is especially true when that person has been told that the US would not like to be represented. If China actually holds the Olympics, I would hope that the U.S. would boycott in protest of China's massive human rights violations. If they do not, I will see the US teams, and by extension the US government, as condoning that country's actions. If you allow countries that are human rights abusers to have the appearance of legitimacy, you give their actions that appearance. Thing is, he could have just gone over there and played however much chess he wanted to with the people. He could have declared his support of that government's actions. That was not forbidden to him. It was only playing in a sanctioned tournament, where he would be representing the US, that was off-limits. Appearance is key here, as he would not actually represent the US's official stance, but would have that appearance to the rest of the world. This is quite simply because he is an American, and the tournament sanctioned. I think that US citizens should be allowed to travel to Cuba legally, for example, however I would not support the US putting a team in a sanctioned event there. I realize it's a fine distinction, but it is there.
  • by XunilOS (57875) on Friday July 16, 2004 @03:40PM (#9720419) Homepage
    Except Science has already come out and concluded that there are no genetic distictions for race.

    I find this hard to believe. I'm not a racist mind you, I just don't understand how there could *not* be some DNA marker that makes someone have dark brown skin, or almond-shaped eyes, just like there are genetic markers that make you have blonde hair or red hair or freckles or a big nose.

    Are you saying then that there isn't a chunk of DNA that equals "asian" or "native american" or whatever? That what we perceive as a "race" is just a collection of physical traits (asians tend to have a specific eye shape, frequently have dark, straight hair, etc.)? If this is your statement, I agree with you, but if you're saying that DNA doesn't dictate what you look like, I'm very confused.

  • by N1KO (13435) <nico.bonada@gmaiDALIl.com minus painter> on Friday July 16, 2004 @04:47PM (#9721345)
    According to Adam Smith, supply and demand. It's the same reason why useless diamond rings are more expensive than water, which is essential to live.
  • by Zeinfeld (263942) on Friday July 16, 2004 @04:56PM (#9721454) Homepage
    ]Why do athletes, that contribute NOTHING to society, get paid the most?
    Now, I'm no sportsfan, but to assert that sports are worthless is absurd

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

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

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

  • by Anonymous Coward on Friday July 16, 2004 @05:18PM (#9721655)
    I don't watch sports-- I don't have a close relationship with my father. He doesn't watch sports either. Two of my brothers watch a lot of sports and two don't. The two that do have much closer relationships with our father than I-- and they always have.

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

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

    Keep in mind that those "studies" were probably done by psychologists or sociologists. Might as well get your palm read while you're at it-- cause those aren't real scientists.
  • by Beardydog (716221) on Friday July 16, 2004 @06:03PM (#9722116)
    Is IQ 100 the mean or median? Maybe we're all at 99, and Marilyn vos Savant is propping us up.
  • by Master of Transhuman (597628) on Friday July 16, 2004 @06:06PM (#9722141) Homepage
    When the USEFUL IQ is probably 150, where does this leave you?

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

    Or even on /. ...

  • Re:Jesus! (Score:3, Insightful)

    by Smallpond (221300) on Friday July 16, 2004 @06:09PM (#9722164) Homepage Journal
    There was no US law against what Fischer did. Bush Sr. wrote an executive order forbidding US citizens from doing business in Yugoslavia. This assumes that the US executive branch has jurisdiction over its citizens while they are not on US soil. What is the legality of that?

    Also, he was not convicted by a US jury, he was indicted. To the best of my knowledge we still have an innocent until proven guilty system.
  • by Fnkmaster (89084) on Friday July 16, 2004 @06:53PM (#9722544)
    Very nice, I'm glad you have studied natural science and taxonomy for many years. You are still wrong, probably because you have not spent even a modicum of time studying linguistics. Language is not a logical puzzle, and words change meaning over time. That is how language evolves. Another poster posted the time-honored example of inflammable and flammable - your very logical, taxonomically organizing brain may tell you inflammable means "not flammable", but it would be wrong. See here [reference.com] or click on a few of the definitions here [onelook.com]. Linguistics teaches us that language is a living, changing thing - in English speaking lands, bias against Jews has been around much longer than bias against Arabs or other Semitic peoples due to the historical presence of Jews throughout Europe, and then in America. It's thus hardly shocking that the word "anti-Semitism" has come to mean anti-Jewish bias. This isn't Newspeak at all, if you see the Wikipedia entry [wikipedia.org], you'd know that in fact the word derives from German racial science usage in the 1800s, and for over a century, referred exclusively to hatred of or bias against Jews. So in fact, the "Newspeak" is the attempt to broaden the word, or rather to muddy the semantics which were previously clear, with another definition.


    Anti-Zionism is a strange one - since Zionism, historically, arose as a response to anti-Semitism. This is such a confused, muddied term, I'd stay away from it entirely, since it tries to collapse complicated political issues into a jingoistic phrase. Lots of people, Jews included and Israelis included, don't support parts of current Israeli government policy, ongoing occupation and so on. The word "anti-Zionist" could mean almost anything, and even Wikipedia seems befuddled by this issue since the page [wikipedia.org] on it is currently locked as a result of editorial disputes.


    Anti-Judaism is a pretty awkward sounding word, as is "Anti-Islam". I'd stick to "anti-Jewish bias", "anti-Muslim bias" or "anti-Arab bias" if you're worried about being misunderstood. But the hubbub against anti-Semitism needs to stop now - you can't expect people to change the meaning of words to accomodate your political agenda, and if you go around flapping your arms when people use perfectly clear dictionary English words, you're going to end up marginalizing yourself and your viewpoint.

  • by Anonymous Coward on Friday July 16, 2004 @07:13PM (#9722669)
    Actually, the supply of diamonds is artificially controlled by the DeBeers cartel. If not for that, diamonds would be no more expensive than the carbon of which they are composed.
  • by akuma(x86) (224898) on Friday July 16, 2004 @07:18PM (#9722702)
    You know, if we had recruiters for Pharmaceuticals standing outside of colleges offering new graduates 10.2 million over 3 years, then cancer would have been cured 10 years ago. Why do athletes, that contribute NOTHING to society, get paid the most?

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

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

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

    Athletes contribute entertainment value to society and are compensated at the rate the market will bear.
  • by Anonymous Coward on Friday July 16, 2004 @07:47PM (#9722872)
    Yes, he should have said "Arabs". It's not really about religion per se. Muslim is becoming nothing more than a buzzword devoid of actual content in the West.

    It's really the Middle East, a geographical region, that we are at war with, not a religion.
  • by Anonymous Coward on Friday July 16, 2004 @08:10PM (#9722990)
    Taxes are used to fund the government to fund services it provides for its people. Considering poor people get the same military protection, FDA approvals, money usage, and treaty effects, I don't see why the governemnt should see any individual differently then another.

    Also, CEOs are paid by the board of trustees. If people really didn't like thier saleries, they wouldn't buy thier stock and wouldn't work for them and the 'problem' would go away.
  • by GooberToo (74388) on Saturday July 17, 2004 @04:11AM (#9723956)
    Victim of another idiot moderator. I'm attacked and defend my position. I'm modded flaimbait. Some mods are so clueless.
  • by ScottGant (642590) <scott_gant@sbcglobal.n e t N OT> on Sunday July 18, 2004 @08:51AM (#9730311) Homepage
    I don't consider entertainment to be contributing to humanity. It's fleeting at best.

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

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

"Text processing has made it possible to right-justify any idea, even one which cannot be justified on any other grounds." -- J. Finnegan, USC.

Working...