Bobby Fischer Found 1379
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."
Busting him for violating sanctions (Score:2, Insightful)
Sad when a genius has his cheese slide off his cracker.
The man is clearly mentally unstable (Score:2, Insightful)
So ... (Score:2, Insightful)
Interesting. (Score:3, Insightful)
inspired by his need to run and hide for so long and proving himself the second time.
Pointless Prosecution (Score:5, Insightful)
Heck, Yugoslavia doesn't even EXIST anymore. It's kind of a moot point.
Re:Busting him for violating sanctions (Score:0, Insightful)
I can't sympathize (Score:2, Insightful)
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)
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...
Re:Interesting that the Japanese authorities are (Score:5, Insightful)
Fischer isn't being extradited, he's being deported because his passport isn't valid. There's an important distinction there.
Re:But what about Paul Simon? (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Open mouth, insert paranoid foot (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Open mouth, insert paranoid foot (Score:2, Insightful)
<SARCASM>
I can see that. I don't really like the dribbling part of basketball, maybe it would be more fun if I could just carry the ball across the court.
</SARCASM>
Other than moving pieces to where the should not be, how does one actually cheat at chess?
Re:I can't sympathize (Score:5, Insightful)
And since when has public opinion about someone's views been a legitimate means of determining whether or not they should be punished for breaking the law? Did you miss that whole "freedom of speech" bit in the US constitution?
Re:The man is clearly mentally unstable (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:Open mouth, insert paranoid foot (Score:1, Insightful)
We can't get enough forces into Afghanistan, but thank Gawd we're traking down Bobby Fischer...
Re:Changed the view of the US? (Score:3, Insightful)
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)
* terror = things we** don't like.
** we = George W. Bush.
He sort of makes sense to me... (Score:5, Insightful)
I know another man... (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Pointless Prosecution (Score:5, Insightful)
No. There's a fundamental principle in law called "retroaction" that says you can't be prosecuted for something you did in the past that contravenes a law that was passed after what you did, the only notable exception being war crimes and genocide (the Nazi atrocities were severe enough that the Nuremberg court simply ignored this rule and tried the Nazi officials with law made up after the fact).
So Bobby Fisher should be tried for violating a law that existed when he did the deed, just as you shouldn't be prosecuted for driving at 70mph on a road that has a 50mph sign today, but had a 70mph sign when you drove on it.
Re:Busting him for violating sanctions (Score:5, Insightful)
At least that's my take on it.
Hypocritcial?? (Score:3, Insightful)
Didn't America and Britain go against the UN's wishes to send several thousand troops to Iraq to play war?
Re:Changed the view of the US? (Score:5, Insightful)
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?
What's wrong with you people? (Score:3, Insightful)
IT IS NOT OKAY TO ARREST PEOPLE FOR BEING CRACKPOTS.
You can be locked up because you're insane, but only if you're a danger to yourself or others. I consider this a valid criteria. Bobby Fischer, despite doing things that you might consider insane, is in no way a danger to himself or to others, unless you consider it dangerous to hear things you don't like. And if you do, too bad, it doesn't make it true.
Leave this man alone. He hasn't done anything substantially criminal. It's not like he was shipping food in violation of sanctions to the poor Yugoslavians or anything.
Re:I can't sympathize (Score:1, Insightful)
I hate this double standard, cant take it anymore!
Re:I can't sympathize (Score:2, Insightful)
Well, I can see that one: it's propaganda support for a country his own country was at war with. (Not that the US had actually declared that war.)
Still whatever he says, and no matter how offensive that is: he hasn't actually hurt anyone. I think even to bother looking for him for 12 years is way over the top.
Re:Changed the view of the US? (Score:2, Insightful)
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)
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.
That's interesting.... (Score:3, Insightful)
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)
heh (Score:1, Insightful)
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)
Not that I have, mind you, but I would think you have heard of the Holocaust, Cambodia (ever see The Killing Fields?), Rwanda and even what went on in South Africa for so long.
At this point in the world's history, I cannot sympathize with anyone attempting to use false ID to travel.
I don't know about you but if were being persecuted and all I needed to do to escape harm was to use a false ID, I think I'd choose the false ID.
Sometimes the right thing to do is to ignore and/or willfully break stupid laws.
Sorry for sounding so harsh but that part of your comment was pretty dumb. Seeing mountains of skulls in Cambodia has a way of changing your point of view.
Re:Busting him for violating sanctions (Score:3, Insightful)
I think it is a reasonable assumption that:
1. Bobby Fischer will try to defend himself
2. He won't be allowed and his lawyer will find him not guilty by reason of insanity.
Re:Changed the view of the US? (Score:3, Insightful)
Sure, people like money! But let's say Bill Gates gets a tax cut (or some other wealthy businessman). Does this mean the Microsoft will hire more people? Not likely. MS has billions in cash, they can hire whoever they like. Bill's a smart guy - MS hires people when they need people, not when they have more cash. This can be applied to any large wealthy company.
Will Bill spend more money? Well, rich people don't get rich by spending money. He's got a lot to spend, if he wants. I doubt this will encourage him to spend more.
Giving money to the lower class, however, is a better idea. I'm not rich. I tend to spend all I make, because, well, I have to. If I kept more of my money, I'd probably spend that too. Poor people spend more of their money than rich people do, because rich people don't have to spend large percentages of their money.
I'm no economist; this is just the say I see things.
Re:Changed the view of the US? (Score:3, Insightful)
Saying that 'merican football and baseball are somehow head and shoulders above everyone else is simply ignorant.
Of all the sports I'm familiar with, I honestly can't think of one where being smart, quick thinking, and strategical isn't an asset.
Maybe ultimate frisbee? All that requires is getting in the open. And even that requires some planning.
Re:Changed the view of the US? (Score:5, Insightful)
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)
He needs locked up all right... in the mental ward.
Lame excuse. (Score:2, Insightful)
How is it that in the US you can say pretty much anything about muslims but call Israel (not jews as a group, the country damnit!) something you are toast? Free speech cant be selective you know.
Re:Changed the view of the US? (Score:2, Insightful)
It's amazing how much skullwork goes into planning and managing a driver in a race.
Re:Changed the view of the US? (Score:1, Insightful)
Truly amazing how in the textbooks used in American schools, the Space Race is forgotten, and the stress is upon the Moon Race.
Or perhaps not, given that the race to put a man on the moon was very nearly the only space landmark the US actually beat the Soviets to.
Re:Changed the view of the US? (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Changed the view of the US? (Score:1, Insightful)
Were would he be if his Dad was a loud obnoxious football-watching overweight moron who beats his 'nerd' son?
Re:Changed the view of the US? (Score:1, Insightful)
Wait, sorry.. I forgot I was on slashdot. Where people can say anything they want. Well, as long as they aren't a) deeped WASP, b) religious, or c) economically sound.
Re:Changed the view of the US? (Score:5, Insightful)
what you and your american grandparent (post) are failing to understand, entirely, is that this is a conversation about propaganda, and ways in which fischer was used as a propagandist tool, in that era.
in such a realm, none of the bold, assertive, we-are-the-best american 'facts' you and your brethren spout forth, have -any- bearing whatsoever. propaganda is not a 'truth' realm, its not about whats real.
it amazes me today that americans -still- know nothing about propaganda, and fail to accomodate it continually in their dialectic views of anything that might be 'anti-american'.
whether or not america 'is the best' at anything, at the time of the fischer (propaganda) project, the fact is: general, popular culture, in realms all over the world, had a pretty dim view of american 'thuggery' and whether the holy american system really was any better than communism/socialism.
fischer was not just about soviet-era 'games' (which we all know americans will always, always win, at), it was also about softening peoples upset over such things as vietnam, korea, etc... remember kids: the cold war was certainly not just between the soviets and the capitalists.
propaganda. learn it, or suffer under its ever-dominant rule, its a religion holier even than The American Way
Re:Changed the view of the US? (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:What's wrong with you people? (Score:2, Insightful)
that is a pretty decent crime.
the fact he is a crackpot just makes him more interesting.
but the japanese arrested him, for a REASON, he broke the law.
Re:Changed the view of the US? (Score:2, Insightful)
Fancy that, Americans care more about reality than appearances.
Re:Open mouth, insert paranoid foot (Score:3, Insightful)
"memorizing" openings invented by great minds other than your own is akin to playing Bethoven's fifth - it's really great stuff - but it aint' YOUR stuff.
Think of tic-tac-toe. I know all the openings - I know all the responses - and there isn't any fun left in the game. Admittedly my chess has not matured to that point - but in some circles it has pretty nearly - and I believe this is the fun he's talking about.
Apparently he has got himself a world-class attitude problem. - I feel sorry - seems mostly harmless in spite of his vitriol.
AIK
Re:Changed the view of the US? (Score:5, Insightful)
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.
Next Stop for Fisher, Guantanamo. (Score:3, Insightful)
But seriously, let the guy live his life as he sees fit. Has he hurt anyone?
Bob-
Oh please, way to pat yourself on the back... (Score:5, Insightful)
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)
Re:Changed the view of the US? (Score:2, Insightful)
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]
Re:Changed the view of the US? (Score:2, Insightful)
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.
Re:Interesting read (Score:3, Insightful)
Bobby Fischer: But it was in violation, apparently, of an order, an executive order which President Bush had signed, uh, I think in around May of 1992, that forbid Americans to, uh, do business with Yugoslavia, unless, of course, they had permission or an exception from the government, which I didn't get. Everybody got it. CNN gets it, all these Jew controlled outfits get it, and you know, you know how many people were involved in that match, nobody was indicted? Spassky wasn't indicted, he played. The [...] government didn't indict him. And I'll tell you something else about Spassky. He played in that match, nobody indicted him. That guy has been to the U.S. at least a few times since the match. He can go to the U.S. Nobody touches him. He played in the match just like me. The U.S. government doesn't give a damn about arresting him. They only want to arrest me. Eugene was over there. He made a nice pretty penny there. The Philippine government doesn't wanna put him in jail. There were a lot of people involved in that match. Nobody wants to put anybody in jail but me. They wanna put me in jail cause the Jews are behind all this. They're behind everything. They're orchestrating everything, this, uh, indictment, this movie, the forged Batsford edition of My 60 Memorable Games, this fake forged book, called umm uh, I mean CD-Rom called Bobby Fischer Teaches Chess. Now they're behind this mega-robbery of all my stuff at the Pasadena storage house, the robbery and auctioning off of all this stuff. You know, they grabbed this stuff on the cheapest, meanest trick. The most transparent ploy you can imagine. This fuckin Elsworth, deliberately, they used a secret Jew I'm sure...deliberately, behind my back, just stopped paying for six months. I sent him the check. You saw the check, Pablo.
While the interpretation is rabid paranoia, the facts are definite. CNN made billions in advertisement time warmongering in ex-Yugoslavia. We used to stage bets where the next shootout will be based on where their crew went. Spasski was never indighted for the embargo. Noone dealing with any chess material from the games was indighted either
Re:Changed the view of the US? (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Changed the view of the US? (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Changed the view of the US? (Score:4, Insightful)
Certainly it's not as complicated as American football, but I'd say it could give basketball a run for its money (in terms of complexity) once fully developed.
But I only played college ultimate for one semester six years ago -- I'm sure there's a lot more to it than I picked up, and that the strategy has advanced since then. In fact, the reason I stopped playing (besides not being physically competitive with the amazing athletes that succeed at the sport) was that there was too much strategy -- I had learned Ultimate in basic pickup games, with lots of quick cuts and flashy plays. Played at a high level, the sport was too disciplined and complex for me to find it much fun.
Re:Busting him for violating sanctions (Score:0, Insightful)
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!
Re:Busting him for violating sanctions (Score:0, Insightful)
Re:I can't sympathize (Score:3, Insightful)
What to this day still upsets me is the limousine liberal mentality that some how the rules don't apply. Most of the same people who fought so hard for society to take seriously sexual harassment and in particular, women taken advantage of by their bosses or other men in authoritative positions, were so quick to completely excuse and defend Clinton for doing it. And no it's not relevant that she was a willing participant--he was the President of the United States and she was an intern!
Re:Changed the view of the US? (Score:3, Insightful)
And how many german scientists worked on it ;)
Who's going to play Fisher in the movie? (Score:3, Insightful)
Of course in the movie version they'll have Fisher passing secrets to terrorists in chess moves, and they'll haul him off to Guantanamo for questioning where a quirky hero-worshiping chess-playing chaplain will change Fisher's mind about jews and help him escape to Cuba...
Re:Oh please, way to pat yourself on the back... (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:Changed the view of the US? (Score:5, Insightful)
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 EllenbergerRe:Changed the view of the US? (Score:5, Insightful)
Try watching Japanese tourists sometime, or British kids somewhere on the continent to watch a soccer match.
Citizens of every country think they're superior. (and apparently you think so of yourself too)
Re:Changed the view of the US? (Score:5, Insightful)
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.
Not in the same way, no (Score:5, Insightful)
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.
Re:What's wrong with you people? (Score:4, Insightful)
Substantially? Who gets to define that?
Re:I can't sympathize (Score:4, Insightful)
I agree it was slimy of him, but was it illegal? If bold face lying to the american public was an impeachable offence, I have no doubt that every president since Carter (and probably him as well), would have been impeached.
Re:Changed the view of the US? (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:I can't sympathize (Score:1, Insightful)
Re:Jesus! (Score:3, Insightful)
Seeing as most autistics tend to be very very good with mathmatics, him being a chess genius and an aut would make a bit of sense.
His paranoid conspiracies aside, the only thing this man did that was illegal was play a chess game in a country we didn't like. Not exactly a dangerous criminal mastermind. Just a guy would played a game in violation of sanctions.
This is total bullshit, Bobby Fisher should be freed.
Re:Changed the view of the US? (Score:1, Insightful)
He states his residence as Salem. He might not have been an American Citizen, but he moved here and became a de-facto american. The 'brain drain' is nothing new. the brightest minds know america. they come here because we, at least still somewhat, honor achievement and talent and greatness.
Re:Changed the view of the US? (Score:3, Insightful)
IMHO, that qualifies as intellectual.
Re:Changed the view of the US? (Score:2, Insightful)
The government doesn't count as a consumer. In fact, when the government takes and spends money in the economy, it becomes a competitor with the rest of the businesses. This has a de-stabilizing effect, because the amount of money that government can throw into the economy is so much greater than most other businesses. We don't want government participating in a free market, otherwise we'll end up with a situation like we had in the 70's... mass inflation. The government has the duty of regulating interest rates, tax rates, and the minimum amount of money a bank can keep (this has the biggest effect).
It's better to use trickle-down to distribute the money, since it is the economy that regulates where the money goes, not the government. It does work, it just takes a while. Economic policies (unless they are dramatic monetary policies) do take a number of years before the effect becomes apparent. Look at the growth we had in the 90's, to which Clinton applied a poor policy that helped in the short run (blowing the bubble), but killed us in the early 2000's (pop!).
Re:I know another man... (Score:3, Insightful)
Like many allies we once had a common enemy.
Even then he viewed the US as infedels to be dealt with later.
Re:whose freedom did he remove? (Score:2, Insightful)
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)
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.
Comment removed (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Changed the view of the US? (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:Changed the view of the US? (Score:5, Insightful)
http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=114715
Next, think about this:
In the past 20 years, average CEO salaries have gone up 2000% (that's 20 times). How much has minimum wage gone up? Well, back then it was around $4/hour, now it is around $5/hour. Are CEOs 20x better than they were in 1984? Are low income workers not subject to the same laws of inflation as the rest of the country?
A CEO lays off 100 workers to save $2 million per year of a company's money... that CEO then gets paid $2 million per year and gets a golden parachute if he leaves. That sounds like intelligent spending for a company.
Poor people NEED the tax cuts. Rich people do not.
Re:Changed the view of the US? (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:Jesus! (Score:2, Insightful)
The fact is that is being jailed because he fucking attended a chess match in a country when his country law forbid it...
So, it was forbidden to have an innocent play somewhere...
I guess he's as extreme as that law sounds like the system he grew in was.
Re:Generalized Hatred (Score:4, Insightful)
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.
Re:Oh please, way to pat yourself on the back... (Score:1, Insightful)
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.
Americans are safer! (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:Changed the view of the US? (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Open mouth, insert paranoid foot (Score:4, Insightful)
dude. if you know more than a couple dozen opening lines past the 8th move, you're hardly a complete amateur. 8-P
Re:Changed the view of the US? (Score:5, Insightful)
> 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)
Re:Yes, it's 2004, (Score:3, Insightful)
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...
Re:Changed the view of the US? (Score:5, Insightful)
It was amazing how accomodating the German's were (this was pre-9/11, though) when they realized I was attempting to meet them half way. I took offense at other Americans who were loud, offensive, and constantly griping about "why aren't the signs written in English so everybody can read them?"
Now, to play devil's advocate for a moment, most Europeans have no concept of what it's like to live in a country as large as the U.S. where English is spoken everywhere. In Europe, a few hours travel in any direction will land you in a completely different country. Unless you live near the Canadian or Mexican border, such things do not happen in the U.S. Most Americans have as little concept of such dense multiculturalism as Europeans have of U.S. geographical and cultural dispersion and uniformity.
But in reality, both sides of this "ugly American" thing are in the wrong. Americans, in general, need to be more observant of foreign cultures. Whether you admire it or not, it's worth learning about at the very least, if for no other reason than it's different. Other nations, on the other hand, need to not pre-judge traveling Americans, treating them with contempt and disdain on sight. After all, aren't the liberal idealogues always griping about how unfair it is when people are stereotyped?
Re:Generalized Hatred (Score:1, Insightful)
Wasn't Tim McVay (oklahoma bomber) a christian?
Don't Neo-Nazis associate with fundamentalist christianity? Don't fundamentalists break laws and enact (decidedly un-christian) violence in their anti-abortion efforts?
Do you recall that the inspiration for our government comes not from christians but from pre-christianity greeks?
Your nonsensical views are rightly left at the fringe by our society. I urge you to consider a more tolerant world view.
Re:Changed the view of the US? (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Changed the view of the US? (Score:3, Insightful)
I've always found this fasinating. When a democrat is in office, the next term (if republican) feels the effects of his poor decisions b/c it takes time for changes to take effect, but when Bush gives tax cuts to the wealthy, the economy reacts immedately.
So shouldn't any current improvements in the economy be actually due to clinton, b/c it takes time?
Re:Changed the view of the US? (Score:3, Insightful)
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.
Re:Changed the view of the US? (Score:4, Insightful)
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)
Re:Changed the view of the US? (Score:5, Insightful)
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?
Re:Generalized Hatred (Score:1, Insightful)
But unlike you, I can name a few left wing extremists, some of which I suppose you support even tacitly.
I post as LookSharp when my commentary is relevent to the thread, and I thought I identified myself as such. I have never voted for a liberal politican, or even someone who runs as a Democrat. For the record, in my 10 year voting history, I have voted exclusively for moderate Republicans or Libertarians. I find PETA and Eco-Terrorists not only useless, but counter-productive to the evolution of an informed and rational society.
I say things for the sake of discussion... and because we use an inherently limited discussion forum, where we can only give/take a few lines or points at a time, it is hard to understand someone's full system of beliefs. That does not stop YOU, however from jumping to easy conclusions, attacking your completely off-base and incorrect assumption of my politics and dogma.
Lastly, it's spelled INFIDELS, and welcome to my FOE list, you bloody idiot.
Re:Changed the view of the US? (Score:3, Insightful)
Yeah, next thing you know, the government will be telling us those fake terrorists want to bomb U.S. bases, ships and buildings, hijack planes (or maybe a ship), maybe even fly a plane into a building. Those nutty government propagandists!
Seriously, are you one of those conspiracy nuts who think everything is part of the government (or some ultra-powerful "shadow government") master plan to keep us all in line or whatever?
Re:Give the Poor Guy a Rest (not Arrest) (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Arabs are semites. (Score:4, Insightful)
Not all followers of the Jewish faith are semites, but all Arabs are semites. Not all followers of Islam are Arabs.
I have spoken english all my life, and I have discussed matters of race with taxonomists from many countries, and I can confidently state that "anti-semitic" means "opposed to semites".
Judaism is a religion that is often followed by semitic people. Others are Islam, christianity, and Drusism, for example. In proper English, to be opposed to Judaism is to be "anti-Jewish" and to be opposed to Israel is to be "anti-zionist".
I thought computer people were supposed to value logic and precision? Using "anti-semitism" when you mean "anti-zionism" or "anti-judaism" is politician's NewSpeak.
Re:Changed the view of the US? (Score:3, Insightful)
Football and Baseball are so ANTI-intellectual, that fans have to INVENT intellectual aspects (like the obsessive-compulsive need for fans to compete on the rote memorization of obscure and trivial statistics - which is really just all about trying to intellectualize the gambling side of sports).
Re:Changed the view of the US? (Score:3, Insightful)
Cheney's secrecy with energy policy, the issues with policy in the EPA that precipitated Whitmam's departure, the loss of GWB's SecTreas and R. Clarke, and the way in which the Republican Congress has approached legislation (including the Patriot Act and the drug insurance act) all point at the issue that I have with GWB; his righteousness. In the Bible (presumably part of where he gets this feeling), righteousness is a good quality, because the operating assumption is that God is absolutely good and that following what He wants is thus infallible. Government and diplomacy operate on a different ethos. Government have abused unbounded power in the past, so openness and accountability are used as ways to evaluate the "righteousness" of a government. In addition, governments are accountable to their people - rather than telling people what they should be, government is there to help people be want they want and to guard the rights of others in the process. GWB and the RP have chosen the most confrontational ways to achieve policy goals and have curtailed the openness that allows people to trust their government.
Ashcroft is disliked, but he is simply an avatar of GWB's approach. GWB wants power, not out of corruption, but because he believes that he knows what is right and wants to do it. In a democracy (or an approximation thereof), this is dangerous, particularly when his manner curtails openness. There is some inconsistency with GWB's stated or implied goals and methods (fiscal conservatism and his spending are not consistent, for example; securing freedom while curtailing its expression and criticizing such expression as anti-American is another) - without openness, one doesn't know whether the inconsistency arises from lack of forethought, honest mistakes, dishonesty or something worse.
Bush's dawdling on security policy before 9/11 was a mistake - I don't think he saw anything coming but he ignored the advice of people who knew there might be a problem and who had no motive to mislead GWB. I haven't read the last Clancy nonfiction book, but its subject criticizes GWB because he ignored the advice of the military and prior art on the potential problems with a "regime change" in Iraq; after three years of pondering, someone might have thought about the consequence of invading a country which supports terrorists (GWB) and/or has one of the largest secret police forces in the world.
In matters of policy, GWB dictates to others what they should do. Not only does this rub people the wrong when he is right, but the consequences of his policy have been mixed and inconsistent with his claims. While being sure is a useful quality in a president, being sure in the presence of contrary evidence without explanation does not lead people to trust him. This certainty has bad enough effects on its own, as above; it probably also leads to the irrelevant jibes at his speech - the mistakes make people wonder why GWB is so certain, and if they mistrust him already, amplifies that mistrust.
GWB is made fun of for some reasons that are unfair, but his manner both provides legitimate reason to question and amplifies the effect of silly mistakes.
Re:Busting him for violating sanctions (Score:3, Insightful)
Every now and again, a "fundamentalist Christian" extremist will shoot an abortion doctor, or keep a harem of 30 wives in a compound in Texas. The railing against Muslim extremists really ramped up when they killed several thousand people a couple of years ago in New York.
I'd go out on a limb and venture that there would be similar railing if Linux zealots started bombing Fortune 1000 companies that employ Microsoft OS fileservers.
Re:Changed the view of the US? (Score:5, Insightful)
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):
Re:Changed the view of the US? (Score:3, Insightful)
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_0
The government is opportunistic (Score:5, Insightful)
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)
Define "invest" (Score:4, Insightful)
Assuming Bill goes out and buys 50,000 shares of, say XMSR then in all actuality, the folks at XM Radio won't see a penny of that. We buy stocks from other people, not from the companies themselves, excepting an IPO, in which case, the price remains rather low to begin with. But this is just an infusion of cash, not a continuous stream.
Now, you could be talking about corporate bonds, in which case you'd be right. But AFAIK, most investors aren't looking for high-risk bonds like those of small cap businesses. They're looking for large-cap investments to shore up whatever it is they're doing in the market. This will create a few new jobs, but nothing on the scale of what you're talking about.
In reality, if you want to grow the economy, the best practice is to infuse money directly into the hands of consumers. Most people (unlike companies and the majority of the wealthy) don't stick their cash in a drawer somewhere; they spend it. And when they buy more goods, corporations' earnings go up. When corporate earnings go up, they hire more people, etc.
But this all goes back into the argument against supply side economics. The money at the top of the economic foodchain has a wicked tendency to stay at the top.
Re:Changed the view of the US? (Score:2, Insightful)
Selective "recognition" of UN rulings legitmacy (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Changed the view of the US? (Score:2, Insightful)
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.
A response to everyone... (Score:3, Insightful)
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)
Re:Arabs are semites. (Score:2, Insightful)
I find this hard to believe. I'm not a racist mind you, I just don't understand how there could *not* be some DNA marker that makes someone have dark brown skin, or almond-shaped eyes, just like there are genetic markers that make you have blonde hair or red hair or freckles or a big nose.
Are you saying then that there isn't a chunk of DNA that equals "asian" or "native american" or whatever? That what we perceive as a "race" is just a collection of physical traits (asians tend to have a specific eye shape, frequently have dark, straight hair, etc.)? If this is your statement, I agree with you, but if you're saying that DNA doesn't dictate what you look like, I'm very confused.
Re:Changed the view of the US? (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Changed the view of the US? (Score:3, Insightful)
Now, I'm no sportsfan, but to assert that sports are worthless is absurd
Even if they were useless are they any more useless than others who get paid equally obscene amounts of money? Tiger Woods does way more work in a year than a screen actor. Michael Schmacher, the world highest paid sportsman risks his life every time he takes to the track. Without his services and the services of other great drivers like Fangio before him there would be far, far less demand for Ferraris.
Fisher is a wanted criminal because he broke US law by aiding an abbetting a state who was at the time conducting genocide. The only reason he was being paid $3.3 million was to give the Serbian govt. the appearance of legitimacy.
In the aftermath of WW II, the British hung william Joyce 'Lord Haw Haw' as a traitor for doing the same sort of thing. Fischer deserves what is comming to him.
Re:Changed the view of the US? (Score:1, Insightful)
One of my sports watching brothers is a really nice guy and kind of quiet. The other is a loud mouth racist and quite possibly the biggest fucking asshole in the world.
Some people like sports and some don't-- it has nothing to do with your desire to bugger your dad.
Keep in mind that those "studies" were probably done by psychologists or sociologists. Might as well get your palm read while you're at it-- cause those aren't real scientists.
Re:Changed the view of the US? (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:Changed the view of the US? (Score:4, Insightful)
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)
Also, he was not convicted by a US jury, he was indicted. To the best of my knowledge we still have an innocent until proven guilty system.
Re:Arabs are semites. (Score:2, Insightful)
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.
Re:Changed the view of the US? (Score:1, Insightful)
Re:Changed the view of the US? (Score:3, Insightful)
Maybe because curing cancer is several orders of magnitude more difficult than hitting 40 home runs in a season.
The financial rewards are there -- multi-billion dollar rewards await the people that cure cancer. These rewards far exceed what any athlete could ever make.
Putting up million dollar rewards to solve problems like the Hilbert mathematics problems haven't yet yeilded any solutions.
Athletes contribute entertainment value to society and are compensated at the rate the market will bear.
Re:Changed the view of the US? (Score:1, Insightful)
It's really the Middle East, a geographical region, that we are at war with, not a religion.
Re:Changed the view of the US? (Score:1, Insightful)
Also, CEOs are paid by the board of trustees. If people really didn't like thier saleries, they wouldn't buy thier stock and wouldn't work for them and the 'problem' would go away.
Re:Changed the view of the US? (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:Changed the view of the US? (Score:3, Insightful)
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.