Chess Grandmaster Kasparov Versus President Putin 416
An anonymous reader writes "The Times of London has an article on how Garry Kasparov, former world chess champion, is using his fame and intellect in an attempt to defeat President Putin at the presidential elections in March 2008. Kasparov believes that Putin is virtually a dictator who is dismantling democracy and returning Russia to an authoritarian regime. Some high-profile Putin critics, such as Alexander Litvinenko, have been the victims of unsolved murders, and Kasparov is aware of the dangers: 'I can calculate the possibilities as a chess player and I have to be honest and say that our chances are not high. But I take this as a moral duty, and when you do something out of moral duty, then who cares?'" From the article: "[Kasparov] will not be a contender for the presidency but [his political umbrella group] The Other Russia aims to create the conditions under which an anti-Putin candidate can win. It appears, however, to be an uneven contest against a man who enjoys 80 per cent approval ratings. Most Russians want Mr. Putin to overturn a constitutional bar on a third term in office. Many will back whomever Mr. Putin endorses to succeed him."
Dear Kasparov (Score:5, Funny)
Actually... (Score:5, Insightful)
There is a great controversy over this man [wikipedia.org] whom Putin may have personally had murdered. Or it could be someone framing Putin. Or it could be Putin making it look as though he was framed. Russia is a grim place. I don't expect Kasparov to live much longer...whether those "approval ratings" are truly 80% or more like (1/80)%, either Putin has the power to make it look as though he has the people's support, or he does have the people's support, obviously making him powerful.
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
Basically, these poisonings and their possible consequences on peoples opinion of him are the only thing that could screw it up for him. And, with all the political situaions he's faced, he is the sort of man who knows it.
Therefore, he didn't do it, and neither did anyone w
Re:Actually... (Score:5, Informative)
There are two highly disputable points in your post: one, that Russia's economy is sustainable and balanced; and two, that Putin is a socialist. Both are quite obviously incorrect.
Russia's economic boom over the past 5-7 years has been principally attributable to the rise in oil and gas prices worldwide. Putin has been consolidating Russia's oil and gas companies into a much tighter oligarchy (cf. the reason why Khodorkovsky is in jail in Siberia). Meanwhile, he has been pressuring neighboring countries to sell their oil and gas pipelines to Russian companies. There has been a lot both in Western and Russian press about Putin's "energy empire." The rest of Russia's economy hasn't done much at all. In fact, fewer and fewer of the young generation even want to go into private business--most want to work for the state bureaucracy. Moreover, most of Russia's growth has been funnelled into Moscow and St. Petersburg (and dachas on the Volga), with the rest of the country experiencing few if any of the benefits from the oil & gas money. Lots of Russian towns in the countryside still look like they did in the 1800s. When oil and gas prices level off or fall (even temporarily so), so too will Russia's economic house of cards.
And in no way can Putin be called a socialist. Not even close. There are two groups within his administration: the siloviki and the St. Petersburg group. Neither are socialist in orientation. The siloviki are the so-called "power" people: they control the defense, internal security, FSB (i.e. KGB successor), military, etc. These are relatively agnostic when it comes to the economy, preferring the centralization of power and stabilization of society. Moves to centralize oil and gas fit well within their worldview. The St. Petersburg group are generally liberal (in the economics sense, not the U.S. sense) reformers who favor free market solutions and getting rid of the welfare state. They have been slowly trying to divest the state of its welfare obligations (with only marginal success, since the Russian people protest when you try to reform their pension benefits). Putin himself is a chekist--a KGB man--not a socialist in ideology or practice.
Re:Actually... (Score:5, Informative)
During the same period you mention--the late 80's arms race--you ought to note that the high oil prices from the 70's had finally fallen. The oil embargo from '73 and the second attempt in '79 had kept prices fairly high throughout the whole decade. So not only did the Soviets have to spend more on an arms race, but they had to do so in the context of falling profits from oil.
Today, the Russian economy is quite small, even when compared to the gaunt economy of the late Soviet period. In 2005 dollars, Mexico has a slightly higher GDP [wikipedia.org]. It shrank a great deal in the early 1990s during "shock therapy [wikipedia.org]" and the Asian Financial Crisis [wikipedia.org] which forced a massive ruble devaluation [wikipedia.org] and IMF bailout [wikipedia.org] (notably, Russia's quick recovery from devaluation coincided with a world rise in oil prices). Military expenditures are less than 1/25th of the United States' [wikipedia.org] (but about 3x as much as Mexico--so still a bit high relative to its GDP rank).
The problem is not really the external commitments of Russia or arms acquisitions, but simply that a huge chunk of its economy is solely based on energy. As we all know, energy is a fungible commodity and is subject to wide, hard to predict variations in world price. A sudden oil price shock could do proportionally higher damage to Russia than one might expect, especially because of the consolidation of the energy sector in Russia, and the centrality of companies like Gazprom to Kremlin strategy.
It's pretty widely accepted that a lot of Russian money that ought to be invested is sitting somewhere in Switzerland or the Caymans.
Re:Actually... (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Actually... (Score:5, Interesting)
So even if they found evidence that he did personally authorise the murder of Mr Litvinenko, they will probably rebuke him publicly, ( after giving a call telling him that they are going to di it of course, to keep their voters happy), but they know their voters do not like their winters messed with, so they will not do much else.
I mean, he may not have power over the US, but in Europe he is pretty much top dog. You think US has a dependence on middle east oil, nothing like Europe's dependence of Russian gas. He is actually playing the EU presidents against each other because of that.
You got nothing on Russia, and yes, Soviet Russia does check mate you.
Re:Actually... (Score:5, Insightful)
He plays ball. He plays hardball. He plays dirty. He's the reason post-Soviet Russia is no longer getting raped by foreign capitalists.
At this rate, history will probably remember him as the most effective Russian leader since Catherine the Great. From the perspective of a Russian citizen, the Soviets sucked, the Soviet collapse was worse, but now we're getting the best of both worlds and it's still improving. Putin can do whatever he wants if he keeps this track going.
Re:Actually... (Score:5, Insightful)
Consider this scenario:
Litko is a foreman of Ajax Chemical's main factory. When ABC Chem got embroiled in a legal scandal, Litko used the ensuing confusion and lack of supervision to sell off parts of ABC Chem's factories. He also used ABC Chem's property as collateral for loans with banking institutions, made sales deals with clients for ABC Chem products and then kept the profits. Litko also invested ABC Chems money and kept them for himself.
After four years, ABC Chem was finally was able to shake off the legal scandal and moved towards controlling its factories again. They soon found out that Litko is now a multi-billionaire and that he already owns most of the erstwhile property of ABC Chem.
ABC Chem decided to retrieve the wealth that they believe ABC Chem is legally and morally entitled to. Unfortunately, because Litko is now an oligarch, Litko is able to hire the best lawyers and is able to fend off the legal barrage for as long as possible while he makes his escape to London. In London, he settles comfortably and uses his new-found wealth to buy a football club.
In all definitions of the term, Litko is a criminal.
From the article:
Mr. Kasparov, the grandmaster, should ask himself exactly where did Mr. Berezovsky and Mr. Russian Owner of the Chelsea Football Club get their money to become stupendously wealthy in such a short time.
Unlike Mr. Kasparov, the majority of Russians (those 80% that support Putin) are aware that Berezovsky and his ilk are the Litkos who raped Russia of its natural wealth during the confusion of the collapse of the Soviet Union.
Mr. Kasparov does not have to look very far in search of where Russia's wealth went. He need only stare in the direction of his financial backers.
Re:Actually... (Score:4, Interesting)
The difference between Berezovsky and Putin is that Berezovsky already robbed the country, while Putin is doing it right now. If it so happens that the enmity between them is great enough that Berezovsky is willing to support any opposition to Putin, then I don't see any good reason why the more pragmatic members of that opposition should reduce the offer.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Catherine's sorry record aside, your comparison is very useful here to underline the Russians' longing for Tsarism to the underinformed foreigners...
Nope. The only reason for Russia's current wealth and weight is the High Oil Price. When it goes down again (and it will), Russia will be hurting again. It happened twice already: the first time's result was USSR's cr
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Because he doesn't need to kill his enemies. They pose him no threat, politically. Nothing they can say or do is going to remove popular support or his power.
His enemies w
Re:Actually... (Score:4, Informative)
What utter rubbish. Viktor Yushchenko [wikipedia.org] for one was in the process of displacing a pro-Russia regime in Ukraine at the time he was poisoned by dioxin. In what way did losing control of Ukraine pose no threat to Putin's power?
Re:Actually... (Score:5, Informative)
What the hell is everyone smoking?
Putin, now being in his second term (2 term max limit), loses power at the next election. He cannot run for president in the next election.
Yes, I live in Russia.
Re:Actually... (Score:4, Insightful)
Seriously, you think the same American people who just handed power to the democrats would stand for anything of the sort? I think you should consider expanding your list of reading/viewing choices, it might bring you a few steps toward reality.
I will say this much though: If Bush & Co. do manage some sort of martial law take over, it's all the friggin gun control nuts to thank for making it impossible for us to fight back. That IS exactly the situation the founding fathers had in mind when they put in the second ammendment.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Really? Even with AK47's, MG-3s, SAWs, full auto M16 in the hands of the people, can you really take on a military with tanks, helicopters, and B52 bombers at their disposal.
For the citizenry to defeat its own military it would need RPGs, Surface to Air missiles, military explosives and various other weaponry to defeat a wel
Re:Actually... (Score:5, Insightful)
Now Putin, with his near-80% approval rating (stop and think about this number for a moment), can probably chose his Labrador named Koni as the next presidential candidate, and Russians will vote for the dog. Why? Russians want stability. They are tired of revolutions, wars, and Perestroikas. Now they want a decent paycheck, a car, and a house. Don't misunderstand me, Russians have nothing against democracy, freedom of speech, and human rights. However, history taught them to be a bit more cynical and pragmatic than some of their Western neighbors.
"Give me liberty or give me death," said Patrick Henry. It just so happened that every time Russians adopted this approach, they got the shitty end of the stick. I can't blame them for playing it safe now. Today's Russia is a huge improvement over the bloody chaos of Gorbachev's and Yeltsin's era. Things in Russia will improve over time. And, since we are talking about Russia, it may take awhile. For everyone's benefit, Washington and London should keep their dirty snouts out of Russia's business and be happy with the gas and oil they are getting.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Actually... (Score:5, Informative)
--jeffk++
Re:Actually... (Score:5, Insightful)
The problem is that in stabilizing Russia Putin also gobbled up all the power he could find and has set Russia on course to look more like Russia of old then Europe of the US. Hell, Putin calls the Russian style of government "managed democracy". Putin has pooled all of the power of the state into his own hands. Russia suspended elections for governors and now simply appoints them with an old skool nod to the USSR. Russian TV is now almost entirely state and blatantly used for propaganda, making campaigning against Putin and his allies all but impossible. The government, while not throwing people in Siberian slave labor camps Stalin style, happily detain activists by the thousands before any attempt to hold a protest.
Russia hasn't caught up with their old Soviet ways yet but they are headed that way. Russia still maintains a relatively free printed press, and Putin has so far refrained from writing himself as dictator into the constitution. That said, the direction Russia is headed isn't pretty, and I really doubt that Putin is going to appoint a successor who is going to be a champion of liberalization and democracy.
Re:Actually... (Score:5, Insightful)
My wife has been to St. Petersburg on business, and the first-hand experience didn't sound like one she'd care to repeat. One colleague carrying an El Salvadorean passport, for example, had to be fished out of customs with bribes.
Russia is a mafia state. Get over it. Socialism models the human spirit poorly, hence its historically mixed results.
Re:Actually... (Score:5, Informative)
I live in Russia. Yes, it's sometimes bad here. And yes, it's MUCH BETTER now than in 90-s. Hell, we had mafia in our town walking with AK-74 in broad daylight!
Re:Actually... (Score:4, Informative)
We certainly filled out a truckload of paper to bring her here from Germany. As well as ~$1,500 in fees. My reaction was more sadness at the slowness of the bureaucracy than anything else. (The US has contributed massively to the advance of human technology, and THIS is what we have to show for it?!?!?!?!?)
Back to Russia, she says that visiting the Russian Embassy to obtain the visa was extremely unpleasant, for whatever that is worth.
Comment removed (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Actually... (Score:5, Insightful)
As far as your ranting about socialism... when in the hell did I even mention socialism? What exactly are you arguing against? I spoke only of democracy. If Russia wanted to implement European styled socialism, good for them. Plenty of European nations have managed to be both socialistic and democratic to greater and lesser degrees without becoming a (in Putin's own doublespeak words) "managed democracy". Contrary to the popular beliefs of some socialist heroes, you can have both socialism AND democracy. It is okay to let the people vote and conduct politics in the open without developing a totalitarian dictatorship built around a cult of personality.
Stop defending these assholes because they speak pretty words that fall in line with your politics. A dictator is a dictator, regardless if he hides behind divine right, military power, fascist ideals, capitalist ideals, or even socialist ideals.
Re:Actually... (Score:5, Insightful)
I would strongly suggest you to reconsider this statement. Just because you are an autocrat and govern for the benefit of a restricted circle of oligarchs, it does not mean the people will not like you. The bulk of the people can be made incredibly stupid when you control enough of the media.
The classical instrument to make the people love you even when you are actually screwing them is finding a scapegoat: Hitler had Jews, but he certainly did not invent the tactic, nor anti-semitism itself (he was instead special in that he actually believed that crap). It runs all the way back to the Romans (who blamed, say, Christians) and beyond. It has to be a small minority without an actual capability to politically fight back, yet recognizable enough. Putin has Chechen rebels, Ahmadinejad has Americans and Israel, Bush has terrorists, Berlusconi has Communists, Le Pen has immigrants.
Hmmmm (Score:5, Insightful)
Ever since I read Bill Gates was a rather good Go player, it explained a lot to me about his business strategy.
A brilliant chess player like Mr Kasparov should not only be able to calculate the odds, but also devise some ways to alter them.
If he's really getting ready to battle Putin, he really should apply his best tactics to politics.
Which he might do, too.
Let's see what happens...
Re:Hmmmm (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Of course not.
However, I do believe he knows his strategy... in this kind of games, without strategy, you're nothing.
I should know; I play rarely, have no strat
Re:Hmmmm (Score:4, Insightful)
In fact, I suspect that Kasparov's incredible skill at chess would actually hamper his abilities in politics - his mental reflexes were trained for much of his life to focus on ways to think in terms of a fixed set of rules, while politicians tend to make up new rules as it suits them and they are VERY good at that. So Kasparov might fail at having to deal with such an incredibly unpredictable environment, while politicians often fail at grasping the concept that maybe some rules ought to apply to them.
I'd say the comparison that was made of technical skill != social skill is a very very good one. Many of the attributes necessary for real mastery technical material seem to be in opposition to attributes necessary for real mastery of social environments.
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
Only chess was a political institution in the USSR. As Kasparov came up the ranks he became intimately familiar with the government, and had to deal with the people in power frequently. Furthermore, the Soviet chess machine was very much a political organization too. Kasparov was just the face of Soviet chess, he had many players who basically subordinated themselves to advancing his game,
Putin does not respect the rules of the game. (Score:2)
However, Putin does no respect the rules of the political game. The rules are essentially basic human rights, the Russian laws, and the spirit and the letter of the Russian constitution.
Putin is analogous to a chess player who, upon seeing an imminent checkmate by his wily oppone
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Kasparov will not be using his chess skills, but rather trading on the notoriety as a chess grandmaster. In a democracy, perhaps the best cure for the KGB authoritarian-style ruler is Russia's version of Arnold Schwarzenegger - a dilettante cashing in on fame and fortune.
Re: (Score:2)
There are rules in chess, but you make it sound civilised. Chess is an incredibly aggressive game when you get to championship level. Kasparov has not only brains but also a Hell of a lot of attitude. If you read the linked article, Kasparov sounds far from a fool. And as he points o
Re: (Score:2)
What people seem to ignore is the fact that both chess and Go are wargames.
Yes, there are rules to the game. There are rules as to how certain pieces can move.
Just like there are "rules" as to when you can launch some aircrafts or when you can just bring on the artillery.
Pick your analogies wisely.
Re: (Score:2)
I think you meant to reply to the GP. It wasn't my analogy.
Re: (Score:2)
Actually, that's what you think the rules are.
I think Kasparov knows very well that the rules are substantially different from the official ones.
Besides, in politics as well as in other things, it's not cheating if you don't get caught.
Kasparov is no fool. We'll just have to see if he knows the game well enough.
Kasparov is a nutjob! (Score:2)
Only in a chess game, and only as long as it's against another human and not a computer.
Kasparov seems to be rather eccentric, perhaps not as much as Bobby Fischer, but his ideas are too weird for someone who wants to govern a country. His analysis of European history [new-tradition.org] should be enough for anyone to be wary of him. He seems to believe the Middle Ages didn't exist.
He is very arroga
Good luck! (Score:2)
Re:Good luck! (Score:5, Funny)
LOL (Score:2)
Putin Has History and Current Form (Score:5, Interesting)
My wife has family in Russia so that is why I am posting anonymously.
They hate Putin. Yeltin was a dream compared to Putin.
Look how Russia in implicated in the poisoning of several prominent people outside of Russia including the President of Ukraine.
Under Putin the Russian State is gradually taking control of key industries.
Look at the past week and how Shell were forced to relinquish control of a major Oil/Gas project in the Far East of the country.
The project will now go down the Tubes and fall apart but to Putin's idealogs this does not matter.
Russia controls most of the Gas Supplies to Western Europe so Government here dare not say anything against him for fear that their Gas supplies get cut off in the forthcoming winter period.
IMHO, any challenge to Putin is worthwhile.
Just my take on the issue. Right On Kasparov!
Re: (Score:2)
Down the Internets?
Sorry, I just had to...
melodrama (Score:4, Interesting)
My wife has family in Russia so that is why I am posting anonymously.
Right. Because the KGB is reading Slashdot, has a lookup table between slashdot usernames and addresses, and has nothing better to do except target the family of some guy who said a few nasty words about Putin.
Putin may be very evil, but don't use melodrama to puff up your claims, please. Also- Yeltsin's name is spelled with an S.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
I am not Russian, nor do I have any connection to Russia. I do however still have friends and family in another Eastern European country. I thought I had half a clue as to how things were there
I have no doubt that Russia is just as bad, if n
Re:melodrama (Score:5, Funny)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Whether he's justified in his paranoia or not, I'm pretty sure the KGB isn't reading Slashdot, since it ceased to exist in 1991.
Re:melodrama (Score:5, Funny)
Re: (Score:2)
80% approval rating? (Score:3, Interesting)
That sounds almost like Alberta. Well, except Alberta's economy was been booming under Klein's regime, and nobody has accused him of murdering his opponents, but that's still a pretty high approval rating. Why is it so high? The impression the media here gives us is that Putin is a ruthless dictator and enemy of the people. (Media bias, anyone?)
Re:80% approval rating? (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Realistically speaking - the potential/existing impact of the USA on other countries is far greater than that of Russia. And as time goes by it the potential for negative impact seems to be increasing to uncomfortable levels.
So the potential for US elections to be diebolded concerns me. The bulk of the citizens not being bothered about that concerns me even more.
The Putin 80% popularity poll might be even more credib
Re: (Score:2)
Slippery slope (Score:5, Funny)
Re:Slippery slope (Score:5, Funny)
There's only one solution: the Americans should get the most advanced artificial intelligence system ever built and let it take complete control over their nuclear arsenal.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Litvinenko: Blackmailer, Smuggler, Gangster Extrao (Score:4, Interesting)
Comment removed (Score:4, Funny)
There's only one way to counter this threat.. (Score:2, Funny)
Will Kasparov see this coming? (Score:5, Funny)
1. f3 e5
2. g4
Putin to move
Re:Will Kasparov see this coming? (Score:5, Interesting)
Putin is preventing even worse getting into power (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:Putin is preventing even worse getting into pow (Score:2)
Kasparov on NPR (Score:5, Informative)
Start a trend (Score:3, Funny)
Why is he mad at Putin? (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Russian democracy (Score:5, Interesting)
Most Russians want Mr. Putin to overturn a constitutional bar on a third term in office. Many will back whomever Mr. Putin endorses to succeed him."
Well, as much as Kasparov is complaining about the democratic process, it seems to me the people are getting what they want. Who are we to tell them they're wrong? It's in America's culture to distrust extended rule and anything that smells like a monarchy. It's in Russia's culture to prefer stability of a strong leader to the uncertainty that can be found in the absence thereof. If they truly want Putin to rule them, let him.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
That's a Putin Lie (Score:3, Insightful)
It comes from the "Yuri Levada Analytical Centre",. Yuri Levada died November 16th this year (heart attack), but his organization has had repeated attempts at take over by the Kremlin, including trying to replace the board in 2003, that didn't like his polls showing Russians critical of Putin. Without Yuri, information put out in his name is likely tainted by the Kremlin. The poll was done just before Yuri's death, and
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Oh please. As someone who had lived in Russia and who still follows the developments in Russia, I can tell you: yes, they want him. And there are plenty of ways of speaking against Putin, and many people do.
Too bad Solzhenitsyn is so old (Score:3, Insightful)
The man who put his life on the line to tell the truth about the evil's of communism is one of the great intellectual heroes of our day, as well someone of absolute integrity and moral authority. Alas, he is also 88 years old, and it's hard to conceive of him undertaking the rigors of a political campaign, or even the office of President, at that age. but one can dream...
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Chess player? (Score:5, Interesting)
I can calculate the possibilities as a chess player and I have to be honest and say that our chances are not high.
Don't get me wrong... chess is one of my hobbies too. I also enjoy digging into politics, and I feel like I have enough experience in computer science to be able to identify and analyze systems. First, I can tell you that the game of chess and politics are two very different systems. So different, in fact, that being good at one will not ever help you with the other.
Chess is in fact a simple, deterministic game that is very limited and loses complexity over time. We've written software that can play chess excellently for a very long time. As far as I know, no computer systems have ever been elected to office.
I can tell you right off the bat that Kasparov's edge in politics is not his chess ability--it's his fame. That will attract more attention than anything else. Also, there is the public notion that anyone who is good at chess is some kind of genius, something he can use to his advantage as well. He keeps bringing up the fact that being so good at chess makes him smart enough to do all these things. People don't have trouble believing something like that, so maybe he is a good politician after all.
Democracy (Score:2)
Disgusting Russians in the USA and UK (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Ironic (Score:2)
Considering that umbrellas were used at least once by the KGB in an assassination (poison dart gun hidden in an umbrella), I wonder what sort of 'umbrella group' we're talking about here.
Would that be the Kasparov, Deep Blue Ticket (Score:2)
Ayn Rand's "Open Letter" (Score:3, Funny)
Re:"news relevant to United States politics" (Score:5, Insightful)
How does this not effect our foreign policy and our politics?
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Because Kasparov is showing Bush how to *really* spread democracy.
- RG>
Re: (Score:2)
NO
Or will politicians always continue to have to be liars wearing masks of false confidence, grabbing all power available in order to hold onto any power at all?
YES
Must the functional brains of our society continue to be the most cruel amongst us?
YES
Well, you asked.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I'm sorry, but did you *actually* call John F. Kerry an intellectual?
I'm not sure if the parent was trying to say that John Kerry was an intellectual or not.
I guess that if you interpreted the term "intellectual [wikipedia.org]" broadly, you might say that John Kerry is an intellectual, but then you would have to say that George W Bush is one also. I somehow doubt that the parent would argree with that.
On the other hand, Bill Clinton could probably have been more accurately deemed an intellectual than either
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
He's a democratically elected socialist trying to repair a quagmire of a country. After being elected twice and doing such a good job that everyone is imploring him to change the laws and run again so they can keep following his leadership, he's not sure if he should. Real totalit
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
WTF? Who is that???
who supports banning guns, who supports banning trans-fats
Think I have a good idea who you're talking about here (liberals).
and ciggarettes and micromanaging personal lifestyles, who supports regulations and restrictions on free speech
WTF? Again, this is wild stuff. Please tell me who these people are?!?!?! Because they sound really really b
Re: (Score:2)
Ralph Nader, teachers unions, etc.
Think I have a good idea who you're talking about here (liberals).
Yes... Is a form of authoritarianism any less bad because it is popular on the left?
WTF? Again, this is wild stuff. Please tell me who these people are?!?!?! Because they sound really really bad.
Smoking is being banned in several cities already (not public smoking, but smoking period), and the people vocal in the "consumer activist" community, health analysts at universities, in government,
Re: (Score:2)
Knight to King Porn Three (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)