Thursday, July 22, 2004
Fischer had always been a bit of an eccentric. The Soviets had subtly harassed Fischer for years. Fischer’s response was to disagree with everything: time controls, playing conditions, match setup, no matter how fair they actually were, just to try to annoy the Soviets. It also stemmed from paranoia that if the Soviets agreed to it, it must be bad. One big reason the 1972 match happened at all was because his opponent, Boris Spassky is a very nice guy who just wanted to play chess.
As rational people, we can all be surprised and upset by Fischer’s decision to not play in 1975. Fischer laid out a list of 10 demands, most of which FIDE accepted. The big disagreement came with the match victory conditions. Previously, the World Championship match would be made up of 24 games, with the first player to 12.5 points, but Fischer was a proponent that the the first player to score ten wins winning the match, draws not counting. FIDE (the world chess body) refused and Fischer resigned. It is ironic that less than 10 years later, FIDE switched to a similar format. Although Fischer’s childish attitude wasn’t unfounded, he wasn’t able to rise above it and become a leader for the game. Thus the world was robbed of perhaps one of its greatest champions. It’s like as if Ali never fought after his jail time or if Jordan kept trying to play baseball.
The 1992 match was merely for money, but he had visions of grandeur that it was for the world championships. His post 9/11 anti-American and anti-Semitic rants are inexcusable and embarrassing as chess player and former fan. It is a little ironic how the American, Bobby Fischer is so vile, and the former “Soviet”, Gary Kasparov is intelligent and likeable. However, I’m not sure what extraditing him and trying him will actually achieve. I will watch US policies towards Fischer and Charles Jenkins, the soldier who defected to North Korean war during the war who has surfaced in Tokyo for surgery. Similar policies should be applied.
.....Michael Moore has just said, in so many words, the one thing that no reflective or informed person can possibly believe: that Saddam Hussein was no problem. No problem at all. Now look again at the facts I have cited above. If these things had been allowed to happen under any other administration, you can be sure that Moore and others would now glibly be accusing the president of ignoring, or of having ignored, some fairly unmistakable "warnings."
Wednesday, July 14, 2004
Annan was speaking on the sidelines of an international AIDS conference in
Bangkok where Washington's low-key presence, moral agenda and funding policies
on AIDS have come under attack. But a top U.S. government scientist defended
President George W. Bush's $15 billion (8 billion pounds) plan to fight the AIDS
epidemic that has killed 20 million people worldwide and infected 38 million.
"There is absolutely no diminished commitment in interacting internationally.
Look at the president's programmes. It's $15 billion," Dr. Tony Fauci, head of
the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases, told reporters. The
conference -- the biggest gathering of scientists, activists, drug company
bosses and AIDS sufferers -- has seen daily protests by activists shouting
"Shame, Shame" against Bush and other rich country leaders accused of failing to
support a U.N.-backed global AIDS fund….The Bush plan pledges $15 billion over
five years for care, prevention and treatment in 15 countries, mostly in Africa
and the Caribbean, which account for 70 percent of all infections. Critics say
Washington's bilateral effort undermines the Global Fund to Fight AIDS,
tuberculosis and malaria that faces a funding shortfall. The United States is
already the biggest donor.Reuters
See the real problem isn’t the fact that the US isn’t doing enough. It’s the fact that Kofi wants US money in his pockets. If the US gives the UN “Global Fund” $15 billion, how easy would it be to skim millions? The US and American citizens want better control over their money. Kofi and UN doesn’t really care about AIDS in Africa, otherwise we would be satisfied with $15 billion in treatment. What he really wants is personal control over US money. Kofi was on Britian's Channel 4 last night saying how much better the UN could use the money. I can see through you Mr. Annan!
Tuesday, July 13, 2004
WWII 90 – 7 – 3
Gulf 66 – 28 – 6
Korea 61 – 30 – 9
Iraq 49 – 49 – 2
Vietnam 33 – 62 – 5
Monday, July 12, 2004
U.S. Congresswoman Barbara Lee, the only member of Congress to attend the week-long meeting, accused the Bush administration of using ideology, not science, to dictate policy. She said the U.S. AIDS initiative requires that one-third of prevention funding go to "abstinence until marriage" programs. "In an age where five million people are newly infected each year and women and girls too often do not have the choice to abstain, an abstinence until marriage program is not only irresponsible, it's really inhumane," Lee said. "Abstaining from sex is oftentimes not a choice, and therefore their only hope in preventing HIV infection is the use of condoms," she added.
So if the girls in African countries “do not have the choice to abstain,” as claimed by Congresswomen Lee, then they are being raped. So if AIDS is being spread through widespread rape, then why is this not a topic of discussion. Secondly, if the girls are being raped, does Congresswomen Lee also think the rapists will also stop to use a condom?
So can Bush defeat himself? I do see rumblings of alienation against Bush from conservatives. According to today’s Wall Street Journal : “Overall spending has grown from 18.4% to 20.2% of gross domestic product (under Bush)” and “discretionary spending has grown 43% since President Clinton left office.” Some also disagree with his lack of aggressiveness in stamping out insurgents in Fallujah. I don’t think attempts to “broaden the party” wins Bush many friends. Nonetheless, he will be much better than tax happy John Kerry, who by the way served in Vietnam.
Wednesday, July 07, 2004
the policies of the American president affect him. Its founder, Wiebe de Jager, of the Institute for Multiparty Democracy in The Hague. It rationale is:
….When Americans vote this year they will be electing a president who affects every person in the country, no matter what state he lives in or for whom she voted. However, the president Americans elect will also have a direct and often more profound effect on millions more who will not be allowed to vote at all in November's election: basically, everyone else in the world. If America were truly serious about democracy it would allow the citizens of Iraq, for example, to vote for the president of the United States. The real decisions about Iraq will be made in the United States -- and largely by its president -- for years to come. If Iraqis could vote for president, there would likely be a more full explanation from the current U.S. administration about exactly how many Iraqis died in the war, how the contracts for rebuilding Iraq and drilling its oil are being awarded, and how a plan would be implemented to ensure the electricity stays on and the water running. Under such an idea of democracy, however, the list of countries whose citizens should be able to vote for president extends well beyond Iraq. The United States has a military presence in approximately 140 countries around the world. It decides if and how AIDS drugs will be administered in Africa. It pushes for the privatization of energy in India while shaping land reform in Tajikistan. America's "War on Drugs" fills prison cells in Bolivia and Colombia. U.S. government-subsidized corn and cotton flood the world market, impoverishing farmers from Mexico to Egypt. America forces university funding to be cut in Nicaragua just as it determines whether Thailand or Argentina will get further loans or default on their debt. The U.S. Army holds the peace in Kosovo, helps fight off insurgents in the Philippines, and is the final word in Kabul. The president has the ability to shape all these policies. In short, his or her power over non-Americans is dramatic and sweeping…... The World Votes
I’m yawning now. Are you? Again, America is made out to be a villain. Every person in every third world country screaming, “America, what have you done for me lately?” Obviously, the foreign policies of all nations’ leaders affect each other. I would certainly want to vote in the upcoming North Korean, Iranian, and Saudi elections. Perhaps if Americans could have just voted in the Iraqi election, a war would not have been needed. Perhaps if African dictators didn’t stifle democracy, and turn a blind eye to the rapes and the wars that have spread AIDS, they wouldn’t have as serious of a problem. Perhaps if those dictators didn’t horde all the money, the people could have more money to pay for them themselves. Perhaps if such several socialistic economic policies in Argentina didn’t exist, their economy would improve and they would be able to repay their debt. Perhaps if Afghanistan didn’t have a government that harboured and trained terrorists to attack civilians in New York, then an invasion wouldn’t have been necessary. Perhaps that could have been stopped if we were able to vote in the Afghani elections in 2000. Oh, wait there were none. If Mugabe of Zimbabwe didn’t institute land reforms, Zimbabwe would still be exporting agricultural products instead of being in a famine.
These days, everyone wants to make out America to be the bad guy and I’m tired of it. Perhaps if citizens of other countries who “want to vote in US elections,” could clean up their own countries first, then American foriegn policy wouldn't effect them much.