Kasparov Arrested, 5 Days in Jail

And some people still think Putin is OK? Really weird.

Garry said it is all about oil prices. Human rights vs. money (based on high oil prices)?

"Never cared much about politics,'til I was 21
But I woke up when Lennon, found the wrong end of a gun."
-- Richie Sambora

Ok so I still haven't woken up. Can someone help me with 2 simple questions please?

- boolean b = 'Officially' is Russia a democracy?. Is b true or false?
- cout ( (b) ? 'why/how the f@#$ would/could you be arrested for organizing a rally which was peaceful? : 'don’t bother' );

PS: Sorry for mixin up C++ and Java. I was playin rated games vs Fritz 8 and he kept sayin bring me some vodka...

Based on Wiki, the largest oil producers: Saudia Arabia, Canada, Mexico, USA, UAE... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oil_reserves

The United States has the largest known concentration of oil shale in the world (could last 110 years). Oil shale is much more expensive to extract, but could be developed given high enough oil prices. What will happen in 100 years?

OPEC http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Organization_of_the_Petroleum_Exporting_Countries and the North American governments benefit from high oil prices.

This jail & human rights thing reminded me of Yukos and Khodorkovky: http://www.khodorkovsky.info/
http://assembly.coe.int/Documents/AdoptedText/TA05/ERES1418.htm

There is more discussion about the arrest at slashdot, but here's one of the posts with a few good links (by 'reporter').

"Unfortunately for Gary Kasparov, the Kremlin plays brutal chess.

According to a report [washingtonpost.com] recently issued by Reuters, the leading political candidate representing the liberal anti-Kremlin Yabloko party has been shot by an unknown assailant. The candidate is now in serious condition in a hospital. This attempted assassination caps a year-long effort, by the Kremlin, to rig the parliamentary election on December 2.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/11/21/AR2007112101684_pf.html

Under orders from the Kremlin, banks have refused to accept donations from supporters for deposit in the accounts of opposition parties [iht.com]. Owners of assembly halls have canceled contracts allowing opposition politicians to stage rallies. The police have seized the newspapers of opposition parties in a draconian attempt to prevent them from spreading their message.

http://www.iht.com/articles/ap/2007/11/21/europe/EU-POL-Russia-Uneven-Field.php

In early November, the election-monitoring arm of the Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe (OSCE) declined to send election observers to Russia [timesonline.co.uk] to monitor the 2007 parliamentary election. This OSCE decision resulted from (1) the Kremlin's refusing to allow more than 70 OSCE observers to enter Russia and (2) the Kremlin's delaying the granting of visas to them.

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/europe/article2883531.ece

In 2003, the Kremlin had accepted 400 OSCE observers [iht.com], but after the OSCE condemned the 2003 election for being unfair, many folks in the Kremlin vowed to stymie OSCE's efforts in future elections."

http://www.iht.com/articles/ap/2007/11/14/europe/EU-GEN-Russia-OSCE-Election.php

When one considers Putin's background and penchant for strong armed tactics the only surprise is that Kasparov's arrest hasn't happened sooner. If Garry as an opposition leader didn't have the world recognition that he does, I'm certain it would be more than 5 days.

Also, I wonder if Mig's dossier in the Kremlin has a current picture or the more "radical" version when he had long hair? Knowing Garry personally comes with a price these days.

I hope Kasparov comes out safely. I am just thinking Gary can make a greater impact on the Russian public by doing something positive (some good work) instead of doing these demonstrations??

Doing this demonstrations is clearly good work in Russia today. Demonstrations are simply basic human law, though obviously not in Russia now. And there is not too much more the opposition can do, while all media is streamlined on Kremlin course, which is another indicator for a totalitarian state (also the judiciary). I would guess that a march of three thousand in a city of more than 10 million inhabitants should not make up for that much. But with Garry's arrest it was headline in the german news, his silly sentence a day later also. So Putin acts counterproductive, seems to be the paranoia of FSB/KGB control freaks.
Kudos for Gary and hope he can go on as he wishes soon.

Garri can now join the all prison chess team along with Dlugy, Fischer and Bloodgood. Thwe question is.......who would you put on board 1 ?

Well it had to happen - the russian state has given Kasparov some warnings he has been arrested before attacked before now he is getting a taste of prison. Next time it could be worse. I dont understand where he I going with all this - martyrdom??

I would like to understand exactly why he was jailed. There must be some sort of social disturbance law in the Russian legal system. If you don't follow that law you go to jail, there is nothing wrong with that. Please note such laws were and are commom in Western countries, including USA. Martin Luther King for example was arrested in a demostration in the 1960s for precisely the same reason. I don't want of course to compare Kasparov to Martin Luther King, that would be extremely unfair to Luther King. Kasparov is a novice in the organization of social movements but does have an extremely efficient public relations machine working for him in the West. He is always depicted as the good boy against the evil Putin regime. I know nothing about Russian politics but based on Kasparov's track record on chess politics I would never, ever, give my vote to him. I however do recognize he was a great, perhaps the greatest, chess player.

People are mentioning how this has got attention in germany or wherever(here in India many channels had a ticker mentioning it). I think its utterly irrelevant how much airtime/newsprint he is getting in foreign media as most Russians are probably unaware or apathetic.

"Next time it could be worse. I dont understand where he I going with all this - martyrdom??"

Yes, I said the same thing to Paul Revere and his fellow Americans. What were they thinking?

Just another bit of Migs Kasparov-propaganda. I also wonder if Mig writes the chessbase-articles about Kasparov stating that there are 1350 News-Links about this arrest which is absolute nosense (koz the search-word was "kasparov" and 99,99 % of the articles are about chess not the arrest).

Chess and boxing is the only sports that have their World Champions being jailed-twice. Boxing has Mike Tyson and Muhammad Ali and chess- Bobby Fischer and Garry Kasparov!

Read my article at http://hairulovchessmaniacs.blogspot.com/2007/11/world-chess-champion-jail.html

BUY: Garry's street cred (and five days in the slammer is not so high a price to pay).

SELL: Moral authority of Putin and his government (from an already low point).

HOLD: "Quixotic" as adjective to describe Kasparov's quest.

GOOD HUMOR AWARD: RJ's quip, "all prison team".

It doesn't make me happy to say this, but both Kasparov and H L M's above post definitely qualify for the "Quixotic" label. See this:
http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601109&sid=a0hj13CpUmGE&refer=home

I've had a growing suspicion for some time - and believe me, I get no joy from it - that the various Russians who've posted here taking a "realpolitik" view of Russian politics (along with non-Russian realists like Koster), may be closer to the truth than the idealistic types like H L M (and myself).

His post obviously makes zero sense unless we assume he meant the phrases "Garry's street cred" and "Moral authority of Putin and his government" to include the unspoken addendum, "...in the West."

But since it's a Russian election we're talking about, and Putin's government isn't (yet, anyway) even on the radar screen for U.N. sanctions or anything of the sort - why then does it matter what the West thinks of either Kasparov or Putin?

Putin is a dictator.

Putin is a killer.

Putin is a genocidal criminal (more than 200.000 Chechen civilians exterminated).

Go to Hell, Putin !

@Leroidavid

Hmm big expert on Russian politics, I'm guessing?

Everything you say is nonsense. I don't know (or care where you are from) but before you start talking about Putin as a dictator/killer/criminal - go look at Bush's record. The damage he has caused in Iraq is nothing compared to what was done in Chechnya.

@anon,

Hmm big expert on American politics, I'm guessing?...

Jon Jacobs may be right, or Mig may be right when he writes on the Other Russia website, "no one knows better than Putin and his small ruling clique that for a broad majority of Russians things aren’t going well at all and that Putin’s supposed popularity is a myth that depends on propaganda and intimidation."

Maybe both are right.

In 2003, Russian emigre Alex Feht, now settled in Colorado USA, wrote that "Russians have an opportunity now to tell and print almost anything they want, and even (to some extent) to start a small business, but that they prefer playing old games of persecution, theft, and deadly intrigues. When an old mining horse is finally given an open pasture, she continues to go in circles. Life without deadly danger seems flat, unspiced to the Russians, the idea of earning their living by honest work bores most of them. Why work if you can steal? We agreed with Jack that it would take at least several generations for Russians to forget their old ways, and to get used to be self-controlled rather than police-controlled."

That would appear to support Mr. Jacobs' contention.

Then again, we still remember Don Quixote, four hundred years later. No one remembers the various roly-poly, "go along to get along" innkeepers whom Quixote encountered.

Forget russian media forget Mig's site ...Look at independent western media - antiwar.com etc for the real deal on this very complex issue.

It is quite clear that Putin is NOT a dictator he is very popular. All he did was put the criminals who looted the country for so long where they belong - in jail .

His approval rating is 67% - compare that to Bush --

The fact that Putin is popular in Russia (which he is) does not change the fact that he is a dictator.Apparently some people are happy to live in a dictatorship.

Right, and if you gave Bush control of every television channel and every newspaper and a pervasive security force out there cracking heads at every hint of criticism, Bush and Cheney would have 70% too. Lukashenko is "popular" as well. And I bet Saddam Hussein had a 98% approval rating until the first US tanks rolled into Baghdad. Western-style polls in a police state are ridiculous.

The West's opinion matters because Putin and those who run the country with him have their money in the West. They aren't imperialists or nationalists or ideologues of any stripe. It's about the money. Their only consistent actions have been to increase short-term revenue and put it into (private) western accounts and assets as fast as possible. The UN is useless, but if the West would put that money trail in focus it would get Putin's attention very quickly.

Not only are all Russian opposition voices, any criticism really, banned from television and other mainstream Russian media, but the police routinely raid the offices of anyone seen as supporting any opposition. Printers who have published Other Russia leaflets have been shut down. Newspapers that agreed to carry our advertising have had their computers confiscated, etc. Meanwhile, the living standards is actually declining for most of those outside the golden rings in St. Petersburg and Moscow, even with oil at nearly $100. The money goes out while prices skyrocket.

As for Putin cleaning things up, who do you think is running the country for him now? A new set of megarich oligarchs -- and some of the same ones for that matter. Putin simply purged the ones who threatened him and brought in or promoted his pals. Khodorkovsky was fine until he started to get political. Putin's billionaire buddies like Abramovich and Deripaska have perfected the corruption that began under Yeltsin. It has become the official form of government.

The obvious questions: If Putin is so popular and people are so happy, why are critics banned from the media and the streets? Why are small, supposedly marginal groups like Other Russia constantly harassed?

And as for the "Kasparov is irrelevant in Russia so ignore him" tautology, are you kidding? How many human rights movements against authoritarian states were big favorites? How many were successful right from the start? You do what you can, you do what you must, you do the right thing and you fight. Resistance is also patience.

The system they have under Putin is not sustainable. You can only blame foreigners (and internal provocateurs of course) and your predecessor for so long when things aren't going well. (Or you have to continue the formula and invade Poland.) Only record oil prices and the aforementioned crackdowns have kept things together in Russia. Either the Kremlin mafia structure or the economy is going to fall apart eventually. When that happens Russia will need people around who are trying to build a democratic system instead of just trying to make a buck.

"The system they have under Putin is not sustainable. ... is going to fall apart eventually."

One small problem with your impeccable reasoning is that the "eventually" you mention might easily not happen in our lifetimes. Putin is a cynical bastard, no argument here, but a clever and resourceful one. And, sad to say, he is indeed quite popular in Russia. I don't refer to official polls, ratings and such - they are certainly worthless in a police state. But nowadays there are other ways to probe "public opinion" (FLOABW). There are blogs and forums galore, people are still free to speak their mind there (even if anonymously.) Putin's fervent (not to say rabid) fans are in overwhelming majority all over the (Russian) cyberspace.

Kasparov's Quixotic activity may be worthy of respect but it does not have a snowball's chance in hell of success in today's Russia. And this debate is not new. In a famous poem written in 1823, Pushkin said it all much better than anyone (a lot is lost in a horrible translation, but Garry certainly knows the original text):

As freedom's sower in the wasteland
Before the morning star I went;
From hand immaculate and chastened
Into the grooves of prisonment
Flinging the vital seed I wandered--
But it was time and toiling squandered,
Benevolent designs misspent...

Graze on, graze on, submissive nation!
You will not wake to honor's call.
Why offer herds their liberation?
For them are shears or slaughter-stall,
Their heritage each generation
The yoke with jingles, and the gall.

The 15-20% of Russians who are online aren't exactly the ones complaining. They largely cross over with the minority in the city centers I mentioned above who are generally pleased with their own situations. If you are paying for internet you aren't one of the 100+ million Russians hit hard by the recent price jumps. (Which led to back-to-the-USSR price fixing for campaign season.) And don't think for a moment that the Kremlin isn't actively pursuing its media agenda in cyberspace as well. Plenty of bloggers and even commenters have been prosecuted for "extremist" speech and sites have been shut down. If they feel the net is a threat we'll just see more. Lastly, as for online support in general, last I checked Ron Paul isn't considered a front-runner for the GOP nomination!

Nobody is saying the Kremlin is going to fall apart tomorrow or that Kasparov would be swept into power even if it did. But I don't understand all the negativity, as if it's all worthless if you can't win next week or next month. As Garry has said many times, we aren't fighting to win elections, we are fighting to have elections. This is a human rights campaign more in line with civil rights efforts than anything political in the sense it would be in a real democracy (i.e. a place with unpredictable elections).

No chance in hell to do what, exactly? To push back and gain space for real opposition in Russia? We have already achieved much in that department. To draw the attention of the global community to Putin's creation of a police state? Much improved there too, I'd say. To hold nationwide assemblies to select a candidate? Done. That's not all worthless just because going from 2% to 4% doesn't look impressive on a chart. This isn't just about winning. There are many degrees of success in these fights.

I don't think it will take as long as a national philosophical reeducation program on democracy would require, although that's part of our mission. The current Kremlin power structure is very brittle and won't survive a serious shake-up. I mostly hope it's it will be a soft landing instead of a mad and/or bloody scramble.

Mig,

This argument that Putin is popular in Russia because he controls media is bollocks. You can pitch that to American audience all you want, but the reality on the ground is the the guy is very popular with general Russian public, even with those that are hit hard by his economic policies. The guy is popular because he gives the population what it wants - a tough ruler with imperialistic ambitions.

"The obvious questions: If Putin is so popular and people are so happy, why are critics banned from the media and the streets? Why are small, supposedly marginal groups like Other Russia constantly harassed?"

Doesn't it strike you that all dictatorships do that. Otherwise they wouldn't be dictatorships in the first place.

The point was that it was a dictatorship. This was being disputed. Hence one of our slogans: :"If this is a democracy why can't we march?"

So you don't think having total control of the media affects your ability to affect your popularity? Quick, tell all the political candidates around the world to stop wasting their money on television advertising. When you poll Russians (and not just in the centers of St. Petersburg and Moscow) on standard of living, direction of the country, education, etc. (i.e. issues) the approval rating is below 50%. That there is a 24/7 media message that everything good is thanks to Putin and anything bad is because of his critics (or predecessors or the famous enemies within and without) it obviously affects how Russians feel about him.

I'm not saying Russians, like the people of any nation, don't appreciate a "strong" leader. (Putin isn't an imperialist, by the way. He just plays one on TV. The Russian state is weaker now than it has ever been. More and more of its power is being "outsourced" to the big corporations controlled by Putin's oligarchs.) But Russians would have to balance those feelings with the horror of what's really happening to the economy, and why, if there were a free media. Two weeks of an open press could destroy the Putin regime. Which is why there isn't an open press. As you said, all dictatorships do that. They must have a reason.

The other Russia has nothing to do with Russia and more to do with empire - supported by Richard Perle and his cronies.

http://antiwar.com/justin/?articleid=11320

There is No frigging way Americans or anyone else have the right to dictate what goes on in another country. Iraq, Iran and now Russia - what a joke.

Well, opinions are like a______s, everybody's got one.

Dictate? Promoting human rights abroad is hardly a crime, I would hope. The US has actually been one of the least active of Western nations in this regard since the end of the Cold War. Clinton dropped the ball and when Bush picked it up he ran in the wrong direction. The US and most of the EU have been extremely solicitous to Putin for years. Bush has insisted forever what a great pal Putin is. You don't see Ahmadinejad invited to the ranch too often. Hardly a setup for regime change.

And what does that article have to do with the Other Russia movement? You think Garry and hundreds of others are out in the streets and in jail to help out the "Anglosphere"? Sure, and Gandhi was in it for the salt.

Thanks for the links to the comedy site though. The Onion has competition. Nice to know that whatever happens anywhere in the world, you can keep blaming the exact same people for it if you try hard enough. That the US/England/Them is against someone doesn't automatically make them good guys no matter how much you disagree with US policy in general. And if you believe Putin's critics keep dying because of a conspiracy to make him look bad you really need your head checked.

You can cry and moan all you want on a chess site but the informed people are not going to just listen to CNN or Fox news or *gasp* some chess fan's blog! I don't care if you're kasparov's buddy - I just provided a link to one of the most widely read news websites.. YOu can quip all you want - either you are delibrately trying to mislead people or you are too indoctrinated from PC teachings to comprehend anything.
Saddam was a much worse dictator - i take it that regime change there was a good thing, no?

You call that Other Russia thing a movement? Ok - then. I'm sure this movement will *cough* do even better for Russia's economy than Putin does ..

Trust me - You guys cant win *free* elections over there - resorting to violence (getting help from terrorists and thugs) is your only hope.

"The US has actually been one of the least active of Western nations in this regard since the end of the Cold War. Clinton dropped the ball and when Bush picked it up he ran in the wrong direction. The US and most of the EU have been extremely solicitous to Putin for years. Bush has insisted forever what a great pal Putin is."

Well lets see, Reagan was responsible for the end of the cold war and surely would not have been solicitous to Putin in any way shape or form (rightfully so). But...you didn't like him and you state, more or less, that Clinton and Bush have been on hiatus with human rights with Bush and Putin being buddies. So other than Garry and his tilting at windmills in regard to the Putin regime, who do you think would do a better job in this country next time around? Hilliary? Obama? ______ fill in the blank? Inquiring minds would like to know. And please don't go stroking out on me now, I'm just curious.

Putin does very well for his own economy, yes. What did I say that was misleading or wrong? You said Other Russia had something to do with Richard Perle and an American empire. This is false and silly. You seem to have forgotten to post any information. Let me know if you find any. The editorial boards of both the NY Times and the WSJ wrote strongly in support of Garry and against Putin's crackdown. In cahoots, I assume?

CT: Few of the current crop of US presidential candidates offer any hope of a change in US policy regarding human rights in the world. Things here have become so degraded that they actually ask debate questions like, "what is more important, US national security or human rights?" If that's a serious question we're already in deep trouble.

McCain is probably the only one in either field with a consistent principled public stance on the issue and he's made the best remarks on Russia, not just during campaigns. But it's mostly a non-issue in the campaigns since all foreign policy is dominated by Iraq and they aren't eager to connect that to global human rights. Other than torture, which is something else I'd put in the category of "if you have to ask you've already answered incorrectly." But since I live in the US my own vote won't just go to whomever would be best for democracy in Russia.

Similarly, my personal background issues with Reagan aren't really relevant to the discussion. He was/is a big hero to many behind the Iron Curtain and certainly represents (in spirit as today understood if not always in reality) the staunch and outspoken attitudes Garry and the Other Russia would like to see a new US president (and other leaders in the West) take as far as human rights and democracy abroad. Ironically, Bush has talked very big about defending and promoting democracy abroad. But he's quite selective, which undermines the entire point. If you're going to stand on principle you can't pick and choose or you're easily dismissed as a hypocrite. Sometimes you have a lesser of two evils situation, that's politics. But hugging Putin when there would be no imaginable cost for standing up to him is pathetic. Bush got his reward in October when Putin did his big photo-op with Ahmadinejad and promised they would fight terror together. Oy.

Mig.

Thanks for your reply. As a registered independent and wanting what is best for my country, I am at a loss this time around regarding next years election. From my perspective, probably the worst selection of presidential candidates in my lifetime. With oil near $100 per barrel and Putin setting himself up to rule by proxy (and continued prevalence in Middle East affairs, aka Amadinejad)once his official term comes to an end, I see a continued regression of American policy and influence in the coming years. Hope my pessimism is proven overreactive...but I doubt it. It just doesn't feel right.

Mig: "You do what you can, you do what you must, you do the right thing and you fight."

Sure, but what's stopping Other Russia to do it with more brains? Having an opposition like your group is just as sad as having Putin in power. That country deserves better.
You have historic examples in front of you: look at Russia under Yeltsin; look at present day Eastern Europe where literally millions of people are emigrating to the West. You can't change a system by chanting "hooray for democracy" and not having very specific and detailed economic plans for after the changes. It doesn't work like that, it ends in disaster.

Mig: "I mostly hope it's it will be a soft landing instead of a mad and/or bloody scramble."

No, it won't be, why should it be. And this is not how any movement should be handling the future of 145 million people, the population of Russia. "Let's hope"... and what if you're wrong? Economic crisis in Russia results in homeless people freezing on the streets. Lots of them. How do you deal with your conscience if that happens.

Other Russia is a childish movement, and creates no more problems for Putin than an annoying child does to a grownup. Western funding had better go elsewhere, to people with more insight and intelligence. If the West were interested in order in Russia rather than turmoil, that is.

The thing is: the US is laughable when it tries to play the role of the high priest of democracy. Yes, Putin uses media to project a favorable opinion of him. Big deal - Bush does the same thing. Kasparov does that "we are not fighting to win elections, we are fighting to have elections" bit, but everyone in Russia understands there will be elections, just like even if some critics accuse Bush of taking away freedoms, the Americans understand that there will still be elections. They say the election in Russia won't be democratic because Putin monopolized the media, but I can assure you opposition parties will get more airtime in Russia than they will in the US. Are you likely to see a participant of the Communist party involved in the debates on TV in the US? I don't think so. But I am pretty sure it will happen in Russia. Russian media will hardly be monopolized by a handful of people any more than the American media. Mig claims Putin's policies only enriched his big business buddies. Gee, is Bush's presidency any different? Halliburton, anyone? Bush's regime claims economic improvement? So does Putin's. Putin's regime makes sure the large part of profits ends up in the pockets of big business? So does Bush's. In fact, I am very sure an average Russia had a greater improvement in his/her economic situation during the Putin presidency than an average American had during Bush's presidency. Putin used a supposed terrorist threat (Chechnya) for his political agenda. Bush used Iraq for the same thing. In fact, Putin seems to be closer to achieving his aims in Chechnya than Bush is to achieving his in Iraq.

So, given all that, why shouldn't Putin be more popular in his country than Bush is in his? The Russian regime seems to be the mirror image of the US regime. Can one really be surprised that Putin is Bush's pal? Their policies are mirror images of each other. I would agree with about 70% of the criticism directed at Putin. Putin's regime may as well be a fascist one. But let's face it, so is Bush's.

Russianbear,

While I absolutely agree with your criticism of Bush regime, there is not so subtle difference. The election in US are still free and the proof of that is that power does change hands in US as the result of elections. There is no such thing in Russia. So far never in the history of the state the opposition has won the elections. Makes you wonder.

Russianbear, if you cannot understand the difference between the Russian and US situations, you are nothing short of moronic. Its about degrees, and shades. Not about absolutes.

US should liberate Russians and export democracy, once again.

Mig wrote: "Things here have become so degraded that they actually ask debate questions like, "what is more important, US national security or human rights?" If that's a serious question we're already in deep trouble."

Good thing no one Mig considers appropriate will ever run things here. The thinking constituency, which thankfully is also the mainstream here, prefers Oliver Wendell Holmes over Mig. I think it was Holmes who addressed Mig's forbidden question by observing: "The Constitution is not a suicide pact."

Russianbear, for his part, epitomizes the "two wrongs make a right" approach to politics. He's basically an educated, outwardly reasonable version of the unabashed troll who posted earlier in the thread as "observer" and "newswebsite." (No, I don't mean that Russianbear made those other postings; in fact I'm sure he didn't.) The way to see that is to ask: So Bush is a dictator/fascist/Nazi/child molester. That somehow makes Putin's policies less objectionable?

The other obvious flaw in Russianbear's reasoning - perhaps because he may be physically located there instead of here - is that if you organize a demonstration here where people say all those things about Bush, you won't get arrested. Our media, and I mean the mainstream media, are full of front-page stories every day about how Bush's policies enrich his buddies. Yet Russianbear seems to be saying public debate in the US is no more open than in the USSR (oops, I meant Russia).

It's true that our two-party system can be pretty impervious to the efforts of those change advocates who refuse to work within it. But except for a tiny minority of impotent intellectuals who reflexively bleat, "There's no difference between Democrats and Republicans," just about every educated American understands that a limited 2-party electoral system is more democratic (offers more possibilities for change) than a 1-party system like Russia is rapidly re-establishing.

A not completely useless question is "was life in Russia better under Yeltsin?". My perception (mostly through Greek media) is that the answer is "no", hence the high popularity of Putin. I found it rather amusing that when Yeltsin died, international press seemed to be "mourning" more than Russians (again, my impression could be erroneous).

Best regards to educated Americans - and impotent intellectuals.
Democrat /Republicans = One war party
McDonalds or Burger King

http://antiwar.com/justin/?articleid=11905

Country X in Africa is run by a brutal dictator 100 times worse than Putin. Please form a group
Other Country X and put the link on the left menu so we can fight for democracy there too.

"Russianbear, for his part, epitomizes the "two wrongs make a right" approach to politics. " - I did mention the two wrongs, but remind me - what have I said about the right?

"The other obvious flaw in Russianbear's reasoning - perhaps because he may be physically located there instead of here - is that if you organize a demonstration here where people say all those things about Bush, you won't get arrested." - if you do just the right thing, you will be. Kasparov wasn't arrested for organizing a demonstration. The opposition meeting itself was sanctioned by the city authorities. He was arrested for violating the laws - namely, for turning what was supposed to be a meeting into a march and for refusing to comply with requests by the police. Try doing something like that in an American city and see

"Our media, and I mean the mainstream media, are full of front-page stories every day about how Bush's policies enrich his buddies. Yet Russianbear seems to be saying public debate in the US is no more open than in the USSR (oops, I meant Russia)." - Perhaps you shouldn't judge Russian media by what Kasparov says about it. There are stories like that about Putin in Russian media. In fact, the very existence of a guy like Kasparov in Russian politics disproves most of these attempts to make it sound like Russia doesn't have an open public debate. Where is an American opposition leader that is as well known, and as critical of the American administration as Kasparov is of Putin? Or does Bush not warrant the same kind of criticism?

"It's true that our two-party system can be pretty impervious to the efforts of those change advocates who refuse to work within it. But except for a tiny minority of impotent intellectuals who reflexively bleat, "There's no difference between Democrats and Republicans," just about every educated American understands that a limited 2-party electoral system is more democratic (offers more possibilities for change) than a 1-party system like Russia is rapidly re-establishing." - Russia isn't a one-party system any more than the US. And yes, US Democrats and Republicans are the same party, two factions of which call themselves Democrats and Republicans. No matter which you pick, you are guaranteed pretty much the same policy. In Russia, you got communists, Putin, liberals, conservatives, fascists, in addition to Kasparov - all of whom will probably get airtime on national TV before the elections. So I would argue that US is much closer to one party system than Russia is or was. Even USSR's one party system was perhaps less of a de-facto one-party system than the "two-party" system in the US. In USSR's one party, you could have anyone from a hardcore party apparatchik to a liberal like Kasparov (yes, he was a member of the communist party of USSR, too). So it seems like you strain at a Russian political gnat, but swallow an American camel.

"A not completely useless question is "was life in Russia better under Yeltsin?". My perception (mostly through Greek media) is that the answer is "no", hence the high popularity of Putin. I found it rather amusing that when Yeltsin died, international press seemed to be "mourning" more than Russians (again, my impression could be erroneous). " - Indeed. Americans don't have a problem with giving away their freedoms for security. Why should the Russians be any different?

"There are stories like that about Putin in Russian media."

Care to give us some examples? We are speaking of "mainstream media" "full of front-page stories" here, just a reminder.

dz, would you be willing to give us some examples from American media where Bush is criticized on those issues? "Mainstream media", "full of front-page stories" please.

I am sorry, I am not fond of demagogy. I stand by the statements I make. Do you? It was you who made the statement about Russian media, right? (I do sincerely hope no one hijacked your handle.) I suggest you either back it up with substance or retract it.

Strange how you are not fond of demagogy, but you have taken a quote of mine out of context, combined with someone else's, as if I had said both things. And now you expect me to do the research and look for proof even though my opponents haven't done the same?

I can quote, too:

"We are speaking of "mainstream media" "full of front-page stories" here".

This implies you agree with earlier statement that US "mainstream media" is "full of front-page stories" of that kind. If so, why don't you provide examples? I only said that there are such stories in Russian media. If you show me what you mean by "full of front-page stories" in "mainstream media", I'd be able to see if I can come up with something similar in Russian media. So, do you stand up by the statements you make? The claim about the US media was made first, so it is only fair if it is the first one to be proved.

OK, enough of this garbage. Since you are unable to back up the statement YOU just made, no further clarifications are needed.

Whenever someone seriously claims that "the Russian regime seems to be the mirror image of the US regime", the only conclusion one can reach is that this person does not understand the first thing about either regime. Your further contributions to this thread do nothing to disprove that.

Why won't we try to debate the multiplication table instead. Hopefully you would be better qualified to do that.

I thought I was clear about why I am not required to do your homework for you - at least, until you do your part. The rest of your message is a personal attack that adds nothing to the case you may be trying to make.

It's nice to see what crawled out from under the rock I turned over when I challenged Russianbear.

I'm usually hesitant to use the S-word (Stalinist).

But Russianbear spared me any need to apply the Stalinist label - since he just applied it to himself, in the earlier post where he verged on saying that the US could learn a thing or two about democracy in action by observing, not only Putin's current Russia, but the actual USSR of past days ("I would argue that US is much closer to one party system than Russia is or was. Even USSR's one party system was perhaps less of a de-facto one-party system than the "two-party" system in the US.")

Of course, there are also other labels one could apply to such a contention. They involve concepts less appropriate to a thread about Kasparov and Karpov, than one about Fischer.

dz, I'm more charitable than you. I'm willing to take Russianbear at his word, and humor his request for backup.

This one took just 3 minutes and a single keyword search to find. Granted, it's 6 weeks old, and isn't from Page 1 - only the New York Times' main Opinion page (meaning it's an Editorial that voices the official views of the newspaper's management):

"The administration has complained that the deals (oil contracts between Iraqi Kurds and various foreign and US oil companies - JJ) 'needlessly elevated tensions' between the Kurds and the central government. But it apparently hasn’t leaned very hard on the one American oil company involved, Hunt Oil of Dallas, which has close ties to the White House. Iraq’s oil ministry, meanwhile, has warned that the contracts will be either ignored or considered illegal...
"Foreign oil companies are so eager for profits that they don’t seem worried about whether the deals are legally binding or how they may contribute to Iraq’s chaos...
"The White House needs to send a clearer warning to these companies — American and foreign — about the dangers of their course. It should also urge the companies to bring their own pressure on Iraqi officials to adopt a law that ensures that whatever system emerges is transparent, accountable and profitable for all Iraqis. Ignoring that is a recipe for continued chaos."

Jon Jacobs, I see you are out of arguments, so you have trasnferred your attention to picking an emotional label that you think suits me best. Again, personal attacks will not make your argument any stronger just like dz's. I have only criticized Putin and Bush in this thread. Given how you are all over me over not criticizing them in what you think is a politically correct way, you are sabotaging the very point you are trying to make. Do you really expect one to believe criticism exists US on the scale you claim when simple remarks such as mine are branded as Stalinist without any justification? I dislike Putin as much as the next guy, but I'd have to say Putin and his buddies use more caution in (mis)labeling people then you have shown in this thread when you implied I am a Stalinist.

Yeah, I am pretty unforgiving, I know.

Btw, I believe it was Justice Robert H. Jackson who used the phrase "suicide pact", not Oliver Wendell Holmes. Not that it changes much, of course.

Russianbear,

One can argue any nonsense, it's called sophistics, however people smell the dung when they see one and no arguments are necessary to prove that dung is not rose petals.
Similarly, the claim that Soviet system was more democratic than the one in US is self-evident nonsense (especially to somebody who likely lived under Soviet regime).

You are free to believe in it, of course, but then don't be surprised when people call you all sort of names and compare with Fischer.

"This one took just 3 minutes and a single keyword search to find. Granted, it's 6 weeks old, and isn't from Page 1 - only the New York Times' main Opinion page (meaning it's an Editorial that voices the official views of the newspaper's management):"

Thanks you for that. Since I would have to translate whatever Russian articles I would want to show, simply searching for whatever and pasting it is the least you can do.

The article itself doesn't impress me that much, I have to admit. "The White House needs to send a clearer warning to these companies — American and foreign — about the dangers of their course" - that's not an example of media being very hard on Bush. It is aimed at companies more so than the White house, and it gives an impression that there is at least a dialogue between opposition and the administration.

I can beat that.

I am going to cite a very similar source from one of the most popular Russian on-line newspapers, if not the most popular one.

Check out
http://www.gazeta.ru/column/gevorkyan/2356887.shtml

It is dated Nov 28th - which is yesterday and it is also an editorial article by Nataliya Govorkian. I am just going to quote first sentences of some paragraphs, to give an idea.

"Ok, tell us what we have to do on this fu... elections, or the referendum or the plebiscite (the word "plebiscite" has a strong Hitler connotation in Russian - RB). In other words, how can we avoid supporting this sh... with our votes that are prematurely and surely cheapened?"

"Even the most educated of my acquaintances have started to speak crudely, even those who never care want to know what should they do in the upcoming Sunday to minimize the triumph of those in power.

"It is amazing indeed. The best way to minimize the falsification of election results is openly discussed. That is, it is taken as a fact that the falsifications are unavoidable..."

"Whatever is the balance on December 2, on December 3 the world will see a country with a fake spectrum of political views".

"The falsity of the results (because there is no way the results of December 2 will show the true balance of votes) is a bomb that those in power put under themselfes, and I don't feel sorry for them".

etc.

This somehow stikes me as a bigger criticism of Putin than your article from NYT. There is no dialogue with the president here, like it seems to be the case in NYT. They are past dialogue, they are outright accusing him of falsifying the election results before several days before the election.

"Similarly, the claim that Soviet system was more democratic than the one in US is self-evident nonsense (especially to somebody who likely lived under Soviet regime).

You are free to believe in it, of course, but then don't be surprised when people call you all sort of names and compare with Fischer. "

Frankly, I was/am not very interested at measuring democracy of the "Soviet system" and US. But things are not as simple (simplistic) as some people here apparently want to claim. USSR changed a lot throughout its history. USSR of 1988 was very different from USSR of 1978, which was very different from the USSR of 1938, etc. So "the Soviet system" is hardly this one homogenous mass. I was referring to Kasparov membership in the communist party, that makes it obvious I was talking about the late 80s. Am I really crazy to imply that there was a huge range of diversity of opinions within the Communist Party of USSR in that time? I don't think so. Several years later, in 1991 and 1993, the various factions of the communist party (some of which were now called Democratic and Liberal and whatever) came very close to a civil war between each other. So is it really that ridiculous to say there was greater diversity within one party in USSR than there was in two parties in the US that are very close politically? You may call me any names you want, but the facts speak for themselves.

Russianbear somehow managed to exceed the heights of wisdom he had scaled previously.

Now we all know that gazeta.ru is a prime example of mainstream Russian media. And that an opinion of its columnist (who is no friend of Putin, true, and wisely lives in Paris) is comparable to a NY Times editorial. Curiously, RB failed to mention another good site: theotherrussia.org - that one belongs to a major political organization in Russia. Rather critical of Putin, too.

I didn't remember that particular journalist lives mainly in France. But it is irrelevant. They have a big staff of authors who do the editorials, and I would guess the great majority of them are Russia-based. I am too lazy to check if the author of the NYT editorial lives in the states - it is possible that he or she does not. But like I said, it is irrelevant.

What's wrong with citing gazeta.ru? It has been a long time since I checked the traffic stats for the Russian Internet, but when I used to do it, gazeta.ru was always in top 2 or 3 internet resources in the whole of Russian internet in the news category for sure, and perhaps in all of categories. The fact you even compared theotherrussia.org to gazeta.ru shows you know little about the Russian internet. I won't speak for others, but I only visited theotherrussia.org like once or twice in my life - and that is because Mig posted a link to it on this blog. gazeta.ru used to be my homepage for years, even before any of us knew of Putin, I think.

So gazeta.ru is hardly as obscure as you imply. In fact, if we did the reasearch on how many people read the gazeta article I posted as opposed to the NYT article Jon Jacobs posted, I am not at all convinced that we would find that the greater percentage of Americans read the NY Times article than Russians who read the gazeta article.

And oh by the way, if I remember the NYT layout correctly, the editorials are not even close to frontpage there. But the gazeta.ru editorials I gave a link to ARE on their front page - they have a stylyzed black and white picture of an author and a title of the newest editorial on their homepage.

Among many other things you clearly have no clue about, you don't understand the difference between an editorial and an opinion column. If you can read Russian, try to read (and ideally, understand) the very last line on the page you cited. The one that mentions the "author's opinion" and that of the editors.

Maybe once you master this lesson, we can proceed to more advanced topics.

dz, I've read it. And the question is: so what? Yes, one can argue I misused the word "editorial", but then again, one can argue I have not. They are being rather vague about it. I have to say, if, after all that has been said you can only complain about me possibly misusing a single word, is it safe to assume that you have nothing to contribute to the subject? We were talking about people criticizing Putin and Bush, not Russianbear, remember? Who cares if it is an editorial or an opinion column? The point is, there is a prominent link to those articles on the main page of one of the most frequently visited resources in the Russian Internet.

Not to pile on or anything - especially on such a fat, easy target as Russianbear is turning out to be...But I can't help mention that the excerpt he quoted from the excerpt I quoted from that Oct 15 NY Times editorial, isn't the one that makes the point. The most important sentence - the one that proves the point I made in a still-earlier post for which Russianbear had challenged me to give examples (of American papers routinely and prominently reporting "how Bush's policies enrich his buddies") - is this one:

"But it (the White House) apparently hasn’t leaned very hard on the one American oil company involved, Hunt Oil of Dallas, which has close ties to the White House."

And there is this: So, Russianbear now says he was referring only to the period after 1988 - i.e. the final four years of the USSR's life - when he asserted that "Even USSR's one party system was perhaps less of a de-facto one-party system than the 'two-party' system in the US."

Interesting point; decent material for a panel discussion or debate among experts, probably.

So, Russianbear, can we all take your latest comment to mean you acknowledge how absurd it would be to make such a claim in relation to the other 94% of the USSR's existence (=70 / 75 years) when the USSR was REALLY the USSR?

Pleeeeeeeaaaaassssseee!!!

The New York Times is no longer mainstream media in the US. Since 2001 they've become so far to the left that they make Che Guevara and Fidel Castro look like the Hardy Boys. It's why their current subscriptions graph looks like the Crash of 29. I'm surprised they haven't hired Rosie O'Donnell to do their editorial page.

By way of a surreal response to Russianbear's gazeta item plus the political comedy-site link posted by "Newssite" higher up in this thread, I thought to entertain you all with this even better political (self-)parody site:

http://www.onlinejournal.com/evoting/110504Chin/110504chin.html

Anyone who visits the link, be forewarned: if you read past the first couple paragraphs, take care you don't soil your pants laughing so hard.

Here's just one tiny taste: "In Robert Payne’s biography The Life and Death of Adolf Hitler, he writes of Hitler (whose Third Reich was, in fact, financed by the Bush family)..."

Silly me...I used to worry that Josh Gutman, or maybe Mig, was about to blame Bush for the chess-cheating problem! Shows how out of it I am; why pussyfoot around with that, when you can just go all out and blame him for the Third Reich!

Russianbear sounds like he's had experience in both the US and Russia, which is more than most of us can say.

It's not difficult to point out political differences between the two countries, but there may be more to learn from discussing the similarities.

I remember reading, some years back, that there was more turnover in the Politburo than in the U.S. Congress.

"there may be more to learn from discussing the similarities"

The problem with this approach ("discussing the similarities") is that unless you know both countries quite well, you risk to arrive at conclusions that are ridiculous beyond belief. One serious stumbling block here is that the same word may (and in fact often does) have vastly different connotations in different societies.

Consider, for example, the concept of "rule of law" or simply "law". There is an amazing saying ("закон-что дышло") which is immediately clear to a native Russian speaker, but you would be really hard pressed to explain it to an English-speaking person. In fact, I have just come across a nice page where people try hard to do exactly that:

http://forum.lingvo.ru/actualthread.aspx?tid=68900

The best attempt at translation seems to be "The Law is like an axle — you can turn it whichever way you please, if you give it plenty of grease." The problem here is obviously with semantics.

In my (certainly amateurish) view, a Russian and an American, using the word "law", may simply mean two different things. For an American, "law" would be something like a set of rules people are supposed to live by. And these rules are enforced by institutions that are generally recognized as fair and impartial (or at least supposed to be.)

Whereas for a Russian (based on the long painful history), "law" might easily be first and foremost a handy tool enabling the authorities of the day to achieve their goals and sweep out of the way all possible obstacles. The idea that law should be fair and impartial might seem, well, foreign.

That is why if we asked two hypothetical representatives of these two nations to discuss, say, the legality of Kasparov's incarceration (or better yet, Khodorkovsky's case), we would most likely have to listen to a conversation of two deaf persons. They would be simply talking of two different things - without realizing that.

The American might want to find out whether or not the pertinent law was indeed violated. And he might not even think of a possibility that the law was (intentionally!) codified in such a way that it was impossible to comply with it - the situation immediately familiar (and natural!) to the Russian. Of course, they can debate the case in point until both turn blue in the face, but whether or not they will learn anything new in the process, remains questionable.

I am not saying that people should not discuss the similarities and indeed it might make sense to try to learn from them. However, at all times they should conduct extensive reality checks and, at the very least, try to establish some meaningful frame of reference. Easier said than done, I am afraid.

A nice example of "law" Russian-style (even relevant to this forum and this thread):

http://africa.reuters.com/odd/news/usnL29251775.html

Jon Jacobst: (I don't know how easy a target I am
given that I have apparently inflicted so much
intellectual spanking on you that you've managed to misspell your own name):

Yes, I don't disagree that it is indeed a criticism of the White House. From the quotes you gave, it is not obvious which is the bigger problem: not leaning very hard on the one American oil company involved, or having ties with it in the first place. In any case, I
would argue that the Russian article I cited is much more critical.

"Interesting point; decent material for a panel discussion or debate among experts, probably.

So, Russianbear, can we all take your latest comment to mean you acknowledge how absurd it would be to make such a claim in relation to the other 94% of the USSR's existence (=70 / 75 years) when the USSR was REALLY the USSR?" - I acknowledge it would be irrelevant to this discussion. I only made that point in passing and I explained that it referred to a very specific period in Soviet history. It is quite clear to me - and with my explanations above, hopefully, to others, too- there was a greater range of political views in the USSR one party system than in the US two party system during least at some periods. Whether those periods constitute 6% of USSR's total history, 20%, 51% or 80% is open for debate. But I don't have the slightest desire to argue that. Whatever estimate I would provide would be subjective and there would be no way to prove it one way or another. I happen to be interested in both Soviet and American history so perhaps I could give a better estimate than others, but the inherent subjectivity of such discussion, as well as the off-topic nature of it at this point preclude me from going further into that topic. Like you said, it would make decent material for a panel discussion or debate among experts on a more political forum than this one. And I have even less desire to go into the whole "USSR was not really USSR" topic.

But it seems obvious to me that it would be as absurd to claim that two party system would always offer the greater variety of political views than one party system, as it would be to claim that any two people will always have a greater range of knowledge or interests than a single person. It all depends on the people and the parties - that is, on the concrete situation at hand.

"There is an amazing saying ("закон-что дышло") which is immediately clear to a native Russian speaker, but you would be really hard pressed to explain it to an English-speaking person. " - It would not be hard at all. Ever since the Thrasymachus' argument with Socrates in the Plato's 'Republic', this notion (or at least one that is very similar to it) was as big a part of Western political consciousness as it was in that of Russia - perhaps, at an even earlier time.

"Silly me...I used to worry that Josh Gutman, or maybe Mig, was about to blame Bush for the chess-cheating problem!" - Well, again, maybe US media can learn a thing or two from their Russian counterparts. Putin's regime DID get blamed for chess-cheating - cheating that wasn't even proven. I am, of course, talking about Topalov's post-Elista accusations, which were duly reproduced in Russian media.

Greg Koster: "I remember reading, some years back, that there was more turnover in the Politburo than in the U.S. Congress."

And I recall reading, while taking a university seminar on Soviet economic history in 1973, that in modern times the society with the highest "Gini coefficient" - an economists' gauge of intergenerational socioeconomic mobility - was the USSR in the mid- to late-1930s.

Anyone care to guess why?

Three cheers for "more turnover."

Of course, if we traced the history of US economic prosperity, we would eventually stumble upon a subject of "turnover" among its black slaves population. And, of course, the turnover among Native Americans was so high that whole nations of them were lost in the process.

Three cheers for "more turnover", indeed.

RB, there is another nice Russian saying ("после драки кулаками не машут"). Try to explain this to the English-speaking audience. Something like "wise after event". Although, the "wise" part doesn't apply. Perhaps "mustard after dinner".

dz, sounds like you want to brush up on your English equivalents of the Russian proverbs at my expense. I believe the one you are looking for is a "Monday morning quarterback".

Putin has exterminated 200,000 Chechnyans.

On the contrary, thanks to Bush, the two ugliest regimes on Earth have been destroyed: Afghanistan (and its fanatical Talibans) and Iraq (and its murderous dictator Saddam Hussein, who was responsible of the death of more than 2 million people).

Only if you are totally blind you don't see the difference...

Putin has exterminated 200,000 Chechnians.

On the contrary, thanks to George W. Bush, two of the most ugly regimes in all human history have been destroyed: Afghanistan (and its barbaric Talibans) and Iraq (and its murderous dictator Saddam Hussein, who was responsible of the death of more than 2 million people).

Only blind people can't see the difference.

And people who hate human life.

Putin has exterminated 200,00 Chechnians.

On the contrary, thanks to George W. Bush, two of the most ugly regimes in all human history have been destroyed: Afghanistan (and its barbaric Talibans) and Iraq (and its murderous dictator Saddam Hussein, who was responsible of the death of more than 2 million people).

Only blind people can't see the difference.

And people who hate human life.

Putin has exterminated 200,00 Chechnians.

On the contrary, thanks to George W. Bush, two of the most ugly regimes in all human history have been destroyed: Afghanistan (and its barbaric Talibans) and Iraq (and its murderous dictator Saddam Hussein, who was responsible of the death of more than 2 million people).

Only blind people can't see the difference.

And people who hate human life.

Sorry, the first comment didn't appear on your blog after more than 15 minutes, so I posted it again. I didn't want to post it more than once.

I'd like to go on record as saying that Russianbear knows what he's talking about, unlike most of the other people on this thread. Go live in Russia for a while, and see what it's like rather than spouting uninformed nonsense. Mig gets a pass since he's reasonably informed, but just wrong (and in love with Garry).

Yes, Russian television is under state control and its political coverage is strongly biased torwards Putin and United Russia. But I strongly feel the breadth of political views expressed in Russian newspapers (and online) is broader than in the US. This breadth of political views is also reflected in political views of the Russian population, which are far more diverse than those of Americans generated by its two party system.

And what the hell is Chessbase's "forced hunger strike"? Where does the "forced" come from? Nobody was forcing Garry on a hunger strike. He's either paranoid or, more likely, pulling a publicity stunt.

Yes, Russia has political problems, and Putin is certainly no angel, but seriously people, Russia is not a police state. Garry's playing on the misconceptions and anti-Russian biases of the West in selling his story to there. And the Western media and audience eat it up.

Sure, you can have all the political views you want as long as you vote for the same party and the same guy. You seem to be confusing views with democracy, which is supposed to mean more than only symbolic voting rights. That is, having actual choice and influence for the people.

Strongly biased? That's what you call it when your TV station is taken over by friends of the president and your people are fired if they run something critical of the government? When there is a blacklist of people you cannot have appear on television and subjects you aren't allowed to mention? Biased?! Posner himself admitted this state of affairs, as if it weren't thoroughly documented and blatantly obvious.

The wider variety of media in Russia now does a good job of hiding this because for many it's not really a problem. How many people in the US would complain if they didn't read or hear anything critical of Bush? They could still read a wide variety of political commentary, sports, news, entertainment, whatever. You might not even be aware of it. The spectrum runs from neutral toward Putin (but never really critical) to supportive to rabidly supportive. So there's variety and a sort of choice, just not a choice to actually do anything. It's not like in the Pravda days of one official organ, it's much more subtle.

And the media isn't the half of it. Try going to a printer to get a poster made for your event and having that printer raided by the police two days later and all their computers confiscated. Subsequently you can't find any printer in town who will print your material. Try having drugs planted on you by the police while you are handing out event leaflets at a train station. (Or accused of carrying explosives, etc.) That these things, just a few tiny examples, don't happen to the vast majority of Russians doesn't mean it's not a problem. The point is the intimidation factor.

A well-oiled police state doesn't have to shoot masses of people in the streets. It has to harshly punish the few who protest to keep the lid on the majority that does not. Beating down that 1% of "troublemakers" is enough. 95% of most populations aren't going to worry about a theoretical lack of freedoms if they don't see it directly affecting their lives. In Russia in particular there isn't a strong connection between the political and the standard of living, especially after the disaster the Yeltsin years were for many.

The other typical strategy is what is called raising the barrier to effect change. Even in the largely corporate-controlled world of US politics there is a fairly broad range of views on major issues among the current crop of presidential candidates. There is a low entry point for US citizens to effect change. If everyone voted for Tancredo or Paul it would be very different than if Edwards or Clinton were elected. We have significant uncertainty in elections at every level. In countries with less money in politics the barrier is even lower and the uncertainty (i.e. real choice, real citizen power) is greater.

Money can be in some ways as pernicious a force as authoritarianism in politics and for this reason I'm in favor of publicly funded campaigns. But not having enough money to buy commercials for your candidacy is not on the same moral plane as simply not being allowed to appear on TV because the authorities say so. Radio stations across Russia have refused to broadcast Other Russia commercials at ANY PRICE. Not anti-government material, just simple "come to the march on Tuesday" ads. They say no, or at least do so after first accepting and then finding out who we are. Why? Because they will be out of a job if they run it. Because the owner of the station knows he will lose the station and maybe much more if it keeps happening.

"Bias," what a joke. And that's all over the country, where you might still find the occasional local paper or local radio show that dares to say things aren't rosy (as long as they don't say it could be Putin's fault). The one radio station that still presents a variety of viewpoints, Ekho of Moscow, stands out so much because it's the only one. (Garry was on with Karpov yesterday, btw.) Similarly with Novaya Gazeta, although they are also cautious and are regularly harassed. A little criticism is good, even necessary, or people get too depressed tired of obvious propaganda. (Watch The Matrix for a discussion of this...)

Now in Russia today, what is the barrier for Boris the citizen affecting the direction of the country or his town? His candidates are those permitted him by a small group of people already in power, candidates who defend their interests. His access to information about those candidates is controlled nearly entirely by the authorities. (A majority of Russians have no idea Kasparov was arrested, for example.) A Levada poll showed that 80% of Russians still depend on the two main, and state controlled, TV stations for their news. I'm not even sure it's good news that so few Russians are online because if they were the net would surely quickly fall under more Kremlin influence.

Getting back to Boris, his high barrier to real change is marching in the streets or taking some other risky or at least conspicuous action. Most Americans don't even bother to vote, as easy and as meaningful as that can still be. Let's go wild and say Boris is one of the small percentage of Russians who is actively looking for political information on the web. He likes what an opposition politician like Nemtsov or Kasyanov or Kasparov has to say. (This despite hearing day after day on the news that they are all enemies of the state or CIA agents or corrupt thieves.) And? He can't vote for Nemtsov or Kasyanov or Kasparov. So how much is Boris willing to do to promote his opinion, his desire for change? How much risk for himself and his family will he take? Join that 1%? Seems like a lot to ask.

So the Communist Party is allowed to stick around as a nostalgic punching bag everyone knows will never wield power. Others are similar or legislated out of existence, just in case. Why let their names appear on a ballot if you can avoid it?

Perhaps the simplest example is to look at the current list of candidates for the Russian presidential elections to be held on March 2, 2008. The campaign just started officially (I wish the US would limit our campaigns to 3 months!) but you would think the party that dominates the country, Putin's "United Russia" would have put forward its candidate by now. (Or two, just for fun. One theory is they will do this to split the vote and make it clear Putin is still the most popular.) But they don't know who it will be yet and there's no reason to hurry anyway. They are already sure their candidate will win in a landslide. They may already know the exact results of the election, too. Who cares who it is? Zubkov as PM was basically naming Putin's horse to the cabinet a la Caligula just to show he could do it. President is a lot trickier though because there is still real power there. So there is a crisis to work out. That crisis - infighting, breaking with the West, who knows - may occur next month or in two years, but unless they start easing up it will definitely happen. The lucky star of $90+ barrel oil might not stay up forever and even if it does there are plenty of economic problems no one is going to want to take responsibility for.

Garry wasn't going to eat anything given to him at the jail. He was allowed to receive food packages from home starting Sunday evening so it wasn't that bad. As for paranoid, as he put it in the WSJ editorial we just finished (runs Saturday), "paranoia" long ago became an obsolete concept for Putin's critics. To spell it out that's because so many of them are dead (or in jail or exile). Or perhaps Politkovskaya and Litvinenko were just paranoid or pulling a publicity stunt.

Terms like "police state" and "dictatorship" are loaded because of all the relativist arguments they lead to. "Yeahbut it's not as bad as the USSR." "Yeahbut he's better than Lukashenko." That's why the label doesn't matter so much, it's about the contents of the package. The current Russian government combines aspects of many different systems we've seen before. Some democratic trappings, some corporate state a la Mussolini, some elements of the USSR, etc. This is normal. It's not as if all police states are the same any more than all democracies are the same. I don't care what label you prefer, and neither does Putin.

While it is appalling and disgusting to see the criminal energy employed by Russianbear and Zhorik in peddling their misinformation and insulting their opponents in debate, this may well be a salutary experience for Americans suffering from "Bush derangement syndrome".

So you think you are living in a police state because of the Patriot Act/Gitmo/the Online Decency laws?

Think again. Compare your society with the sort of society that produces individuals like the two aforementioned, and ponder whether or not you would really move to where they live.

I used to think that the people who blamed every political murder in Russia on Putin and his clique were dramatic and hysterical.

The polonium poisoning of Litvinenko, I would have conceded as probably being done on the orders of, or at least with the connivance, of Putin. However, the killing of journalist Politkovskaya, I would have thought that Putin would not have bothered with such a minor annoyance.

Now, however, seeing as how Putin is so paranoid that he viciously lashes out against an insignificant gadfly like Kasparov, I am not so sure anymore. I believe we are seeing how an absolute ruler who insulates himself from criticism, paradoxically becomes MORE and not LESS fearful, precisely because he is lacking the feedback that would ground him in reality.

Lock and load.

As the old saying goes, immigration is the sincerest form of flattery.

Jokes aside, these equivalence tales are silly. For the occasional example or comparison, fine, but don't get so carried away. Everyone has their own problems. I think the US is a great country and I also think its political system is a polluted shambles. Loving your country doesn't mean liking everything about it. Instead you work to change it for the better, that's the way it should work. Russia is also a great country full of great people. But a few years of tentative and corrupt democracy after Communism had no chance to stand up to Putin. In democracies they say you get the leaders you deserve. I don't think that's the case in Russia.