Main
Date: 10 May 2008 13:08:05
From: [email protected]
Subject: New In Chess #3 2008
QUICK INTERVIEW WITH JEREMY SILMAN

Q. If you could change one thing in the chess world, what would it be?

A. I would like to see many of the governing bodies (FIDE#, USCF,
etc.) fall into a black hole.




 
Date: 14 May 2008 05:17:21
From: [email protected]
Subject: Re: New In Chess #3 2008
OUR RESIDENT STATIST

<The idea that Fischer's circumstances were the responsibility of
anyone other than Fischer himself is ludicrous. But as we've seen
countless times, Parr is not big on personal responsibility. > -- David
Kane

David Kane, our resident statist, now tells us that
only Bobby Fischer was responsible for his own
circumstances -- being arrested in Japan and beaten,
having a valid passport confiscated, being held
without bail for almost a year, etc.

The message: if the state tells you to shut yer
big mouth -- ya better shut it. Or else, you gets
what you gets. You alone are responsible for your
circumstances. Exercise your First Amendment rights
or, in Bobby's case, insist on the autonomous life of
selling the products of your mind, then if the state
decrees otherwise, too bad buster.

Yours, Larry Parr



David Kane wrote:
> <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]m...
> > <To be honest, I am not a fan of increased executive powers....> --
> > David Kane
> >
> > ...except when used for selective prosecution of Bobby Fischer.
> >
>
> The idea that Fischer's circumstances were the responsibility of
> anyone other than Fischer himself is ludicrous. But as we've seen
> countless times, Parr is not big on personal responsibility.


  
Date: 14 May 2008 14:16:48
From: David Kane
Subject: Re: New In Chess #3 2008

<[email protected] > wrote in message
news:[email protected]...

> David Kane, our resident statist, now tells us that
> only Bobby Fischer was responsible for his own
> circumstances --

I guess better a "statist" then a "Stalinist" I suppose. Parr's interest
in history is analogous to the creationist's interest in paleontology - driven
by a massive psychological need to misunderstand just about everything.
I'm content to actually understand something and feel that personal
responsibility isn't such a terrible thing. That others feel differently
doesn't surprise me.









 
Date: 13 May 2008 12:25:36
From: [email protected]
Subject: Re: New In Chess #3 2008
FINISHING KANSTER'S SENTENCE

<To be honest, I am not a fan of increased executive powers.... > --
David Kane

...except when used for selective prosecution of Bobby Fischer.


David Kane wrote:
> <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]m...
>
> >
> > Our Kanester and this writer do not disagree
> > that Fischer's decision to part with the product of
> > his mind in a chess match was illegal.
> >
> > All kinds of acts, as decreed by the U.S. and
> > several governments, are illegal. In Stalin's Russia
> > one could and did pay for one's life, along with the
> > lives of one's family and friends, by violating
> > Article 58 (later Article 70) of the Soviet penal code
> > that forbade anti-Soviet slander. Those who spoke of
> > labor camps holding nearly 20 million people at their
> > peak were acting illegally.
> >
>
> Once again, Parr shows us his great political "courage" - bravely
> taking on Stalin a mere half century after his death. How daring
> of him to speak up when there are so many pro-Stalinists around!
>
> Of course the fact that Fischer (violating international
> and American law) was *supporting* those who inherited
> Stalin's legacy seems to have escaped our simpleton's notice.
> (In Parr's fairly tale, imposing a trade embargo with the
> purpose of preventing a widening conflict is "Stalinist" - if only
> Stalin's real victims had been so lucky.)
>
> To be honest, I am not a fan of increased executive powers
> nor of many of the USA's recent executives - but complying
> with international resolutions in exigent circumstances is exactly the
> sort of thing that is in the the executive branch should be doing.
>
> It would be interesting to hear how these are implemented
> in other countries, but I'd be surprised if many required a full
> parliamentary process.


  
Date: 13 May 2008 18:41:37
From: David Kane
Subject: Re: New In Chess #3 2008

<[email protected] > wrote in message
news:[email protected]m...
> <To be honest, I am not a fan of increased executive powers....> --
> David Kane
>
> ...except when used for selective prosecution of Bobby Fischer.
>

The idea that Fischer's circumstances were the responsibility of
anyone other than Fischer himself is ludicrous. But as we've seen
countless times, Parr is not big on personal responsibility.






 
Date: 13 May 2008 07:09:03
From: [email protected]
Subject: Re: New In Chess #3 2008
KANESTAR IS ON A ROLL

> One does not expect the anti-democratic Parr to have
> even a rudimentary understanding of democracy and
> we find our expectations fulfilled. And, of course, who
> really cares about a few hundred dead Croats? It's the
> price per chess game that Fischer could fetch with his
> exhibition that is *really* important. -- David Kane

David Kane is on a roll. Not only was he
correct in an earlier posting to say that presidential
orders -- in effect, laws emanating from the executive
rather than legislative branch -- are routine in our
governance these days, he now writes that the United
States was falling in line by supporting a UN embargo
levied against Serbia.

Free trade and free intellectual discourse be
damned -- if the United Nations, or United Governments
so demands.

Kanester and this writer agree on the bare
facts. We disagree about conclusions to be drawn.

The Kanester alleged that Bobby Fischer was a
criminal because united governments so decreed that he
ought not to be permitted to share the thoughts in his
mind, as expressed by moves on the chess board,as
they emerged on Sveti Stefan.

Our Kanester and this writer do not disagree
that Fischer's decision to part with the product of
his mind in a chess match was illegal.

All kinds of acts, as decreed by the U.S. and
several governments, are illegal. In Stalin's Russia
one could and did pay for one's life, along with the
lives of one's family and friends, by violating
Article 58 (later Article 70) of the Soviet penal code
that forbade anti-Soviet slander. Those who spoke of
labor camps holding nearly 20 million people at their
peak were acting illegally.

But were they acting criminally?

In Kanester world of united governments with
the power to arrest, imprison or shoot violators of
intellectual prohibitions, those who would impart the
product of their minds are criminals.

Jerzy Gliksman, author of "Tell the West!";
Vladimir Tchernavin, author of "I Speak for the Silent";
Elizaveta Lermolo, author of "Face of a Victim"; Eleanor
Lipper, author of "11 Years in Soviet Prison Camps" --
all of them were "criminals," in Kanester and gangster
logic, for exposing Soviet reality IF what violates a
government enactment is per se criminal.

When entering labor camps, the guards searched
first NOT for weapons but for scraps of paper -- anything
that could hold writing. Smuggling paper was against
the law. It was illegal. But was it criminal?

In Kanester logic, yes.

What is the alternative to enthroning as
absolute the immediate executive and legislative
functions? The answer is to be found in common
and natural law, which comes from normative
reflections and settled beliefs about human behavior.
Hence the existence of legal norms.

In Kanester world, you are a criminal for
playing chess on Monday, but not a criminal if the
government act is repealed on Tuesday and you play
that day, but a criminal on Wednesday, if you play
after the act is reinstituted, but not a criminal on
Thursday ... and so on.

Kanester types view criminality as a function
of what a government bureaucrat may so decide happens
to be illegal on a given day. Hence also criminal.

Those of us who support normative legal
thinking approach the issue of criminality based on
the nature of the act committed by an individual. If
it offends the natural law, then it may indeed be a
criminal act. If an act does not offend natural law
and if a person who violates a law with said act is
then arrested, then those who are persecuting have
acted illegally, are themselves acting criminally,
though mayhap not illegally.

Yours, Larry Parr




David Kane wrote:
> <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]m...
> FISCHER VIOLATED AN EXECUTIVE ORDER
>
> >Bobby spat on a presidential executive order and defied a
> trade embargo in 1992 for playing Spassky who returned
> to France with no problem. More power to Bobby for that
> act of asserting human autonomy and economic freedom
> against an overweening central regime.> -- Larry Parr
>
> Now for the facts.
>
> 1. The UN passed an embargo on Yugoslavia, in response
> to the escalating conflict there.
> 2. The US complied with the UN embargo, as all UN
> member nations were supposed to. The method used to
> enact the sanctions was perfectly routine. Neither the method used
> (President Bush declaring the embargo in accordance with
> laws enacted by Congress) nor the fact of the embargo
> were controversial.
> 3. The US informed Fischer prior to the match that it would violate the
> law.
> 4. Fischer publicly declared his intention to violate the law.
> 5. Fischer, not having renounced American citizenship and
> in fact traveling on an American passport, did violate the law.
>
> It is hard to imagine any legal theory under which
> *not* indicting Fischer would have made sense. (Parr seems
> to have some bizarre theory related to laziness in the French
> justice department - thankfully he has spared us a full
> articulation of that nonsense.)
>
> One does not expect the anti-democratic Parr to have
> even a rudimentary understanding of democracy and
> we find our expectations fulfilled. And, of course, who
> really cares about a few hundred dead Croats? It's the
> price per chess game that Fischer could fetch with his
> exhibition that is *really* important.


  
Date: 13 May 2008 09:08:04
From: David Kane
Subject: Re: New In Chess #3 2008

<[email protected] > wrote in message
news:[email protected]m...

>
> Our Kanester and this writer do not disagree
> that Fischer's decision to part with the product of
> his mind in a chess match was illegal.
>
> All kinds of acts, as decreed by the U.S. and
> several governments, are illegal. In Stalin's Russia
> one could and did pay for one's life, along with the
> lives of one's family and friends, by violating
> Article 58 (later Article 70) of the Soviet penal code
> that forbade anti-Soviet slander. Those who spoke of
> labor camps holding nearly 20 million people at their
> peak were acting illegally.
>

Once again, Parr shows us his great political "courage" - bravely
taking on Stalin a mere half century after his death. How daring
of him to speak up when there are so many pro-Stalinists around!

Of course the fact that Fischer (violating international
and American law) was *supporting* those who inherited
Stalin's legacy seems to have escaped our simpleton's notice.
(In Parr's fairly tale, imposing a trade embargo with the
purpose of preventing a widening conflict is "Stalinist" - if only
Stalin's real victims had been so lucky.)

To be honest, I am not a fan of increased executive powers
nor of many of the USA's recent executives - but complying
with international resolutions in exigent circumstances is exactly the
sort of thing that is in the the executive branch should be doing.

It would be interesting to hear how these are implemented
in other countries, but I'd be surprised if many required a full
parliamentary process.



 
Date: 13 May 2008 05:57:05
From: [email protected]
Subject: Re: New In Chess #3 2008
NORMAL MEN DO NOT KNOW THAT EVERYTHING IS POSSIBLE

<Shall I tell you a story or two about 3 automobile manufacturers
that
operate from a formerly great U.S. city that now looks like Berlin did
in
1945 and has been abondoned by Whitey? > -- pro-Soviet Juergen

Dear Phil,

You evidently stepped a mite painfully on
Juergen's gherkin. He tells us that your account of
iron bathtubs in the former USSR weakens the case
against Soviet economic practices.

In response, our Gherkin argues that well, yes,
the USSR may have had quite a few single-brand
economic sectors but after all there is a city
called Detroit that has three major automobile
manufacturers who are in trouble. Detroit looks like
Berlin 1945 (nonsense, but consider the source)
and there is some meaningful parallel between, say,
"Whitey" deserting Detroit and the ruination of an
area in former Soviet Central Asia through typical
economic central planning the size of half the United
States. (I recommend reports in Novy Mir during the
final two years of the late Soviet Union that offer an
astonishing picture of millions upon millions of acres
reduced to salinated swamp.)

The philospher David Rousset, a survivor of
Buchenwald, noted that total horror can become
unbelievable because, as he put it, "Normal men do not
know that everything is possible." I.e., normal men
in normal countries cannot imagine a world that is
upside-down a la Alice in Wonderland.

Hannah Arendt in her seminal Origins of
Totalitarianism noted that the sheer magnitude of
abnormality in full totalitarian regimes is the first
major, intellectual line of defense for totalitarian
types. Their intended future victims cannot imagine
that a world exists so utterly different.

One recollects that Moscow in 1980 or so had one
used car lot. Used cars, more than a quarter century
old, sold for 60,000 rubles; a new Soviet vehicle was
8,000. If a product was not among the 2,000 or so
included in the Gosplan, then it was unavailable. A
country that created 308 SS18 missles -- each MIRVed
with 10 warheads of one megaton per warhead --
rationed sewing needles. As for thread, the common
practice was to search for it in old clothes and rags.
Virtually every conceivable product in this so-called
advanced nation was either rationed or unavailable.

Our Gherkin will try to compare some failure in
American agriculture, whatever it might be, with
disasters that are simply so enormous that, as Rousset
notes, normal men cannot imagine they are possible.

Well, Phil, we have driven the Gherkin to this
kind of defense of the late Soviet Union. We shall
see whither he proceeds in his response. I reckon it
will be a formulaic "Cold War jibberish" or the like.

And, once again, how our Gherkin must hate the
hundreds of millions of Russians and other peoples who
tossed off communism. For they failed to live up to
his dream of a more evil world.

THIS CRAZY WORLD OF CHESS by GM Larry Evans (page 14).

Fischer emerged in 1992 to trounce his old nemesis Spassky in an
unofficial rematch for $5 million, the largest purse in chess history.
It required 30 games for him to win, and the final score was 10-5 with
15 draws. This victory earned Bobby $3.35 million and an indictment
for violating president Bush=92s embargo against Yugoslavia. Spassky
returned to France without penalty. [The arbiter Lothar Schmidt also
returned to Germany without penalty.]

Fischer Stalemated (page 36)
February 14, 2005

It seems incredible, but Bobby Fischer languished in a Tokyo cell for
eight months without bail while Japan decided whether to deport him to
America or Iceland, which had offered him asylum. His passport was
confiscated but the USA did not demand extradition because Japan
doesn=92t regard his offense as criminal.

"He=92s not a robber, he=92s not a killer, he=92s not a traitor. All he did
was play chess," said his lawyer. So just what did Bobby actually do
apart from yapping about the Jews and praising terrorists for 9/11?

A new book, Bobby Fischer, The Wandering King (Batsford, 2004), based
on a Dutch TV documentary, notes, "Practising his art became criminal
because George Bush p=E9re issued an executive order in 1992." Fischer
violated that order by playing a $5 million rematch with Boris Spassky
during a civil war in Yugoslavia. He was indicted by a Grand Jury 13
years ago and faces 10 years in jail plus fines, the only person ever
prosecuted for defying Bush=92s economic sanctions.

The book quotes former Chess Life editor Larry Parr, who said, "The
issue is not whether Fischer broke a law (so have all of us) but
whether he is a criminal as opposed to someone who has fallen afoul of
the federal regime. Americans today are largely sold on the State as
the new god, but in 19th century England, juries often would not
convict for minor theft because the punishment =96hanging=96 was utterly
disproportionate to the crime."

Canadian chess journalist Jonathan Berry observed, "It has been
reported that President Clinton in his memoirs said the embargo was
ignored by all, even the USA government, and it was only enforced to
the extent that arms were not sent to Serbia. Yet arms were sent with
impunity to other factions, and other contacts with Serbia were okay.
If true, the whole incident appears doubly pointless."

A reader replied, "It=92s even worse than that. Serbia allegedly
received missiles produced in the USA via Israel which makes it
grotesquely hypocritical to punish Fischer for his 30 games against
Spassky."



[email protected] wrote:
> On May 13, 3:58?am, J?rgen R. <[email protected]> wrote:
> > >CRAPUOUS
> >
> > Try again. Maybe on the third attempt you'll get it right.
> >
> > Your attempts to impress by using uncommon words
> > are ludicrous. What was the pathetic fraud's name who did
> > this routinely on TV? Some guy from Connecticut who
> > continually bragged about actually having graduated
> > from Yale, and consequently talked like the Queen
> > might have talked, had she been born in New Haven. ?
> > Probably one of your heroes.
>
> I would guess you're referring to the late William F. Buckley? If
> so, I do not recall that he "continually bragged" about his education,
> and while I probably disagreed with him more often than not, I never
> considered him a fraud.


  
Date: 13 May 2008 08:25:36
From: Mike Murray
Subject: Re: New In Chess #3 2008
On Tue, 13 May 2008 05:57:05 -0700 (PDT), "[email protected]"
<[email protected] > wrote:


>Canadian chess journalist Jonathan Berry observed, "It has been
>reported that President Clinton in his memoirs said the embargo was
>ignored by all, even the USA government, and it was only enforced to
>the extent that arms were not sent to Serbia. Yet arms were sent with
>impunity to other factions, and other contacts with Serbia were okay.
>If true, the whole incident appears doubly pointless."

>A reader replied, "It’s even worse than that. Serbia allegedly
>received missiles produced in the USA via Israel which makes it
>grotesquely hypocritical to punish Fischer for his 30 games against
>Spassky."

While the blade hovered menacingly over Fischer's head for many years,
AFAIK, the only overt action against him was taken by the Shrub
administration, and then only by the back door of a passport
violation, using the Japanese as surrogates. It was a sneaky,
vindictive action which appears to have deliberately evaded addressing
the issues Berry mentions in your quote, above.


   
Date: 14 May 2008 01:49:52
From: David Kane
Subject: Re: New In Chess #3 2008

"Mike Murray" <[email protected] > wrote in message
news:[email protected]
> On Tue, 13 May 2008 05:57:05 -0700 (PDT), "[email protected]"
> <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>
>>Canadian chess journalist Jonathan Berry observed, "It has been
>>reported that President Clinton in his memoirs said the embargo was
>>ignored by all, even the USA government, and it was only enforced to
>>the extent that arms were not sent to Serbia. Yet arms were sent with
>>impunity to other factions, and other contacts with Serbia were okay.
>>If true, the whole incident appears doubly pointless."
>
>>A reader replied, "It's even worse than that. Serbia allegedly
>>received missiles produced in the USA via Israel which makes it
>>grotesquely hypocritical to punish Fischer for his 30 games against
>>Spassky."
>
> While the blade hovered menacingly over Fischer's head for many years,
> AFAIK, the only overt action against him was taken by the Shrub
> administration, and then only by the back door of a passport
> violation, using the Japanese as surrogates. It was a sneaky,
> vindictive action which appears to have deliberately evaded addressing
> the issues Berry mentions in your quote, above.

Both you and Berry miss several imporant facts. First, Fischer was
indicted immediately after completing the match. Whether the embargo
*ultimately* proved effective was really irrelevant. (By the way, I would
not make an assessment based on some offhand comments interpreted
by a Canadian chess journalist!) Second, Fischer
did not set foot in the US while under indictment- what overt actions
*could* the US reasonably have taken? Third, Fischer no doubt
called attention to himself with his pro-9/11 radio broadcast. That likely
increased interest in bringing him to justice, but the US still
could not seek extradition because his crime was not listed in
the extradition treaty. Fischer's expired passport gave the US other
avenues to explore. The US explored them but alternate legal
approaches were unsuccessful.

Once you dismiss the "chessplayers are above the law"
arguments, I really don't see any wrongdoing on the part
of the US government.



    
Date: 14 May 2008 08:49:33
From: Mike Murray
Subject: Re: New In Chess #3 2008
On Wed, 14 May 2008 01:49:52 -0700, "David Kane"
<[email protected] > wrote:


>> While the blade hovered menacingly over Fischer's head for many years,
>> AFAIK, the only overt action against him was taken by the Shrub
>> administration, and then only by the back door of a passport
>> violation, using the Japanese as surrogates. It was a sneaky,
>> vindictive action which appears to have deliberately evaded addressing
>> the issues Berry mentions in your quote, above.

>Both you and Berry miss several imporant facts. First, Fischer was
>indicted immediately after completing the match.

Can you supply a link documenting his indictment?

>Whether the embargo
>*ultimately* proved effective was really irrelevant. (By the way, I would
>not make an assessment based on some offhand comments interpreted
>by a Canadian chess journalist!) Second, Fischer
>did not set foot in the US while under indictment- what overt actions
>*could* the US reasonably have taken? Third, Fischer no doubt
>called attention to himself with his pro-9/11 radio broadcast. That likely
>increased interest in bringing him to justice, but the US still
>could not seek extradition because his crime was not listed in
>the extradition treaty. Fischer's expired passport gave the US other
>avenues to explore. The US explored them but alternate legal
>approaches were unsuccessful.

And the reason we did nothing when Fischer renewed the passport in
Switzerland, but rather waited until he was in Japan ?

>Once you dismiss the "chessplayers are above the law"
>arguments, I really don't see any wrongdoing on the part
>of the US government.

"Wrongdoing" may be too strong to describe the petty vindictiveness of
a bureaucrat. It's the disproportionality that Berry points out,
ignoring vastly more significant violations of the embargo, while
going after a chess player many years later.


     
Date: 14 May 2008 09:58:50
From: David Kane
Subject: Re: New In Chess #3 2008

"Mike Murray" <[email protected] > wrote in message
news:[email protected]
> On Wed, 14 May 2008 01:49:52 -0700, "David Kane"
> <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>
>>> While the blade hovered menacingly over Fischer's head for many years,
>>> AFAIK, the only overt action against him was taken by the Shrub
>>> administration, and then only by the back door of a passport
>>> violation, using the Japanese as surrogates. It was a sneaky,
>>> vindictive action which appears to have deliberately evaded addressing
>>> the issues Berry mentions in your quote, above.
>
>>Both you and Berry miss several imporant facts. First, Fischer was
>>indicted immediately after completing the match.
>
> Can you supply a link documenting his indictment?

One covering the date is
http://www.geocities.com/siliconvalley/lab/7378/fischer.htm
The text of the EO has appeared on Usenet - not sure about the indictment text
but I've seen it somewhere but don't have the link handy. Jurgen just quoted the
text so it is out there.

>
>>Whether the embargo
>>*ultimately* proved effective was really irrelevant. (By the way, I would
>>not make an assessment based on some offhand comments interpreted
>>by a Canadian chess journalist!) Second, Fischer
>>did not set foot in the US while under indictment- what overt actions
>>*could* the US reasonably have taken? Third, Fischer no doubt
>>called attention to himself with his pro-9/11 radio broadcast. That likely
>>increased interest in bringing him to justice, but the US still
>>could not seek extradition because his crime was not listed in
>>the extradition treaty. Fischer's expired passport gave the US other
>>avenues to explore. The US explored them but alternate legal
>>approaches were unsuccessful.
>
> And the reason we did nothing when Fischer renewed the passport in
> Switzerland, but rather waited until he was in Japan ?

Good question. Likely bureaucratic bungling. I don't see how
it is really relevant, though.

>
>>Once you dismiss the "chessplayers are above the law"
>>arguments, I really don't see any wrongdoing on the part
>>of the US government.
>
> "Wrongdoing" may be too strong to describe the petty vindictiveness of
> a bureaucrat. It's the disproportionality that Berry points out,
> ignoring vastly more significant violations of the embargo, while
> going after a chess player many years later.

The claim that there were vastly more signficiant violations is
unsupported in my opinion. (Well, Russia was notoriously pro-Serb
and undercut the international efforts to put pressure on FRY, but
those were beyond the US' reach.) And it wasn't years later, see above.
The indictment came immediately after the activity. The delay
of which you speak was a result of Fischer remaining overseas.
I don't believe that fleeing a jurisdiction entitles somebody to
special treatment. What principle would drive such a belief?




      
Date: 14 May 2008 10:18:17
From: Mike Murray
Subject: Re: New In Chess #3 2008
On Wed, 14 May 2008 09:58:50 -0700, "David Kane"
<[email protected] > wrote:

>not sure about the indictment text
>but I've seen it somewhere but don't have the link handy. Jurgen just quoted the
>text so it is out there.

Yeah, actually, I found several links after I asked my question.
Should have searched first, I guess. Here's one:

http://www.chesscity.com/Features/indictment.html

>> And the reason we did nothing when Fischer renewed the passport in
>> Switzerland, but rather waited until he was in Japan ?

>Good question. Likely bureaucratic bungling. I don't see how
>it is really relevant, though.

I don't think it was bungling. From what I've read, the Swiss
wouldn't have held him, but our government folks knew the Japanese
would.


       
Date: 14 May 2008 13:57:29
From: David Kane
Subject: Re: New In Chess #3 2008

"Mike Murray" <[email protected] > wrote in message
news:[email protected]
> On Wed, 14 May 2008 09:58:50 -0700, "David Kane"
> <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>>not sure about the indictment text
>>but I've seen it somewhere but don't have the link handy. Jurgen just quoted
>>the
>>text so it is out there.
>
> Yeah, actually, I found several links after I asked my question.
> Should have searched first, I guess. Here's one:
>
> http://www.chesscity.com/Features/indictment.html
>
>>> And the reason we did nothing when Fischer renewed the passport in
>>> Switzerland, but rather waited until he was in Japan ?
>
>>Good question. Likely bureaucratic bungling. I don't see how
>>it is really relevant, though.
>
> I don't think it was bungling. From what I've read, the Swiss
> wouldn't have held him, but our government folks knew the Japanese
> would.

Do you remember where you read that?



   
Date: 13 May 2008 17:48:19
From: =?iso-8859-1?Q?J=FCrgen_R.?=
Subject: Re: New In Chess #3 2008

"Mike Murray" <[email protected] > schrieb im Newsbeitrag
news:[email protected]
> On Tue, 13 May 2008 05:57:05 -0700 (PDT), "[email protected]"
> <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>
>>Canadian chess journalist Jonathan Berry observed, "It has been
>>reported that President Clinton in his memoirs said the embargo was
>>ignored by all, even the USA government, and it was only enforced to
>>the extent that arms were not sent to Serbia. Yet arms were sent with
>>impunity to other factions, and other contacts with Serbia were okay.
>>If true, the whole incident appears doubly pointless."
>
>>A reader replied, "It's even worse than that. Serbia allegedly
>>received missiles produced in the USA via Israel which makes it
>>grotesquely hypocritical to punish Fischer for his 30 games against
>>Spassky."
>
> While the blade hovered menacingly over Fischer's head for many years,
> AFAIK, the only overt action against him was taken by the Shrub
> administration, and then only by the back door of a passport
> violation, using the Japanese as surrogates. It was a sneaky,
> vindictive action which appears to have deliberately evaded addressing
> the issues Berry mentions in your quote, above.

Fischer put the Serbian money in a Swiss bank, UBS, unaware
that the Swiss bank secrecy laws are now essentially
ineffective when U.S. citizens are being pusued by the
U.S. authorities.

UBS, under pressure from the U.S. Department of Justice
and, presumably, the IRS, froze his account.

Bobby didn't pay his taxes either. U.S. citizens and greencarders
must file U.S. tax returns and pay U.S. taxes, no matter where they live.



 
Date: 12 May 2008 21:59:38
From: [email protected]
Subject: Re: New In Chess #3 2008
THE KANESTAR

>More precisely, the "Trading with the Enemy Act" -- Juergen

>Source please. I don't think this is correct. The US implemented the UN sa=
nctions via Executive Order - a perfectly routine practice in the American s=
ystem of government - but I don't think the underlying congressional author=
ization is known as the "Trading with the Enemy Act" > -- David Kane

The Kanester is correct to this extent: executive
presidential orders have indeed become a kind of
routine in our governance. They are no different in
principle from similar orders that came and come from
assorted dictators. They are not yet quite as
bloodthirsty, however. But they will be.

As for the civil war in Yugoslavia, Kanester is
wrong about my not minding the bloodshed (I wrote an
article stating that one would not shake Bobby's hand
or break bread with the man because of his actions)
but if he were to have stated more percipiently that I
don't think America should be concerned with these
civil wars, he would have been correct.

CRAPUOUS

Thanks go to Louie Blair for correcting my
misusage of "crapulous." Bobby may have been
intemperate, but his problem was not sickness from
intemperance -- or, at least, not as his defining
characteristic. I could write a defense of
"crapulous" as I employed the word but it would be
based on moving from the word itself to a portion of
its definition ("intemperance") and then noting that
the latter word is sometimes employed, apparently
correctly these days, to mean immoderate behavior.

But no. After I posted the message with
"crapulous," I recollected that I probably got the
word wrong. Didn't check. Louie did.

I stand corrected.

ABBORAGATED

Juergen's repetition of "abboragated" can be
found in a 1918 edition of the OED.

The word refers to borrowing the original copy
of an abrogated contract, though in older usage, may
also refer to stealing an abrogated treaty or a secret
document from an archive. It is said that Sir Arthur
Conan Doyle had "abboragated" in mind when writing
"The Adventure of the Bruce-Partington Plans."

In an obscure letter to Conan Doyle, Joseph
Conrad spoke of an "abboragation of parturition" to
reference a kidnapped baby. Years later, Jack Kieran
employed the phrase in an article he wrote for
Mencken's Freeman concerning the Lindbergh kidnapping.
He may also have used the word in his autobiography,
Not Under Oath, or in a work he wrote on Audubon. I
can't quite recollect.

Kieran, by the way, coined the phrase, "grand
slam" for a bases-loaded home run.


J=FCrgen R. wrote:
> "Louis Blair" <[email protected]> schrieb im Newsbeitrag
> news:[email protected]m...
> [email protected] (NNTP-Posting-Host: 207.200.116.195)
> wrote (Date: Sun, 11 May 2008 22:00:24 -0700 (PDT):
>
> > ...
> > Having written the above, I agree that based on
> > what Fischer said and often acted, he was a prime
> > louse. A crapulous human being.
> > ...
> _
> http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/crapulous
>
> ROFL - you want to teach Parr English?


  
Date: 14 May 2008 18:21:56
From: [email protected]
Subject: Re: New In Chess #3 2008
BUREAUCRATIC BUNGLING?

<And the reason we did nothing when Fischer renewed the passport in
Switzerland, but rather waited until he was in Japan ? > -- Mike Murray

>Good question. Likely bureaucratic bungling. I don't see how it is really
relevant, though. > -- David Kane

>I don't think it was bungling. From what I've read, the Swiss
wouldn't have held him, but our government folks knew the Japanese
Japanese would. > -- Mike Murray

FROM TIME MAGAZINE

Fischer spat on a letter from the U.S. Treasury Department telling him
not to play. He beat Spassky and pocketed a $3.35 million prize, and a
U.S. federal warrant was issued for his arrest. Faced with a possible
penalty of up to 10 years in prison and a $250,000 fine for violating
America's economic sanctions, he has never returned to the States.

For more than a decade, Fischer crisscrossed the globe, passing
through Hungary, Switzerland, Hong Kong, Macau and South Korea. By
2000, Japan and the Philippines had become his primary home bases, and
he reportedly reveled in the relative anonymity they afforded him. Yet
Fischer never truly went into hiding. He traveled using his real
identity and passport, and he twice dared to pass directly under the
U.S. government's nose. In 1997, Fischer renewed his passport at the
U.S. embassy in Bern, Switzerland, and he returned there in 2003 to
get 20 new passport pages.

Nor was he shy about using the media to express his views. He made 21
live radio appearances from 1999-2003, mostly in the Philippines.
During these spots he would rail against the worldwide Jewish and
American conspiracies supposedly out to ruin him, calling the Jews
"filthy, lying bastard people" and the U.S. a "brutal, evil
dictatorship." When the World Trade Center was destroyed on Sept. 11,
2001, he announced on Philippine radio: "This is wonderful news. I
applaud the act ... I want to see the U.S. wiped out."

It's not clear why the U.S. has chosen to pursue Fischer more
vigorously after all these years. Japan's immigration authorities
detained him as he attempted to board a flight from Tokyo to Manila,
acting on a letter from the U.S. State Department, which notified them
that his passport had been revoked in November 2003. John Bosnitch, a
Canadian journalist and consultant in Japan who has founded an
organization called the Committee to Free Bobby Fischer, says the
U.S.'s invalidation of Fischer's passport did not follow due process
because Fischer was not properly notified of the action, nor of his
right to a 60-day appeal period. As Fischer's alleged crime is not an
extraditable offense in Japan, the U.S. is trying to get Fischer back
through what Bosnitch calls a "backdoor extradition" via deportation.
Others counter that a U.S. passport is government property and must be
surrendered upon request. "The U.S. government has the right to take
your passport back at any time," says Stephen Givens, a Tokyo-based
American lawyer. "Fischer can contest that if they screwed up in the
process, sent notice to the wrong address or whatever. But they can go
through that procedure again. That's no problem."

In the meantime, Fischer languishes in an immigration detention center
in the city of Ushiku, about 50 km from the airport where he was
nabbed. Japan's Minister of Justice is expected to rule in the next
few weeks on Fischer's appeal against deportation....

With reporting by Coco Masters/Tokyo

http://tinyurl.com/6lvl5k




Mike Murray wrote:
> On Wed, 14 May 2008 09:58:50 -0700, "David Kane"
> <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> >not sure about the indictment text
> >but I've seen it somewhere but don't have the link handy. Jurgen just quoted the
> >text so it is out there.
>
> Yeah, actually, I found several links after I asked my question.
> Should have searched first, I guess. Here's one:
>
> http://www.chesscity.com/Features/indictment.html
>
> >> And the reason we did nothing when Fischer renewed the passport in
> >> Switzerland, but rather waited until he was in Japan ?
>
> >Good question. Likely bureaucratic bungling. I don't see how
> >it is really relevant, though.
>
> I don't think it was bungling. From what I've read, the Swiss
> wouldn't have held him, but our government folks knew the Japanese
> would.


   
Date: 15 May 2008 09:28:22
From: David Kane
Subject: Re: New In Chess #3 2008

<[email protected] > wrote in message
news:[email protected]m...
> BUREAUCRATIC BUNGLING?
>
> <And the reason we did nothing when Fischer renewed the passport in
> Switzerland, but rather waited until he was in Japan ?> -- Mike Murray
>
>>Good question. Likely bureaucratic bungling. I don't see how it is really
> relevant, though.> -- David Kane
>
>>I don't think it was bungling. From what I've read, the Swiss
> wouldn't have held him, but our government folks knew the Japanese
> Japanese would.> -- Mike Murray
>
> FROM TIME MAGAZINE
>
> Fischer spat on a letter from the U.S. Treasury Department telling him
> not to play. He beat Spassky and pocketed a $3.35 million prize, and a
> U.S. federal warrant was issued for his arrest. Faced with a possible
> penalty of up to 10 years in prison and a $250,000 fine for violating
> America's economic sanctions, he has never returned to the States.
>
> For more than a decade, Fischer crisscrossed the globe, passing
> through Hungary, Switzerland, Hong Kong, Macau and South Korea. By
> 2000, Japan and the Philippines had become his primary home bases, and
> he reportedly reveled in the relative anonymity they afforded him. Yet
> Fischer never truly went into hiding. He traveled using his real
> identity and passport, and he twice dared to pass directly under the
> U.S. government's nose. In 1997, Fischer renewed his passport at the
> U.S. embassy in Bern, Switzerland, and he returned there in 2003 to
> get 20 new passport pages.
>
> Nor was he shy about using the media to express his views. He made 21
> live radio appearances from 1999-2003, mostly in the Philippines.
> During these spots he would rail against the worldwide Jewish and
> American conspiracies supposedly out to ruin him, calling the Jews
> "filthy, lying bastard people" and the U.S. a "brutal, evil
> dictatorship." When the World Trade Center was destroyed on Sept. 11,
> 2001, he announced on Philippine radio: "This is wonderful news. I
> applaud the act ... I want to see the U.S. wiped out."
>
> It's not clear why the U.S. has chosen to pursue Fischer more
> vigorously after all these years. Japan's immigration authorities
> detained him as he attempted to board a flight from Tokyo to Manila,
> acting on a letter from the U.S. State Department, which notified them
> that his passport had been revoked in November 2003. John Bosnitch, a
> Canadian journalist and consultant in Japan who has founded an
> organization called the Committee to Free Bobby Fischer, says the
> U.S.'s invalidation of Fischer's passport did not follow due process
> because Fischer was not properly notified of the action, nor of his
> right to a 60-day appeal period. As Fischer's alleged crime is not an
> extraditable offense in Japan, the U.S. is trying to get Fischer back
> through what Bosnitch calls a "backdoor extradition" via deportation.
> Others counter that a U.S. passport is government property and must be
> surrendered upon request. "The U.S. government has the right to take
> your passport back at any time," says Stephen Givens, a Tokyo-based
> American lawyer. "Fischer can contest that if they screwed up in the
> process, sent notice to the wrong address or whatever. But they can go
> through that procedure again. That's no problem."
>
> In the meantime, Fischer languishes in an immigration detention center
> in the city of Ushiku, about 50 km from the airport where he was
> nabbed. Japan's Minister of Justice is expected to rule in the next
> few weeks on Fischer's appeal against deportation....
>
> With reporting by Coco Masters/Tokyo
>
> http://tinyurl.com/6lvl5k
>
>

Interestingly, the only alleged "wrongdoing" of the US governement,
if it can be called that, is that they didn't inform Fischer of his right to
appeal the passport action. (Never mind that no grounds for appeal
have even been offered by the apologists) This in turn is based on
the absurd idea that the U.S. failure to keep track of the whereabouts
of Fischer when in foreign countries denied him "due process".
Moreover even that claim is not supported factually. If you read
Fischer's interactions with his Swiss bank, he clearly lacked
the mental function to understand and reply to correspondence -
it seems quite plausible that Fischer was informed, but, as in the
UBS matter, chose not to understand.

As an observer of human nature, it is always interesting to see
the extremes of illogic that people are willing to employ!



  
Date: 13 May 2008 09:58:16
From: =?iso-8859-1?Q?J=FCrgen_R.?=
Subject: Re: New In Chess #3 2008

>
>CRAPUOUS

Try again. Maybe on the third attempt you'll get it right.

Your attempts to impress by using uncommon words
are ludicrous. What was the pathetic fraud's name who did
this routinely on TV? Some guy from Connecticut who
continually bragged about actually having graduated
from Yale, and consequently talked like the Queen
might have talked, had she been born in New Haven.
Probably one of your heroes.




 
Date: 12 May 2008 14:49:24
From: Louis Blair
Subject: Re: New In Chess #3 2008
[email protected] (NNTP-Posting-Host: 207.200.116.195)
wrote (Date: Sun, 11 May 2008 22:00:24 -0700 (PDT):

> ...
> =A0 =A0 =A0 Having written the above, I agree that based on
> what Fischer said and often acted, he was a prime
> louse. =A0A crapulous human being.
> ...
_
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/crapulous


  
Date: 12 May 2008 23:58:06
From: =?iso-8859-1?Q?J=FCrgen_R.?=
Subject: Re: New In Chess #3 2008

"Louis Blair" <[email protected] > schrieb im Newsbeitrag
news:[email protected]m...
[email protected] (NNTP-Posting-Host: 207.200.116.195)
wrote (Date: Sun, 11 May 2008 22:00:24 -0700 (PDT):

> ...
> Having written the above, I agree that based on
> what Fischer said and often acted, he was a prime
> louse. A crapulous human being.
> ...
_
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/crapulous

ROFL - you want to teach Parr English?



 
Date: 12 May 2008 07:12:03
From: [email protected]
Subject: Re: New In Chess #3 2008
FISCHER VIOLATED AN EXECUTIVE ORDER

>Bobby spat on a presidential executive order and defied a
trade embargo in 1992 for playing Spassky who returned
to France with no problem. More power to Bobby for that
act of asserting human autonomy and economic freedom
against an overweening central regime. > -- Larry Parr

In 1942 the U.S. was in a state of declared war
with Germany. In 1992 Serbia had not and still has
not done a thing to attack the United States.

An act of Congress is not the same thing as a
presidential executive order, which should have no
power in our system of separation of powers.

Juergen, our statist gherkin, would have been
among the first to attack Rembrandt for offering his
genius for money, if the customer offended Juergen's
political outlook.

Bobby played 30 games of chess for about $100,000
a game, and he played several very fine games,if GM
Alex Fishbein's estimation in his book on the match is
to be entertained. He offered his genius for money
with no identifiable victims. Such an act may be
illegal, but it is not criminal.

Trading freely with "the enemy" is often the most
effective way of undermining a foe, especially a
dictatorial foe that controls society with top-down
directives -- indeed, the very kind of foe, in the
case of the Soviets, that our Gherkin admires.

There are quite a few intellectual ins and outs
in the above. For example, is it both illegal and
criminal -- in the example given here -- to trade for
goods produced not merely by controlled,
state-exploited labor, but by outright slave labor?

If our Gherkin would care to ask the above
question, I will address it.

Yours, Larry Parr




J=FCrgen R. wrote:
> > Bobby
> > spat on a presidential executive order and defied a
> > trade embargoin 1992
>
> More precisely, the "Trading with the Enemy Act"
>
> > for playing Spassky who returned
> > to France with no problem. More power to Bobby for
> > that act of asserting asserting human autonomy and
> > economic freedom against an overweening central regime.
>
> This kind of 'assering economic freedom' has the following
> precedent:
>
> "George Bush's grandfather, the late US senator Prescott Bush,
> was a director and shareholder of companies that profited
> from their involvement with the financial backers of Nazi Germany.
> The Guardian has obtained confirmation from newly
> discovered files in the US National Archives that a firm
> of which Prescott Bush was a director was involved with
> the financial architects of Nazism.
>
> His business dealings, which continued until his company's
> assets were seized in 1942 under the Trading with the Enemy Act..."
>
> Evil overweening central regime prevents upstanding American
> businessman from making a buck.


  
Date: 12 May 2008 21:09:18
From: David Kane
Subject: Re: New In Chess #3 2008

<[email protected] > wrote in message
news:[email protected]m...
FISCHER VIOLATED AN EXECUTIVE ORDER

>Bobby spat on a presidential executive order and defied a
trade embargo in 1992 for playing Spassky who returned
to France with no problem. More power to Bobby for that
act of asserting human autonomy and economic freedom
against an overweening central regime. > -- Larry Parr

Now for the facts.

1. The UN passed an embargo on Yugoslavia, in response
to the escalating conflict there.
2. The US complied with the UN embargo, as all UN
member nations were supposed to. The method used to
enact the sanctions was perfectly routine. Neither the method used
(President Bush declaring the embargo in accordance with
laws enacted by Congress) nor the fact of the embargo
were controversial.
3. The US informed Fischer prior to the match that it would violate the
law.
4. Fischer publicly declared his intention to violate the law.
5. Fischer, not having renounced American citizenship and
in fact traveling on an American passport, did violate the law.

It is hard to imagine any legal theory under which
*not* indicting Fischer would have made sense. (Parr seems
to have some bizarre theory related to laziness in the French
justice department - thankfully he has spared us a full
articulation of that nonsense.)

One does not expect the anti-democratic Parr to have
even a rudimentary understanding of democracy and
we find our expectations fulfilled. And, of course, who
really cares about a few hundred dead Croats? It's the
price per chess game that Fischer could fetch with his
exhibition that is *really* important.



   
Date: 13 May 2008 10:27:41
From: =?iso-8859-1?Q?J=FCrgen_R.?=
Subject: Re: New In Chess #3 2008

"David Kane" <[email protected] > schrieb im Newsbeitrag
news:[email protected]
>
> <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]m...
> FISCHER VIOLATED AN EXECUTIVE ORDER
>
>>Bobby spat on a presidential executive order and defied a
> trade embargo in 1992 for playing Spassky who returned
> to France with no problem. More power to Bobby for that
> act of asserting human autonomy and economic freedom
> against an overweening central regime.> -- Larry Parr
>
> Now for the facts.

The indictment cites:

Violation 50 USC 1701, 1702, and 1705, which is the
International Emergency Economic Powers Act, and
Executive Order 12810, which in turn cites
the UN resolutions re Yugoslavia among other things.

The 'Emergency Economic Powers Act' is the modern
version of the older 'Trading with the Enemies Act'.
Apparently the latter did, and the former does not,
require a declaration of war as a precondition for
an executive order.

>
> 1. The UN passed an embargo on Yugoslavia, in response
> to the escalating conflict there.
> 2. The US complied with the UN embargo, as all UN
> member nations were supposed to. The method used to
> enact the sanctions was perfectly routine. Neither the method used
> (President Bush declaring the embargo in accordance with
> laws enacted by Congress) nor the fact of the embargo
> were controversial.
> 3. The US informed Fischer prior to the match that it would violate the
> law.
> 4. Fischer publicly declared his intention to violate the law.
> 5. Fischer, not having renounced American citizenship and
> in fact traveling on an American passport, did violate the law.
>
> It is hard to imagine any legal theory under which
> *not* indicting Fischer would have made sense. (Parr seems
> to have some bizarre theory related to laziness in the French
> justice department - thankfully he has spared us a full
> articulation of that nonsense.)
>
> One does not expect the anti-democratic Parr to have
> even a rudimentary understanding of democracy and
> we find our expectations fulfilled. And, of course, who
> really cares about a few hundred dead Croats? It's the
> price per chess game that Fischer could fetch with his
> exhibition that is *really* important.
>



  
Date: 12 May 2008 17:36:54
From: =?iso-8859-1?Q?J=FCrgen_R.?=
Subject: Re: New In Chess #3 2008

<[email protected] > schrieb im Newsbeitrag
news:[email protected]m...
FISCHER VIOLATED AN EXECUTIVE ORDER

>Bobby spat on a presidential executive order and defied a
>trade embargo in 1992 for playing Spassky who returned
>to France with no problem. More power to Bobby for that
>act of asserting human autonomy and economic freedom
>against an overweening central regime.> -- Larry Parr

> In 1942 the U.S. was in a state of declared war
>with Germany. In 1992 Serbia had not and still has
>not done a thing to attack the United States.

True enough; but please remind us: Why was the U.S.
bombing Serbia?

> An act of Congress is not the same thing as a
>presidential executive order, which should have no
>power in our system of separation of powers.

The "Trading with the Enemy Act" *is* an act
of Congress passed in 1917.

> Juergen, our statist gherkin, would have been
>among the first to attack Rembrandt for offering his
>genius for money, if the customer offended Juergen's
>political outlook.

You keep pulling these dead rabbits out of your hat.
In fact you know nothing about my attitudes toward
this or anything else.

> Bobby played 30 games of chess for about $100,000
>a game, and he played several very fine games,if GM
>Alex Fishbein's estimation in his book on the match is
>to be entertained. He offered his genius for money
>with no identifiable victims. Such an act may be
>illegal, but it is not criminal.

Neither the Harriman investments in Germany and
Poland nor the Union Bank Corporation services
for Thyssen had identifiable victims either.

> Trading freely with "the enemy" is often the most
>effective way of undermining a foe, especially a
>dictatorial foe that controls society with top-down
>directives -- indeed, the very kind of foe, in the
>case of the Soviets, that our Gherkin admires.

> There are quite a few intellectual

Intellectual? In that case you are clearly out of your depth.

> ins and outs
>in the above. For example, is it both illegal and
>criminal -- in the example given here -- to trade for
>goods produced not merely by controlled,
>state-exploited labor, but by outright slave labor?

This is deep? The difference lies in your
approval or disapproval of the specific law.

> If our Gherkin would care to ask the above
>question, I will address it.

LOL - you will 'address' it, will you now? Save yourself
the trouble.









 
Date: 11 May 2008 22:00:24
From: [email protected]
Subject: Re: New In Chess #3 2008
FISCHER WAS NO CRIMINAL

>Fischer was a horrible human being and a wanted
criminal in his home country. > -- Kevin Cotreau

Contrary to the pumped up rhetoric from Kevin
Cotreau, Bobby Fischer was no criminal. Yes, he
was "wanted" Stateside for committing an illegal act.

But doesn't committing an illegal act make a
person a criminal per se?

That kind of thinking is totalitarian. Bobby
spat on a presidential executive order and defied a
trade embargoin 1992 for playing Spassky who returned
to France with no problem. More power to Bobby for
that act of asserting asserting human autonomy and
economic freedom against an overweening central regime.

The criminals are the ones who would prosecute
Fischer, though they would not be acting illegally,
given our massive corpus of federal law which, by the
way, can turn anyone into a "criminal" if searched
carefully enough. Including, indeed, our Mr. Cotreau.

The distinction between criminality and
illegality ought not to be forgotten.

Having written the above, I agree that based on
what Fischer said and often acted, he was a prime
louse. A crapulous human being.

Yours, Larry Parr



[email protected] wrote:
> LETTERS TO THE EDITOR
>
> (Two letters praise the Fischer coverage in #2 2008 but this excerpt
> of a letter from Kevin Cotreau, Milford NH, USA, calls him a horrible
> human being.}
>
> I am so tired of the sycophantic, Bobby-Fischer-ass-kissing articles
> like the one written by Dirk Jan ten Geuzendam in 2008/2. Bobby
> Fischer was a horrible human being and a wanted criminal in his home
> country. Your love of chess has blinded you to the fact that he was a
> lot more than just "eccentric" or mentally ill....He was a vile person
> not worthy of your incessant fawning...a man willing to think that a
> letter was poisoned and then let an innocent person open it instead.
> It is obvious from his dealings with his closest "friends" that this
> guy was clearly nothing more than a "taker," not a real friend who
> gave back....
>
> I am not Jewish, but Fischer's hideous anti-Semitic tirades combined
> with his admiration of Hitler ("We once watched a documentary about
> Nazi Germany and upon leaving the theatre Bobby said that he admired
> Hitler" -- Larry Evans, Chess Life 3/2008 p. 15) and claims that the
> Holocaust was a "hoax" (Jan Timman, New In Chess 2008/2 p. 34) should
> clue you in to who this man really was....
>
> As a 7-year veteran of the U.S. military, what personally bothers me
> the most were Fischer's rants in the Philippines, when he called the
> 9/11 attacks "wonderful news" and that that the U.S. "has to be
> destroyed." To every American, this man was a traitor during a time of
> war.
>
> Love his inanimate games, but this guy was sick, and well beyond
> mental illness, so stop using that as an excuse. He was a hate-monger
> to the bone and to deify him personally is wrong on every level. You
> guys love, and I use a word Fischer used often, a real "creep...."
>
>
>
> [email protected] wrote:
> > QUICK INTERVIEW WITH JEREMY SILMAN
> >
> > Q. If you could change one thing in the chess world, what would it be?
> >
> > A. I would like to see many of the governing bodies (FIDE#, USCF,
> > etc.) fall into a black hole.


  
Date: 12 May 2008 11:44:59
From: =?iso-8859-1?Q?J=FCrgen_R.?=
Subject: Re: New In Chess #3 2008

> Bobby
> spat on a presidential executive order and defied a
> trade embargoin 1992

More precisely, the "Trading with the Enemy Act"

> for playing Spassky who returned
> to France with no problem. More power to Bobby for
> that act of asserting asserting human autonomy and
> economic freedom against an overweening central regime.

This kind of 'assering economic freedom' has the following
precedent:

"George Bush's grandfather, the late US senator Prescott Bush,
was a director and shareholder of companies that profited
from their involvement with the financial backers of Nazi Germany.
The Guardian has obtained confirmation from newly
discovered files in the US National Archives that a firm
of which Prescott Bush was a director was involved with
the financial architects of Nazism.

His business dealings, which continued until his company's
assets were seized in 1942 under the Trading with the Enemy Act..."

Evil overweening central regime prevents upstanding American
businessman from making a buck.




   
Date: 12 May 2008 13:00:51
From: David Kane
Subject: Re: New In Chess #3 2008

"Jürgen R." <[email protected] > wrote in message news:[email protected]
>
>> Bobby
>> spat on a presidential executive order and defied a
>> trade embargoin 1992
>
> More precisely, the "Trading with the Enemy Act"
>

Source please.

I don't think this is correct. The US implemented the
UN sanctions via Executive Order - a perfectly
routine practice in the American system of
government - but I don't think the underlying
congressional authorization is known as
the "Trading with the Enemy Act"

Our poorly-informed hypocrite Mr. Parr,
of course, doesn't mind a little bloodshed
as long as it's not occurring in the name of
communism - although in the former
Yugoslavia many of the principles were
still nominally communist.




  
Date: 12 May 2008 10:24:31
From: =?iso-8859-1?Q?J=FCrgen_R.?=
Subject: Re: New In Chess #3 2008

<[email protected] > schrieb im Newsbeitrag
news:[email protected]m...
> FISCHER WAS NO CRIMINAL
>
>>Fischer was a horrible human being and a wanted
> criminal in his home country.> -- Kevin Cotreau
>
> Contrary to the pumped up rhetoric from Kevin
> Cotreau, Bobby Fischer was no criminal. Yes, he
> was "wanted" Stateside for committing an illegal act.
>
> But doesn't committing an illegal act make a
> person a criminal per se?
>
> That kind of thinking is totalitarian.

Exactly. And, moreover, Edwin Meese, Champion of Liberty, said:

"But the thing is, you don't have many suspects who are
innocent of a crime. That's contradictory. If a person
is innocent of a crime, then he is not a suspect."



 
Date: 12 May 2008 11:13:30
From: nobody
Subject: Re: New In Chess #3 2008
help bot wrote:

>This alone could doom
> chess in my home state, since studies
> indicate a ratio of 7.413 cheapskates for each
> normal human being... .

Dear proctolobot - why are you surrounded by so many tightarses?..


 
Date: 11 May 2008 05:34:39
From: [email protected]
Subject: Re: New In Chess #3 2008
LETTERS TO THE EDITOR

(Two letters praise the Fischer coverage in #2 2008 but this excerpt
of a letter from Kevin Cotreau, Milford NH, USA, calls him a horrible
human being.}

I am so tired of the sycophantic, Bobby-Fischer-ass-kissing articles
like the one written by Dirk Jan ten Geuzendam in 2008/2. Bobby
Fischer was a horrible human being and a wanted criminal in his home
country. Your love of chess has blinded you to the fact that he was a
lot more than just "eccentric" or mentally ill....He was a vile person
not worthy of your incessant fawning...a man willing to think that a
letter was poisoned and then let an innocent person open it instead.
It is obvious from his dealings with his closest "friends" that this
guy was clearly nothing more than a "taker," not a real friend who
gave back....

I am not Jewish, but Fischer's hideous anti-Semitic tirades combined
with his admiration of Hitler ("We once watched a documentary about
Nazi Germany and upon leaving the theatre Bobby said that he admired
Hitler" -- Larry Evans, Chess Life 3/2008 p. 15) and claims that the
Holocaust was a "hoax" (Jan Timman, New In Chess 2008/2 p. 34) should
clue you in to who this man really was....

As a 7-year veteran of the U.S. military, what personally bothers me
the most were Fischer's rants in the Philippines, when he called the
9/11 attacks "wonderful news" and that that the U.S. "has to be
destroyed." To every American, this man was a traitor during a time of
war.

Love his inanimate games, but this guy was sick, and well beyond
mental illness, so stop using that as an excuse. He was a hate-monger
to the bone and to deify him personally is wrong on every level. You
guys love, and I use a word Fischer used often, a real "creep...."



[email protected] wrote:
> QUICK INTERVIEW WITH JEREMY SILMAN
>
> Q. If you could change one thing in the chess world, what would it be?
>
> A. I would like to see many of the governing bodies (FIDE#, USCF,
> etc.) fall into a black hole.


  
Date: 13 May 2008 20:54:40
From: Louis Blair
Subject: Re: New In Chess #3 2008
[email protected] wrote (Tue, 13 May 2008
09:51:58 -0700 (PDT)):

7 ...
7 ... [Fischer] figured there was no reason to pay taxes if he
7 never returned to his country after being indicted for violating
7 an executive order in 1992. ...

_
"... '...I have not filed or paid my federal or California
income taxes since ... 1977,' [Fischer] said. ..."
- [email protected] (7 Sep 92 23:12:27 GMT)



  
Date: 13 May 2008 20:25:45
From: [email protected]
Subject: Re: New In Chess #3 2008
SNEAKY AND VINDICTIVE

> While the blade hovered menacingly over Fischer's head for many years,
> AFAIK, the only overt action against him was taken by the Shrub
> administration, and then only by the back door of a passport
> violation, using the Japanese as surrogates. It was a sneaky,
> vindictive action which appears to have deliberately evaded addressing
> the issues Berry mentions in your quote, above. -- Mike Murray

I wrote about the logic employed by David Kane
when assuming illegal actions are per se criminal ones.

Kanester's response is that Bobby had to be
stopped from playing in Yugoslavia because of
"exigent" circumstances.

Nonsense. No vital American interest was
involved in the tiny feuding world of the south Slavs.

Kanester supports the power of the state to
tell a Fischer or other artist with whom he may or may
not dispose of his intellectual product.

My reference to Stalin was apposite.
Kanester-gangster logic holds that if you break a law,
you are a criminal. Our Kanester has repeatedly
confounded illegality (say, leaking CIA torture memos)
with criminality. Kanester evidently believes that the
State defines the nature of what is criminal rather than
making that determination by applying natural and common
law while employing long-standing legal norms.

The vast regime that now rules us from Washington, DC,
has long ago abandoned the concept of legal norms as it
seeks to legislate and decree in every area of human life.

The Bush administration avoided a frontal attack on
on Fischer playing in Serbia for fear of a constitutional
issue regarding these presidential orders. They planned
to get him back to America and then charge him for not
paying taxes to support our assorted wars.

Yours, Larry Parr


Mike Murray wrote:
> On Tue, 13 May 2008 05:57:05 -0700 (PDT), "[email protected]"
> <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>
> >Canadian chess journalist Jonathan Berry observed, "It has been
> >reported that President Clinton in his memoirs said the embargo was
> >ignored by all, even the USA government, and it was only enforced to
> >the extent that arms were not sent to Serbia. Yet arms were sent with
> >impunity to other factions, and other contacts with Serbia were okay.
> >If true, the whole incident appears doubly pointless."
>
> >A reader replied, "It?s even worse than that. Serbia allegedly
> >received missiles produced in the USA via Israel which makes it
> >grotesquely hypocritical to punish Fischer for his 30 games against
> >Spassky."
>
> While the blade hovered menacingly over Fischer's head for many years,
> AFAIK, the only overt action against him was taken by the Shrub
> administration, and then only by the back door of a passport
> violation, using the Japanese as surrogates. It was a sneaky,
> vindictive action which appears to have deliberately evaded addressing
> the issues Berry mentions in your quote, above.


   
Date: 14 May 2008 00:56:54
From: David Kane
Subject: Re: New In Chess #3 2008

<[email protected] > wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> SNEAKY AND VINDICTIVE

> My reference to Stalin was apposite.

It was completely mangled. The world was standing
up to the communist Milosevic (a mini-Stalin, killing by the
thousands rather than the millions).

> The Bush administration avoided a frontal attack on
> on Fischer playing in Serbia for fear of a constitutional
> issue regarding these presidential orders.

Typical Parr blather, said without a shred of evidence.
John Walker Lindh was charged with violating
an Executive order (trading with the Taliban) and
didn't raise constitutional issues. Many sanctions
violators have been convicted.

The legal issue was simply that
the US extradition treaty with Japan did
not cover the crime Fischer was indicted
for, so he could not be extradited. The
US apparently did try alternate approaches
to convince the Japanese to turn him over,
but they were unsuccessful.



They planned
> to get him back to America and then charge him for not
> paying taxes to support our assorted wars.

It's likely that tax evasion charges would have been
added - quite appropriately.



  
Date: 13 May 2008 09:51:58
From: [email protected]
Subject: Re: New In Chess #3 2008


NOT CHARGED WITH TAX EVASION

The fact is it was not included in the charge against Fischer. He
figured there was no reason to pay taxes if he never returned to his
country after being indicted for violating an executive order in 1992.
His passport was renewed for 10 years in 1997 when he was in
Switzerland and was therefore valid when it was confiscated in 2005 by
Japan.


 
Date: 11 May 2008 00:42:14
From: samsloan
Subject: Re: New In Chess #3 2008
On May 10, 10:12 pm, The Historian <[email protected] >
wrote:
> On May 10, 6:28 pm, samsloan <[email protected]> wrote:
> > On May 10, 6:17 pm, Old Haasie <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> > > I would like to see a USCF structured somewhat like American Mensa
> > > whereby a portion of each member's dues were funnelled back to a metro
> > > umbrella org to finance various chess functions ... including backing
> > > money for tournaments and so on.
>
> > > Old Haasie
>
> > Hey! There is great new idea. Would you tell us more about this?
>
> Troll.

Those who are new members of this group may not be familiar with this,
but every few years "Old Haasie" hits this forum with a thousand or so
newsgroup postings about his "Mensa-membership Plan". It is like one
of those volcanoes
that erupts periodically and spews ash all over the place. Whenever
there is a USCF election, he asks each candidate to agree to endorse
his plan in order to get his one vote (except that he has not been a
member for years).

We can see that one of these eruptions is about to take place and
there is nothing we can do to stop it, so we might as well sit back
and watch.

Sam Sloan


 
Date: 10 May 2008 20:12:12
From: The Historian
Subject: Re: New In Chess #3 2008
On May 10, 6:28 pm, samsloan <[email protected] > wrote:
> On May 10, 6:17 pm, Old Haasie <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> > On May 10, 4:08=EF=BF=BDpm, "[email protected]" <[email protected]> wrot=
e:
>
> > > QUICK INTERVIEW WITH JEREMY SILMAN
>
> > > Q. If you could change one thing in the chess world, what would it be?=

>
> > > A. I would like to see many of the governing bodies (FIDE#, USCF,
> > > etc.) fall into a black hole.
>
> > I would like to see a USCF structured somewhat like American Mensa
> > whereby a portion of each member's dues were funnelled back to a metro
> > umbrella org to finance various chess functions ... including backing
> > money for tournaments and so on.
>
> > Old Haasie
>
> Hey! There is great new idea. Would you tell us more about this?

Troll.


 
Date: 10 May 2008 17:51:55
From: help bot
Subject: Re: New In Chess #3 2008
On May 10, 7:17 pm, Old Haasie <[email protected] > wrote:

> I would like to see a USCF structured somewhat like American Mensa
> whereby a portion of each member's dues were funnelled back to a metro
> umbrella org to finance various chess functions ... including backing
> money for tournaments and so on.


There is a serious problem with this idea, even
though it is not directly related to the MM.

In my area, there has been a long history of
misuse (or even non-use) of such funds; certain
people get wind of a lot of money laying around,
and next thing you know they are running for
Treasurer or President of, say, the state chess
organization, hoping -- even expecting -- to lay
their hands on the goodies.

Giving such people lots of money -- no matter
what the source -- will inevitably lead to pain,
not local promotion of chess. In other words,
throwing money at something does not always
lead to the intended consequences. I realize
that local corruption is not directly related to
the esteemed MM, but my state may well not
be an anomaly; this problem could very well
exist in many areas.

And if a portion of member's monies are
funneled back to local/regional organizations,
this could "justify" even higher membership
fees than we have now, which in turn could
serve to discourage cheapskates from
joining or renewing. This alone could doom
chess in my home state, since studies
indicate a ratio of 7.413 cheapskates for each
normal human being... .


-- help bot



 
Date: 10 May 2008 16:28:24
From: samsloan
Subject: Re: New In Chess #3 2008
On May 10, 6:17 pm, Old Haasie <[email protected] > wrote:
> On May 10, 4:08=EF=BF=BDpm, "[email protected]" <[email protected]> wrote:=

>
> > QUICK INTERVIEW WITH JEREMY SILMAN
>
> > Q. If you could change one thing in the chess world, what would it be?
>
> > A. I would like to see many of the governing bodies (FIDE#, USCF,
> > etc.) fall into a black hole.
>
> I would like to see a USCF structured somewhat like American Mensa
> whereby a portion of each member's dues were funnelled back to a metro
> umbrella org to finance various chess functions ... including backing
> money for tournaments and so on.
>
> Old Haasie

Hey! There is great new idea. Would you tell us more about this?


 
Date: 10 May 2008 16:17:30
From: Old Haasie
Subject: Re: New In Chess #3 2008
On May 10, 4:08=EF=BF=BDpm, "[email protected]" <[email protected] > wrote:
> QUICK INTERVIEW WITH JEREMY SILMAN
>
> Q. If you could change one thing in the chess world, what would it be?
>
> A. I would like to see many of the governing bodies (FIDE#, USCF,
> etc.) fall into a black hole.

I would like to see a USCF structured somewhat like American Mensa
whereby a portion of each member's dues were funnelled back to a metro
umbrella org to finance various chess functions ... including backing
money for tournaments and so on.

Old Haasie