I'm sorry for the lack of blogging activity, but new problems are popping up with Typepad (or Mozilla, my computer...who knows?)--suddenly, and inexplicably, my 'create a new page' page would quit on me. Perhaps the good Lord is hinting that I should be spending my time writing haiku or the great gaijin novel or something, rather than pontificating.
But here goes...it's been a while since I touched on the Bobby Fischer farce. It seems like Iceland wants him, perhaps to improve their limited gene pool, or to raise Iceland's standing in the chess world. Go figure. Given the irrational anti-Americanism rampant in Europe, the local politicians who back giving Fischer citizenship might well profit.
What's interesting is that I haven't seen much in the news reports about why Fischer is a 'fugitive from justice,' as they make it sound as if he's being persecuted merely for his toxic politics. In case anyone's forgotten, here's a blast from the past via The Telegraph:
In his interview on September 11 with Radio Bombo in Baguio City, Mr Fischer said: "This is all wonderful news. It is time to finish off the US once and for all.
"I was happy and could not believe what was happening. All the crimes the US has committed in the world. This just shows, what goes around comes around, even to the US.
"I applaud the act. The US and Israel have been slaughtering the Palestinians for years. Now it is coming back at the US."
Mr Fischer, 58, also attacked Israel and "Jews" who he claimed were responsible for "bringing" the attack on the World Trade Centre.
Oooookay. Does this mean that Iceland is opening itself up as a refuge for anti-Semites everywhere? Or only high-profile ones who call for the destruction of the U.S.?
I suppose if Fischer (who's reportedly half-Jewish himself) fulminated against gays or people of color, he'd be in serious legal trouble on that count. He certainly would be if he were a Canadian citizen. No, the real reason is that Fischer broke UN sanctions against Yugoslavia in 1992 to collect a 5 million dollar paycheck to paycheck to play against old rival Boris Spassky. Also, rumor has it that he had other temptations.
What was it that inspired Fischer to play this match? Many believe that the main motivating factor came from a relationship he developed with an 18-year-old Hungarian chess prodigy named Zita Rajcsanyi. This young girl started as a pen pal with Fischer where she wrote beautiful letters telling him how his great genius inspired her, they then reportedly carried on a full-fledged romance in Yugoslavia during the match, she later wrote a tell all book about their relationship. Such is the life of Robert James Fischer, chess genius at large.
For more background on this suffering...and insufferable...genius, chess4all has a nice piece here. Fine. Let him spend the rest of his days amid the floes and geysers, wearing his welcome thin among all Icelanders with sense enough to see the juvenile idiot that lies beneath the veneer of past glories and rebel play-acting.
Rather than commenting on the entire article, as I find no interest in it, I'd rather comment on a select few of Tanuki's statements. Here's the first:
"It seems like Iceland wants him, perhaps to improve their limited gene pool"
This sounds like a rather rascist thing to say. Am I wrong?KB
"Given the irrational anti-Americanism rampant in Europe"
When Tanuki makes statements such as this I'm wondering just what he is thinking. First of all, is it at all possible that the perceived "anti-Americanism" absolutely rational? Is it not at all possible that the frustrations caused by U.S. actions around the world could produce a legitimate disdain for the government? And also, I think Tanuki seems to confuse the perceived "anti-Americanism" as somehow applying to all Americans instead of just those few in power who are making unpopular decisions. Identifying the pe-ple with 'the state' is a rather totalitarian notion. It's my feeling that many people from around the world look up to and desire many of the good aspects about the U.S. and it's people. They simply don't like certain folks, making certain, unpopular, decisions, which they feel, aren't in the best interests of their countries or the world as a whole.KB
"In his interview on September 11 with Radio Bombo in Baguio City, Mr Fischer said: "This is all wonderful news. It is time to finish off the US once and for all."
I'd like to see the entire interview. Do you have a link?KB
"I was happy and could not believe what was happening. All the crimes the US has committed in the world. This just shows, what goes around comes around, even to the US."
Being happy at this happening is rather sick if this is, in fact, a true statement. However, to pretend that the U.S. was just a helpless victim existing in a vaccuum and not having anything to do with helping to fuel the hatred against it is simply to leave one's head buried in the sand. What I find bizzare is that there are actually people who try and pretend that the political decisions of the U.S. government had absolutely nothing to do with fueling the hostilities of the terrorists, especially since the U.S. trained them, and has known for years why they have such resentment toward the U.S. government. There is no secret or misunderstandings about the positions of the terrorists. They've been consistant for years. They've been saying that the U.S. has invaded the country which has their two most holy sites, and they want them out. So, to pretend otherwise is a little dishonest.KB
"I applaud the act. The US and Israel have been slaughtering the Palestinians for years. Now it is coming back at the US.""
To "applaud the act" really is a little sick if he did say this. However, that "the U.S. and Israel have been slaughtering the Palestinians for years" is hardly in doubt. What's Tanuki seems to be doing here, and I hope that he is not, is to relate the accurate parts of Fischer's statements, with the depraved statements about thinking the terrorism was good, thereby, inferring that those who disapprove of U.S. and Israeli terror must somehow think the terror carried out against the U.S. was good, or deserved. This is a big mistake if this is the inference. I know of no one who thinks the terrorist attackes the U.S. were good. However, to simply ignore the factors which helped to fuel such anti-American sentiments is simply dishonest.KB
"Mr Fischer, 58, also attacked Israel and "Jews" who he claimed were responsible for "bringing" the attack on the World Trade Centre."
Once again, I don't know if he really did make this statement, but to pretend that the terrorists weren't influenced by what's happening in the Middle East is to ignore the facts. All one has to do is to read what the terrorists say to see if this is their belief.KB
"Oooookay. Does this mean that Iceland is opening itself up as a refuge for anti-Semites everywhere?"
I'm not 100% sure that Fischer is anti-Semitic as I haven't really read anything he's written. But I do know that often times when someone makes statements critical of Israel that they're often thrown into the "anti-Semitic" category. Chomsky is called this all the time by those who don't know what they're talking about. In the real world, he's quite the opposite. Same goes for people naively mistaken his critical statements about the U.S. as somehow meaning that he "hates the U.S.". Those who are unable to distinguish the difference between crticism and hatered
should really check into what totalitarian-minded means.
"Or only high-profile ones who call for the destruction of the U.S.?"
There are VERY few folks who "call for the destruction of the U.S." And this is even in spite of what the U.S. has been doing to them for years.KB
"I suppose if Fischer (who's reportedly half-Jewish himself) fulminated against gays or people of color, he'd be in serious legal trouble on that count."
Why?KB
"He certainly would be if he were a Canadian citizen."
Shows how civilized the Canadians are.KB
"No, the real reason is that Fischer broke UN sanctions against Yugoslavia in 1992 to collect a 5 million dollar paycheck to paycheck to play against old rival Boris Spassky."
I do hope Tanuki didn't interject the U.N. sanctions here as a way to show Fisher's criminality. If so, I'd like to see his long list of where the U.S. has done the same, or much worse.KB
Like I said, if Fischer actually did say the things about being happy that the U.S. was hit, it really is sick. However, to throw out the accuracy of his observations about the U.S./Israel killing Palestinians for years, etc...based on his supposed happiness about the terrorism is also a mistake.KB
Posted by: KB | March 24, 2005 at 09:34 AM
A couple of quick replies. Racism against Icelanders? Hmmmm...could be a first. May I suggest that before you throw out charges of racism (where have we seen that before?) you do some research first? You might start with a google search: try 'iceland' and 'limited gene pool.' And, yes, you are not only wrong, but you are being offensive.
Here's a page of articles and interviews concerning Fischer. I think the last one on the list is what you're looking for. http://www.chessmaniac.com/Bobby_Fischer/Bobby_Fischer_Articles.shtm
I will also provide a link for your next question. I got it by googling 'Canada' and 'thought crime.' Here 'tis:
http://ignatiusinsight.com/features/mobrien_thoughtcrime_sept04.asp
And about UN sanctions. So, what's your point? Are violating UN sanctions right or wrong? I'm not saying either. I'm just reporting. Just thought it was interesting that not only did Fischer violate US laws but international laws. Is Iceland now a rogue state?
And, as you never fail to advise others, read before you speak. A little research does wonders in preventing displays of ignorance compounded by accusations based thereon.
Posted by: tanuki | March 24, 2005 at 05:18 PM
"Racism against Icelanders? Hmmmm...could be a first."
Well, then you shouldn't make such statements.KB
"May I suggest that before you throw out charges of racism (where have we seen that before?) you do some research first?"
There's nothing to research regarding your assertion.KB
"You might start with a google search: try 'iceland' and 'limited gene pool.'"
Why would I even think of looking this up?KB
"And, yes, you are not only wrong, but you are being offensive."
I'm being offensive because you made the statement you did? That's a good one.KB
"I will also provide a link for your next question. I got it by googling 'Canada' and 'thought crime.'"
Have you done the same for the U.S.? If not, why not? The U.S. is your country. You should be more concerned about your own country's crimes, don't you think?KB
"And about UN sanctions. So, what's your point? Are violating UN sanctions right or wrong?"
They're wrong. Never said anything different. It's just that Fischer's violation is in no way, shape, or form, comparable to those which the U.S. as a state has violated. That's all.KB
"I'm not saying either. I'm just reporting."
Yes. So am I.KB
"Just thought it was interesting that not only did Fischer violate US laws but international laws."
Just as the U.S. has done on MANY occasions. I find that one's own country violates international law, as well as it's own law, regularly, with only a slight recognition of it's doing so by a few of it's own citizens, to be much more interesting than a rouge chess player.KB
"Is Iceland now a rogue state?"
If it does anything which the U.S. doesn't like, or has unexploited oil which the U.S. desires. If it does, then it will be a rogue state.KB
"And, as you never fail to advise others, read before you speak."
Read what? I read what you wrote. You made a statement with nothing to back your statement, so I responded. What's the big deal? The statement still sounds rascist.KB
"A little research does wonders in preventing displays of ignorance compounded by accusations based thereon."
Then you should take your own advise every once in a while. Your projection disorder is really not improving is it? Anyway, I think that most rational readers would see the statement "perhaps to improve their limited gene pool" as somewhat of a rascist statement. I guess if I said that more whites should marry blacks so that their offspring may be able to jump higher it wouldn't be considered rascist either. Your statement seems to be bordering on the eugenics. Of course, this is consistant with much of the thinking of the right anyway, so, no big surprise. Perhaps, you should be a little more careful when making such statements.KB
Posted by: KB | March 25, 2005 at 01:04 AM
Every so often, you write something that actually pertains to the topic, and I think I might have judged you too harshly. Then you write something like the above which removes all hope about the possibility of rational discourse.
Ask yourself, 'What does "limited gene pool" mean and why would people from Iceland be characterised by this? If you are, as you've demonstrated on many occasions in the past, historically challenged, you'll have to do some research, for which I've already provided the topics or urls. Then ask yourself, "What effect would the introduction of a set of genes belonging to one of the arguably greatest chess players in the world" have on this gene pool?"
Then, maybe you'll have gotten the joke. However, Noam hasn't written anything about such topics so you're at a loss, I suppose.
Posted by: tanuki | March 25, 2005 at 07:12 AM
"Every so often, you write something that actually pertains to the topic, and I think I might have judged you too harshly."
"Every so often"? HAHAHAH! This is funny. Trying to sound condescending will do little to change the fact that all I write has to do with the subject, to which you usually retreat. Anyway, what's new?KB
"Then you write something like the above which removes all hope about the possibility of rational discourse."
Since when has rational discourse been a requirement for you? I mean, after all, you're the one who doesn't think it's necessary to study a subject before talking and writing about it. Anyway, what's new?KB
"Ask yourself, 'What does "limited gene pool" mean and why would people from Iceland be characterised by this?"
It means...uhh....limited gene pool? It's usually used as a racial critique against folks whom are viewed to be of a lower order. Hitler's crew did this quite often. Most people reading this would think that you are inferring, not so implicitly, the Icelanders were basically genetically retarded, and that with the implementation of a chess genius into the mix, there may be a good chance of lifting the Icelanders above their retardedness. For you this may be a joke, kind of like telling Polish jokes, but perhaps some Icelanders may take issue with your joke. I mean, being politically correct and everything. Please explain how this is an incorrect interpretation of what you've written.KB
"If you are, as you've demonstrated on many occasions in the past, historically challenged"
Once again, a projective accusation with nothing to back it up. I love it when you do this. I say let's do a study, something I know you won't want to do for fear of what you might find, looking at every article you've written, look at my comments, and then decide who is the historically challenged one. After all, you self-admittedly don't even think that studying the topic is necessary. Anyway, let me get this straight. Because I usually provide all of the evidence, all of the pertinent links to any topic being discussed, etc...I am the one who is "historically challenged". Yes, Orwell would have been proud to have used you as a subject.KB
"you'll have to do some research, for which I've already provided the topics or urls."
I'm the only one on this blog who usually does do any of the research with the exception of Chompsky on several occasions. The links you have left have been few and far between. I mean, from which one could really learn anything about the topic. For instance, you left links to Kamm. What's this supposed to prove? How's someone supposed to learn about Chomsky by reading someone else who hasn't a clue? What kind of scholarship is that? How's his disinformation supposed to educated anybody?KB
"Then ask yourself, "What effect would the introduction of a set of genes belonging to one of the arguably greatest chess players in the world" have on this gene pool?""
Finally, we have an admission. Thanks for proving my point. As I initially recognized, your statement was that Icelander's genes were basically retarded(growth) and by eugenically infusing them with Fischer they'd perhaps be genetically lifted out of their retardation. Boy's from Brazil comes to mind when I read such statements. Perhaps you didn't really mean to make such as rascist comment, though they do often slip through the lips of those on the right, see Jesse Helms, etc...I'd just say be a little more careful.KB
"Then, maybe you'll have gotten the joke. However, Noam hasn't written anything about such topics so you're at a loss, I suppose."
What joke? That a madman, by your own recognition, would help to improve the Icelander's gene pool? It's actually a double-slap in the face to the Icelanders. Not only are you saying that they're genetically retarded, you're saying that even a crazy person would bring an improvement to their gene pool. Anyway, regarding Noam, you suppose wrong, as usual. I rarely read anything by Chomsky anymore because I've read it all. And, actually, I wouldn't be surprised if Chomsky has written on the topic, though I don't recall offhand. I'd say I get about 1% of my information from Chomsky. Why does this bother you so? You refer to many who are not remotely as intelligent for your information.KB
Posted by: KB | March 25, 2005 at 12:57 PM
Okay. It's Good Friday, I'm going to try to be nice. I maintain that I am not racist in using the expression "limited gene pool" in that I am referring to the relative ethnic homogeneity of Iceland. This is from an article describing a nation-wide project to record Iceland's genetic code, from Mother Jones (I thought you'd trust them):
The 270,000 people who live in Iceland, many of whom will contribute their genes to this project, are descended from a small number of original settlers, mostly Norsemen who came to the island around the 9th century. Since then, most Icelanders have been intermarrying and choosing their spouses from the same small group of Nordic families.
In the early 1400s, the Black Death swept through the island, killing two of every three inhabitants. Later, smallpox struck. And in the late 1700s, the volcano Hekla, east of Reykjavík, erupted and spewed ash over gardens and pastures. A severe famine followed. These catastrophes, combined with the isolation of the place, created population "bottlenecks" that constricted an already narrow gene pool. http://www.motherjones.com/news/special_reports/1998/05/marshall.html
So, what I meant was that there aren't a lot of people contributing a great variety of genetic characteristics to the population of Iceland. 'Limited' first means 'not infinite or of a small size,' and then by extention, 'unsatisfactory.'
Please think twice before you accuse someone of racism. I did suggest you google Iceland and limited gene pool, where you would have found the necessary information and avoided embarrassing yourself and putting me through the pains of defending myself from a pointless charge.
To dissect my apparently ill-advised attempt at humor, I was facetiously suggesting that the people of Iceland, whose gene pool is--well, how else can I say it--limited--may want to add the genes of a chess genius. I was not being serious. To any Icelanders out there who were offended by my comments, I offer humblest apologies. From KB, I await same.
Posted by: tanuki | March 25, 2005 at 05:58 PM
"Please think twice before you accuse someone of racism."
If they say something rascist I do not need to think twice.KB
"I did suggest you google Iceland and limited gene pool, where you would have found the necessary information and avoided embarrassing yourself and putting me through the pains of defending myself from a pointless charge."
You have proved nothing. The charge was accurate and you still haven't proved otherwise.KB
"To dissect my apparently ill-advised attempt at humor,"
Well at least you're admitting that it was ill-advised which lends credence to my interpretation. You've just supported me again. Thanks!KB
"I was facetiously suggesting that the people of Iceland, whose gene pool is--well, how else can I say it--limited--may want to add the genes of a chess genius."
Yes. I know. This is exactly what I said that you said. This is exactly why I made the criticism I did. Are you going to continue supporting me just because it's Good Friday?KB
"I was not being serious. To any Icelanders out there who were offended by my comments, I offer humblest apologies. From KB, I await same."
Why would I apologize to you for you making the statements which you did, even if jokingly, which I perceived as slightly rascist. I owe you no apology. You owe me one for having to embarrass myself by pointing this out to you when you should have known better.KB
Posted by: KB | March 25, 2005 at 09:10 PM