HoboFactory

I'll have to check out this Shins album, because so far it seems like the Modest Mouse album is the only worthwhile one released so far this year.

"A Day in the Life of Ivan Denisovich" by Alexander Solzhenitsyn It's a very short book, so I'll probably finish it really soon. It's not mind-blowing so far.

Damn straight, Shiri.

I suspect, in Russia at least, he'll be seen in a pretty positive light in the future. Sure it's probably an award as dubious as being the world's tallest midget, but Putin probably is the best leader Russia has had in the last 100 years. If he does step down in 2008 (and I do think he will) it's hard to say what direction the nation will head in afterwards. It's likely that the party and candidate Putin endorses will have the best chance of taking the wheel, but that doesn't mean the course of the nation will remain the same, just as there were significant differences between the administrations of the USSR's single-party system. The Russian Federation is still technically a very young country, not even two decades old, so it's hard to predict anything. I still have a a reasonable amount of optimism about the whole thing however.

I'm not so huge on being true to the original, so I won't go into that, but for me, the movie seemed to really drag on, until it seemed pointless. It was something like 3 hours long, but I honestly thought if one were to cut it down to 2 hours, it wouldn't feel like anything was left out.

I saw that on TV, kinda liked it.

Yes, extraordinarily horrible.

At least it's more fun than debating heyrabbit, he seems to put forth only one post per day (although a lengthy one) in a given debate. We sort of trailed off the topic of the Putin administration as a whole. I am just curious to see how history will judge Putin. You know, Abraham Lincoln was not at all a popular president during his rule. A lot of people thought he was war-crazed, there was a draft and all that after all, naturally the south wasn't too fond of him, and a lot of northerners really didn't give a damn that the south left the union and were just as welling to let the confederacy go. Nowadays he is regarded as one of the greatest, if not the greatest president in American history. History has a strange way of forgiving some and condemning others.

The Thin Red Line ...and also some foreign-made movies like Stalingrad and Tae Guk Gi.

Africa is merely an illustration, one that shows that a people, given the right to self-determination, won't suddenly magically become this utopia where everyone is happy and prosperous. Yes, many if not most, of Africa's problems are rooted in colonial past, but many of these nations have been independant for decades and they're probably farther from the idealized vision of the future as ever. You're saying that a people's independance is 100% essential to progress and success, and that naturally, some sort of pleasant democracy results, which in reality isn't the case much of the time. The American Natives are also often over-idealised and a poor example. Yes, they did kill each other like mad, particularly the South American native civilizations, and no, not all of them were conservationsists. In any case, their way of life is not really feasible in the modern day, nor is it desirable to most people. On top of that, the only reason why American Native society seemed to function was because there was no central government, a Pacific Northwester tribe would not have even known of the existance of say a tribe from Florida, it was unfeasible, impractical, and unnecessary for central governments to exist. In the modern day, particularly in a nation with a history of violence and repression from both foreign and domestic influeces, taking away an authoritarian leader is not exactly a recipe for success. There are too many sets of interests, goals, plans that people are too willing to be violent about, so what you get is a chatoic mess again.

The TB and health crisis and all that is probably more liberal guilt talk, the entire Russia Federation is facing this problem as well, the average life expectancy for a Russian male is under 60 years, it doesn't take a war to get that too happen, just nationwide poverty. In a power vacuum with battling warlords aren't gonna start passing out immunizations. It's not a question of nationalism, it's seeing things from a perspective you westerners refuse to even take a look at. Russia has not made it a policy to directly murder people they're 100% certain have nothing to do with anything, they may have done horrible things through the mismanaged and unregulated war, but never was their aim to deliberately make the most innocent suffer. Not everyone in the west deplored the act, I've known and debated with lots of people who simply said the Russians got what they deserved and that was the bottom line. People don't always need an iron-fisted leaders to keep society in line, but in some places, given background, demographic issues, etc it's the only thing that works. If your idealistic vision of the world worked, then Africa would be a much finer place.

Well, let's put it this way... suppose the Chinese military launched an invasion of your hometown, then backed a pro-Chinese local gov't that kidnapped suspected enemy combatants, tortured them, etc... you'd certainly be pissed, right? I can understand that. But here's the question... do you attack the military (those who are directly responsible for the wrongs, those who are aware of the dangers of the situation, and those who are capable of defending themselves) or would you just go shoot up some Chinese children somewhere? In America a couple of moronic Manson fans (although it should be noted that "moronic Manson fans" is a redundant phrase) shoot a dozen of their schoolmates and the nation and world grieves, some grand explanation is sought, and it extends to everywhere from blaming videogames to America's gun culture. When hundreds of schoolchildren get shot in Russia, many westerners wouldn't even call it a crime and rushed to find all sorts of excuses and justifications. It's a war, and it's an ugly thing, but it makes no sense the liberals in the West get so pissed about what pro-Russian forces do, and then just barely fall short of applause whenever anti-Russian forces pull something off. You seem to have far too idealistic a view of what an independant Chechnya would be like. You get rid of that iron-fisted Kadyrov and all you get is a power vacuum. It's why its independance failed the first time around, even the guy who lead the rebellion against Russia and won independence for Chechnya couldn't actually take power, and just became any of many fighting amongst other factions for control. Iraq's a pretty good example of what happens in a power vacuum. You don't see "the happy freedom-seeking people rising up against and getting rid of the fighting warlords, bandits and organized crime" you get a bunch of scared people as victims that often have no choice but to pick sides or just flee.

Made to stay in Russian when they don't want to? Really now? Notice it's Kadyrov who is being blamed for most of the kidnappings and torture. Newsflash: Kadyrov is a Chechen! Most Chechens probably don't give a damn either way, and certainly there's a significant portion that are for staying in Russia if they're willing to go to such means. Perhaps such actions are not civil, but I would say far moreso than the planned, deliberate murder of children for the sole purpose of showing that they're not above doing so. Your site says the Europeans are aware of 200 incidents of enforced kidnapping, torture, etic... yeah, doing such things to suspected enemies is just as bad as killing schoolchildren that have nothing to do with anything. If one disapproves of the acts of the Russian military, or of pro-Moscow Chechen militias, maybe they should take issue with them, and you know, leave the 2nd graders out of it... I dunno. They've already taken the diplomatic path, in 1996 Russia signed a cease-fire granting Chechnya independance. That nation crumbled as rival criminal warlords all fought each other for control, and attacks on Russia resumed, the Chechens then launched a raid into the neightboring Russian republic of Dagestan. It was at this point Russia launched its second invasion into Chechnya.

So... which Chechen school did Russian soldiers kill hundreds of children in? Which Chechen civilian airliners did the Russians bring down? I think there's a major difference between stray shells or things that go wrong in battlefield situation and a deliberate targeting of children. As a Chechen rebel explained it later, the purpose of this attack was to elevate the fighting a new level, that is to prove that nothing is sacred... not exactly something civilized "freedom fighters" ought to be doing. Saying "oh well I guess those Russians reap what they sow" excuses, if not condones, such actions. I think Russia definitely has a chance of avoiding American domination. I think Russia's government clearly sees the threat at hand and probably has plans of its own. China is different because it recently had an economic shake up of sorts, and if its role in the capitalist world fails, the nation is probably doomed. It relies far too heavily on the USA purchasing its goods. They say 10-11% of China's exports all go to Wal-Mart alone... that means if Wal-Mart alone decides to pull the plug, it would be a very serious knock to the Chinese economy. And if America as a whole decides to pull the plug for whatever reason, what the hell are they gonna do with 100 million McDonald's happy meal toys? What are they gonna do with those garish Mardi Gras beads? China already exists pretty much at America's mercy.

You're mistaken, his term as president did not end in 2006. He became president in 2000, and was re-elected in 2004, his current term isn't due to end until 2008, and they're pretty sure he'll honor the Russian constitution and step down once the day rolls around.

If one is to talk about brutalizing entire populations, one may definitely wanna take a peek at Iraq. Or perhaps China's taking of Tibet. yes, we don't try to turn a blind eye to China or Iraq or Iran or etc etc etc, so why should Russia be any different? Sure you can talk about how Chechnya's terrorist are targeting women and children (we all remember when they stormed the school and the opera) but that's what terrorist do. Why can't Putin take the higher ground? Sure you do. At least your governments do, in fact the US gov't is responsible for Iraq.

Antisemitism is a bit of a complicated term that I don't like having to use. When people use that term, they generally take it to mean anti-Jewish, and yet I believe Arabs are also a semitic people. It strikes me as odd when people accuse Arab Muslims of antisemitism. That's all somewhat beside the point, but it does sort of serve to illustrate that the problem is often not quite as simple as it may appear. In any case, if you're saying Judeophobia is a serious problem that needs to be dealt with, why? Judaism is a religion, one that also has some racist and violent teachings. Jews are taught to believe they, and they only, are God's chosen people and that everyone else, is a pagan, and could be treated pretty much as a dog. Of course I suspect the majority of Jewish people aren't that way, but let's not et sidetracked. Why would you, as an objective opponent of oppressive organized religion think one needs preservation, and the other needs destruction? Why is Judeophobia something that needs to be done away with, and anti-Islam is something that should be more widespread?

Like I said, it's definitely not the land of the milk and honey, but there is in fact a quickly-growing middle class, and there is also a significant growth in small businesses. So Russia's economic success isn't just the super-rich getting even richer. If one is to talk about brutalizing entire populations, one may definitely wanna take a peek at Iraq. Or perhaps China's taking of Tibet. So, by consolidating its power, Russia is once more trying to become "relevant." One of the things they plan to do with their added economic success is to raise military spending by 30%. I don't see why that would be wrong for Russia, seems like it's just trying to keep America from dominating it. It becomes clear, that the Western powers don't stand for what's right as it claims, in fact they probably don't care about right and wrong. Just look at all of the governments they backed in Asia and South America, in many cases, these were as brutal and oppressive regimes as any other, the only difference was that they were anti-communist. I feel optimistic about Russia's prospects, economic projections seem to indicate Russia's steady growth will continue, and the nation will continue to stabilize and grow stronger, I think that's what seems to bother the west so much.

But it's still beside the point. Putin's still a popular president, and the nation is more successful under him... in fact it's under him that the Russian economy works for like the first time in 100 years. I really doubt the USA can somehow legitimately claim moral superiority. And look at China, they've an even more oppressive and undemocratic regime, and the USA can't stop singing its praises. The EU says that it can't fully consider itself a partner with Russia until it adopts the kind of political system they want from it, but China is a-okay. It's hypocritical. They all turn a blind eye on human rights abuses and oppression when it profits them, and then blow the less-necessary whistle when someone has the guts to stand up for themselves.

But that may as well be conspiracy talk.

To answer the question, I'd say no. It seems strange to me thatn in the mid- and late 90's... the west was so happy about Russia being a "developing democracy"... there was even talk of Russia joining NATO... at the same time, it was a very dark and chaotic time for Russia.... inflation was at its worst, crime was at an all time high, and of course there was the economic collapse of 1998. Under Putin, the strengh of the ruble went up many times, from there being hundreds/thousands to the dollar to around 28. Russia's GDP has been growing by 7% every year, and it's up by more than 50% from the 1990's, and even though only a few years ago, the per capita income was something like $5400/year, it's now more than doubled to around $12,000. Recently Russia has become the nation in the world the 3rd largest amount of billionares (Germany #2 and USA #1), some even project the Russia's buying power will exceed that of the UK within a decade or so. With this added economic success, Russia has now started making efforts to restore to some extent its military, operate at something of a surplus, bring down inflation, fund solutions to the health crisis, fight crime, and to be more assertive on the world stage. Don't get me wrong, it's not the land of milk and honey, but the rate of improvement is defintely impressive. Suddenly the west is pissed. The Bush administration's been making all these criticizing speeches about "backsliding on democracy." So, given that some polls place Bush's approval rating at around 24%, and Putin is rated by polls between 75% and 80% I'm just not sure there's any room to judge. It seems like America and the rest of west, when they say Russia should be a democracy, they really mean Russia should do what appeases the West in every way possible. It doesn't matter if Putin is on the authoritarian side of things, it is not only what the people seem to need, but also what most of them seem to want. It seems like American and Europe are saying, "you guys are free to choose your government, provided that it's one that will always do as we please." They've been trying to force Russia into a corner, setting up bases in central Asia, planning to set up missile defenses in Poland and the Czech Republic, and then expect Russia to just bend over and take it, and if Putin raises a fuss, he's just being undemocratic. Russia's got all these natural resources, and the former Soviet nations are all dying to be part of the West in every way possible, and yet refuse to pay the same sort of prices the West pays for the same resource. Ukraine wants to be one with NATO and the EU, at least in part to spite Russia, but heaven forbid Russia charge it as much for oil as the West has to pay... that's just "economic blackmail." Seems ridiculous to me, almost as if the West can't stand to see Russia get it wants.

Not that I really hated it or anything, but it just didn't impress me either. Given all that I heard about it before seeing, my reaction was "This is what the fuss was about?" I mean sure, it was really neat visually, but with me, visuals often take a back seat to many other elements such as the story itself, or the dialogue.

But the fighting and motives are relevent because they're what made opposition to the Nazis feasible. Not only did the Nazis have a massively delusional and oppressive believe system, but they also had an actual nation, troops, a government... you fight and destroy a nation, kill its troops, and collapse its government but destroying a belief is a much more difficult affair. After all, Nazis do still exist.

Alabama Motel Room

I hope it's better than Sin City.