Fidel Castro

[Jwaksman]

Not only does he crack down on any civil disobedience, but he also steals a ridiculous amount of money from his government. Making his entire fortune from state-owned businesses, he has a personal wealth (according to the new Forbes Magazine (http://www.forbes.com/billionaires/2005/03/07/cz_bill05_royalsslide_6.html?thisSpeed=6000) list) of $550 Million. To put that in perspective, the entire country of Cuba (http://www.odci.gov/cia/publications/factbook/geos/cu.html#Econ) had a GDP of $33.92 Billion last year. To extrapolate his percentage of the nation's wealth to the United States, which had a GDP of $11.75 Trillion last year, that would be like an American having $190.5 Billion. That's approximately twice as much as the two richest people in the world (Bill Gates & Warren Buffett, both Americans) have combined ($90.5 Billion).



Castro makes his money by taking huge profits off of his state-owned businesses, which are so profitable because he can change laws to make himself rich. He can ban products so that people have to purchase his products.



Of course, this makes perfect sense. There's no such thing as a "left-wing" government or a "right-wing" government. There's just "big government" and "small government." It's impossible to run a society with huge economic regulations without cracking down on civil liberties. Look at the Socialist (or semi-socialist) countries that still exist (China, North Korea, Cuba, Venezuela) - not exactly havens of civil liberties... Somehow Hitler has been called the epitome of a right-wing government and Stalin as the epitome of a left-wing government. Yet their governments were almost identical. It's no coincidence. It goes the other way, of course. Bush is a "rightwinger", so he's supposed to crack down on civil liberties. But he's only been able to do that by taking away economic freedoms as well - raising the budget faster than any President since Lyndon Johnson and passing a prescription drug bill that will hurt our future deficit more than Social Security.

That's why I realized a long time ago that it's silly to call yourself leftwing or rightwing - all that means are which freedoms you want to take away first, economic or civil. You're either big government or small government. I'm small government. What are you?

[mzungu]

time to crack open some history books.

[Jwaksman]

time to crack open some history books.



I appreciate the typical "I'll just insult the other person rather than present an argument" post... but if it won't inconvenience you too much, could you expand on that idea?

[KenA55]

You're either big government or small government. I'm small government. What are you?
I'd say I'm a mix of both, believing that there are many areas where centralized economic resources, management, and policy decisions are advantageous. And in those areas, I like to see the more positive areas as big as they need to be to do the job, and the more negative areas kept as small as they can be to accomplish the job.

What do people see in Cuba's political future once Castro is gone, assuming he doesn't live forever? It already seems like he has, how old is the guy, anyway?

[Jwaksman]

He is quite old. I would expect the nation to turn either Democratic or to a less-communist leader after he dies. I don't think they could keep up this government without a very powerful leader - and there are none waiting in the wings. Castro is trying to continue his legacy with his protege, Chavez of Venezuela. Venezuela will be the new Cuba (if it isn't already).

[MoMo]

Castro is 78. His reported health problems include prostate cancer, heart problems and Parkinson’s. He has appeared increasingly shaky in public appearances (including the recent one where he tripped and broke his knee and arm). But he has been in power for 45 years, and most Cubans know nothing else.
Whatever happens after he dies, there is sure to be a period of serious ferment.
The right-wing wacko Cuban exiles in Florida will try, if not to mount their own Bay of Pigs-style invasion, then to foment and support an uprising by remote control. The U.S. administration, whether Republican or Democrat, will do everything it can behind-the-scenes to support and encourage a pro-democracy uprising, as in the Philippines or Ukraine, without actually sending troops (though right-wing wackos will call for armed intervention).
The Cubans will be divided, and that means blood-letting is a real possibility. Some of them still love Castro (even as some Russians still miss Stalin), while others hate and fear him.
The question is how sturdy a structure he has put in place for the post-Castro era.
His brother, Raul, is in charge of the military, but Raul himself is in his 70s.
Castro also has two sons who have lately been trotted out more to increase public familiarity:
Fidel Castro Diaz-Balart, a Soviet-trained nuclear physicist said to look much like a younger version of his father, down to the beard; and Antonio Castro del Valle, an orthopedic surgeon.

[mzungu]

by crack open some history books, i mean that you cannot pretend that the soviet and nazi economic systems were identical. come on, give us the extensive details to verify that.

[Zat0pek]

The right-wing wacko Cuban exiles in Florida

That's an unfair characterization. One could just as easily say "freedom loving Cuban exiles." Why wouldn't living under Castro's boot your entire life make any thinking person a conservative? Seems to be a perfectly reasonable, as opposed to "wacko", response to me.

Gee, imagine that. People wanting to raise their own kids instead of turning them over to officially become property of the state at a certain age. Hard-working people wanting to keep what they earn. Yeah, really a "wacko" idea.

[jaygray]

What I think MoMo is really talking about is the extent to which the Republican Party seems to be beholden to this relatively small but vehement exile community. Frankly it's ridiculous. The way to bring about change in Cuba is by lifting the embargo, not tightening it.

[UpstateRunner]

I rather disagree here. The fact is that there are basic services (healthcare, highways, etc.) that all people need. Given the choice, I would far rather have the government run these services than private companies. Private companies will give me as little as they can and charge me as much as they can, but if the government doesn't do it right I can elect someone else in four years. The government, since it is not driven by profit but the desire for my vote, will serve me better. Because of this, I support democratic socialism as a far superior alternative to capitalism.

EDIT: This is going back to the big/small governement question above, sorry for not quoting

[MoMo]

yeah, jaygray's right about my intention.
"wacko" probably was an unfortunate choice of words.

[Jwaksman]

I rather disagree here. The fact is that there are basic services (healthcare, highways, etc.) that all people need. Given the choice, I would far rather have the government run these services than private companies. Private companies will give me as little as they can and charge me as much as they can, but if the government doesn't do it right I can elect someone else in four years. The government, since it is not driven by profit but the desire for my vote, will serve me better. Because of this, I support democratic socialism as a far superior alternative to capitalism.

EDIT: This is going back to the big/small governement question above, sorry for not quoting



Yes, it's important that things like food, clothing, shelter & health care (the four most important things for survival) are run by the government. Because companies only care about profits, and people will starve and be without clothing without government intervention....


Oh, wait, there's always plenty of this stuff in the US. And in communist nations, where the government "guarantees" these things, there are always shortages.


That's the point that economists like Adam Smith have been making for 250 years. The private markets will always deliver, while the government cannot guarantee those things. The fact that companies are greedy and want profits is precisely why they will deliver goods. The fact that government does not care about profits is precisely why they won't always deliver.

It seems counter-intuitive, but it's true. It's one of the remarkable things about humans and human nature.

[MoMo]

The private markets will always deliver TO THOSE WHO CAN PAY. The fact that companies are greedy and want profits is precisely why they will deliver goods TO THOSE WHO CAN PAY.

[Zat0pek]

The private markets will always deliver TO THOSE WHO CAN PAY. The fact that companies are greedy and want profits is precisely why they will deliver goods TO THOSE WHO CAN PAY.

So, profit automatically = greed?

Again, name the good or service that has ever been provided more effectively or economically by a government than the private market OTHER THAN the postal service, which pays its own way just like a private company.

This reminds me of that nonsense when there was a push by Democrats to make all the airport screeners government employees. I consistently heard people say that it made them "feel" safer. When you asked them why, having the same people do the same job but now as a government employee, would be any safer, they were utterly at a loss to give any rational reason why. Its all about feelings, not thought. Policy should not be based on feelings.

This is the unbelievable attitude we have created that we want the government to do everything for us and take care of us. It is a political philosophy that appeals to the weakest elements of our nature, of wanting minimal responsibility and minimal risk in our lives. It is political Pablum, and it is a recipe for the long-term destruction of our economy.

Anyone that has been around knows that I am not averse to government involvement in the economy, but that should be done as minimally as possible and is best done by implementing policies the shape the market in such a way as to accomplish the same goals.

The fact is that there are basic services (healthcare, highways, etc.) that all people need. Given the choice, I would far rather have the government run these services than private companies.

This is precisely what gets me. What basic services? Food? Surely eating is a "basic service." Should the govenment take over food distribution? The bottom line is deciding what we determine to be a "basic service" and that has blown up far, far, far, beyond what I believe it should be, and the entitlement mentality will slowly choke the life out of this economy and this culture.

[Jwaksman]

The private markets will always deliver TO THOSE WHO CAN PAY. The fact that companies are greedy and want profits is precisely why they will deliver goods TO THOSE WHO CAN PAY.



How come capitalism has wiped out starvation in America? Yeah, rich people get fillet mignon and poor people get McDonalds. But everyone eats. Look at communist nations - they don't have enough food to feed everyone! That's because farmers need the incentive and the distributors need the incentive and the manufacturers need the incentive to provide the services.


In Soviet Russia you had cases where one town would have a huge shortage of food but thousands of extra winter coats. The next town over would be freezing to death but would have more than enough food. But no one cared enough to find out what the other town needed because, what was the incentive? Let someone else take care of it, right? Why need responsibility?

[MoMo]

Please. Don't tell me that McDonald's alone has ended hunger in America.
More than 20 million Americans get food stamps.
There are, I think, close to 50 million Social Security recipients, and many of those are kept from hunger by those payments.
And there are many other government programs that similarly help those who otherwise would be left in hunger.
You angry rightists are mistaking my above comment for saying that free enterprise has no role, or is entirely negative. Of course that's not what I'm saying.
Free enterprise spurs competition, competition lowers prices, and lower prices help the poor.
But it does so without a conscience, without concern for those who can't very well afford even McDonald's or Wal-Mart prices. Only government can be relied on to help those people on a consistent basis.
If capitalism alone solved these problems -- and if we (as many of you contend) have perhaps the best capitalistic system in the world, then there would be NO hunger or poverty. Such, alas, is not the case.

[Jwaksman]

What, you're arguing that capitalism is a failure as long as one person goes hungry?? Please... We're just so spoiled because none of us remember a time were anyone in poverty struggled to find the next meal. Now, people in poverty own dvd players and cars...


You have argued, for example, that health care needs to be nationalized because drug companies are too greedy to provide medicine for everyone. Well, why wouldn't the same theory hold for food? Wouldn't the food companies be too greedy to provide food for everyone?


Yet not only is there enough food for everyone, but there is way, way too much. We are huge food exporters, and food often spoils because there's nowhere to send it. Hunger is no longer the plague of the poor - obesity is.

[Zat0pek]

If capitalism alone solved these problems -- and if we (as many of you contend) have perhaps the best capitalistic system in the world, then there would be NO hunger or poverty. Such, alas, is not the case.

A false statement based on a false premise.

I can see where NO ONE has said it eliminates ALL hunger and poverty.

No system can TOTALLY eliminate those things; it is statistically impossible. There always be people in any system that are unreachable by any logistically feasible methods. This is bell curve stuff, a few standard deviations out.

There is no claim that capitalism can solve ALL hunger and poverty because NO system can do that. So to assert, as you did above, that because capitalism has failed to do what (1) no one ever said it could do and (2) NO system can do, and therefore capitalism has failed is, well, baffling logic.

[MoMo]

Zat, don't join jwack in misconstruing what I've said.

This began with jwack saying, and I quote directly, "How come capitalism has wiped out starvation in America?"

My point was simply that it had not ALTOGETHER accomplished that, and that government had played some role in helping reduce hunger. These are inarguable points.

I never said that this showed that capitalism was a failure, or worse than any other system. Did I? Where?

Jwack's hugely annoying tendency to misstate, warp and contort an adversary's argument is so promiscuously irresponsible as to be laughable. He is a champion of the straw-man argument -- pretending someone has said something other than they've said, then knocking it down. It's easier to argue against the weaker arguments he pretends others are advancing.

I did NOT EVER argue, as he claims, "that health care needs to be nationalized because drug companies are too greedy to provide medicine for everyone." I have merely said that nationalized health care systems -- in SOME cases -- were not the complete disasters he constantly harps about, and that our own system is somewhat less than perfect.

You both need to have a strong cup of coffee, clean your glasses, and take a deep breath.

[Zat0pek]

Zat, don't join jwack in misconstruing what I've said. This began with jwack saying, and I quote directly, "How come capitalism has wiped out starvation in America?"

. . .

You both need to have a strong cup of coffee, clean your glasses, and take a deep breath.

Well, I have a confession to make. I don't really read Jwaks posts very closely so that one slipped by me.

While you didn't actually write that capitalism had failed, I got that very strong inference from your post. If you intended otherwise, then I read too much into it.

[MoMo]

Well, I know I blow off a lot of steam sometimes, and sometimes I do it without the very GREATEST of precision...

Luckily, I have DyeStat as a place to vent rather than going home to kick the dog. ;)

[mzungu]

Well, I have a confession to make. I don't really read Jwaks posts very closely so that one slipped by me.

While you didn't actually write that capitalism had failed, I got that very strong inference from your post. If you intended otherwise, then I read too much into it.

Let this be a model to all posters. If you get something wrong, misread something, see other evidence, be willing to admit it, like zat0pek was willing to do.

If I could chip in here, I'd say that the social security system for distribution of retirement benefits is administered for considerably less than 1%, or a lot less than many private fund managers. The welfare system WAS a good deal cheaper than HMO's. All other industrialized nations have either or both lower per person GOVERNMENT health care spending and lower per person private health care spending, yet higher marks in quality of health care. With 45 million uninsured, and rampant inflation in private health care insurance, we as a society have a responsibility to make major changes.

[Jwaksman]

mzungu, we've discussed this before. Other countries simply can't afford to spend any more money than they do - so they cut out things like new drugs, treatments, and doctors. I'd rather a pay a little bit more than to have to wait 5 months for surgery, or to have to fly to the US to buy new drugs.


You are insistent in trying to disprove the laws of economics. Unfortunately, like gravity, the laws of nature are real laws. Government legislation is just a suggestion.

[mzungu]

your premises are false.
first, many economists AND CORPORATIONS agree with me that it is good for an economy to have the federal government handle health care and retirement. (this is what the United deal means--the federal government is forced to handle the cost of the pensions).
second, there are no logical, mathematical, or scientific laws of economics. economics is not a science. get that through your head. and many economists reject your interpretation of what they conceive to be laws of economics.
third, other countries spend less and get more regarding health care.

[Jwaksman]

corporations love health care laws, because it means that they no longer have to pay health care benefits. Rather than having to foot the bill, they can make the American tax payer pay it.


But as most people learn when they're young, you get what you pay for. And it's one thing when government gets its hands involved in rent control. But health is just about the most important thing for people, and I most definitely do not want government screwing that up also.


Over the last 15 years, health care costs have skyrocketed, but what's interesting is that prices have not increased any faster than inflation. The entire cause of the price increase is an increase in the amount of health care services that people are using.


Part of this is due to the fact that federal legislation requires health care providers to provide for way too much. But a lot of it is simply due to the great system that we live in that creates all of these new drugs and products. If you don't want to pay for them, then don't. But don't keep me from buying that. That's simply unjust.

[MoMo]

Corporations can make employees pay a larger share of their benefits WITHOUT any legislative action. They do it every day.

[Jwaksman]

Yes, and then people are less likely to want to work there. Benefits are just another part of salary. Decreasing benefits is equivalent to decreasing salary. By pushing for legislation with their political buddies, large corporations can pass off their salaries to the taxpayer. Why spend all that money on salary for your workers when you only need to give a few million dollars to politicians and union lobbyists to get the taxpayer to pay it?

[MoMo]

less likely to work there? maybe. but of course, as i'm sure you must realize, it's not a perfect, friction-less, level-field system.

if my employer suddenly makes me pay 5 percent more of my health-care costs, i'm not going to quit, sell my house and leave town -- especially if most others are doing the same thing. the change would cost me more than the money i save, even if i CAN find another place that hasn't slashed its benefits.

we're talking about the real world here.

[Jwaksman]

No, but such an expert as yourself should know about the Keynesian concept of "efficiency wages." The theory is that people do not just quit jobs and pick up new jobs willy-nilly because there is an inherent cost in switching jobs. It's inconvenient, you have to move, etc. It's also an issue for companies. Job training is expensive and work experience is valuable.

So, because of those issues, wages are never quite at the classical economic equilibrium point. Rather, wages are slightly higher. For one reason, it makes people take a job. Let's say that you won't accept a job for $10 a hour - if they pay you $10.25, will that really make a difference? Probably not. But if they offer $13 you might say, "Hey, I'll take it." Also, this allows wages to stay stable. Throughout the year, companies can do better or worse than expected, and their are inflationary issues. To make sure that the wage doesn't fall below equilibrium, it's helpful to keep wages higher.


But, most importantly, it's an issue of motivation. If someone is getting paid just nearly enough to keep them employed then they won't really care too much if they get fired. They'll slack on their work, and skip days. If someone is being paid more than their worth then they will feel wanted and motivated, increasing worker efficiency.


So, if you decrease wages by 5%, you won't necessarily see a lot of people quitting. But you'll see a decrease in worker productivity. I mean, the idea of offering health care benefits first came about to bring in good workers, wouldn't getting rid of them hurt companies? Just think logically...

[MoMo]

nice pirouette.

[jaygray]

You know something, jwak? I really like your willful disregard of practical experience in favor of theory. I'm not kidding, and I'm not putting you down. There's a certain place for the theorists who are above it all, or think that they are.

These two paragraphs made me laugh:

But, most importantly, it's an issue of motivation. If someone is getting paid just nearly enough to keep them employed then they won't really care too much if they get fired. They'll slack on their work, and skip days. If someone is being paid more than their worth then they will feel wanted and motivated, increasing worker efficiency.


So, if you decrease wages by 5%, you won't necessarily see a lot of people quitting. But you'll see a decrease in worker productivity. I mean, the idea of offering health care benefits first came about to bring in good workers, wouldn't getting rid of them hurt companies? Just think logically...

Yeah, logic dictates motivation, every time. Blue Cross just changed their deductible to $250 per person (including dependents) per year. Therefore, I'm slacking at work!

This is high comedy.

However, on a more serious note, we probably agree that in studying economics, it's extremely important to look at motivations in the aggregrate, and to be absolutely uninfluenced by political correctness. Where I draw the line is in the difference between showing how large groups of people behave, economically, versus just saying so. These qualities make the work of Leavitt, for example, at UChicago very compelling (he's the guy that showed, for example, that a drop in crime in the nineties was related to the legalization of abortion. He took pains to say he wasn't justifying it. It created a firestorm nonetheless.)

[Jwaksman]

Fine, I guess every person who has ever written an economics textbook is an idiot. They all just need to "get out in the world." Maybe you guys, in your infinite wisdom of the "real world" can enlighten all of those uneducated advisors to the President and to congress :rolleyes:



Or..... you can understand the concept of an efficiency wage. Which says that as wages decrease and head towards the equilibrium wage that worker productivity will decrease.



And, for the record, no more of you people trying to put me down. You have no right. I could be putting all of you guys down with demeaning comments, but I don't. I have maturity and class. I wish I could say the same about some of you.

[mzungu]

15% annual health care cost increases are not coming solely from additional services. the way i see it, your strategy is to deny that the 'free market' is screwing up our health care system and when after a lot of effort we find the statistics that show that our government AND our private citizens pay more than other countries with better systems, and we find that health care costs in the U.S. have FAR exceeded inflation for over a decade now, you simply shift the argument to the even more difficult to prove claim. You said it. Now prove it.

[Jwaksman]

mzungu, drug prices are going up 3% annually. The other 12% in the annual increase is an increase in the number of things that people are buying. In fact, while the newest drugs and procedures are expensive, generic drugs are actually significantly cheaper in the US than in Europe.

[UpstateRunner]

Yes, it's important that things like food, clothing, shelter & health care (the four most important things for survival) are run by the government. Because companies only care about profits, and people will starve and be without clothing without government intervention....


Oh, wait, there's always plenty of this stuff in the US. And in communist nations, where the government "guarantees" these things, there are always shortages.


That's the point that economists like Adam Smith have been making for 250 years. The private markets will always deliver, while the government cannot guarantee those things. The fact that companies are greedy and want profits is precisely why they will deliver goods. The fact that government does not care about profits is precisely why they won't always deliver.

It seems counter-intuitive, but it's true. It's one of the remarkable things about humans and human nature.

Name one COMMUNIST country, ever? Give up? There has never been one. China, the USSR etc. were all dictatorships with a centrally planned economy. They may have claimed to be communism, but they were not. What I am refering to is a system similar to that of the nordic nations, such as sweden and finland. They have many socialist programs which have lead to a much better social system than their neighbors and especially the US.

[Jwaksman]

Name one COMMUNIST country, ever? Give up? There has never been one. China, the USSR etc. were all dictatorships with a centrally planned economy. They may have claimed to be communism, but they were not. What I am refering to is a system similar to that of the nordic nations, such as sweden and finland. They have many socialist programs which have lead to a much better social system than their neighbors and especially the US.



That's the only way to have Communist countries. You can't just say, "Okay, everyone give up all of your money" and expect everyone to do it. Communist countries have to have an oppressive government. That's what I've been trying to remind people. It's no coincidence that every communist country also had huge crackdowns on civil liberties. Similarly, socialist countries also all have huge crackdowns on civil liberties.


I mean, the Patriot Act is bad, but Europe is even worse. I remember a recent story where a Greek cartoonist drew a picture of Jesus in a funny pose (I forget what it was - but I'm pretty sure it wasn't violent or sexual. I think he was just in a modern pose). Anyway, he got 6 months in jail for it. Even the US religious right hasn't been able to get laws like that passed.



I've always noticed that the biggest fans of socialism and communism are the people who don't have to live under it. That's because you almost only hear the good side in the newspapers. There was a huge scandal during the Cold War where newspapers, most notably the New York Times, completely ignored the travesties of the USSR. Their reporters knew that they couldn't report what was really happening or else hurt Progressive causes in the US, so they simply did not report on what was going on.

[MoMo]

I mean, the Patriot Act is bad, but Europe is even worse. I remember a recent story where a Greek cartoonist drew a picture of Jesus in a funny pose (I forget what it was - but I'm pretty sure it wasn't violent or sexual. I think he was just in a modern pose). Anyway, he got 6 months in jail for it.

Assuming this is true (source, please?), you have to remember that the standards on what is seen as hate speech in Western Europe are different because they've seen how it can morph into things like Nazism. The Germans still bar Nazi hate speech. Can you imagine why?

...There was a huge scandal during the Cold War where newspapers, most notably the New York Times, completely ignored the travesties of the USSR.

Ridiculous. Which blog did you get this from? The Soviet dissidents, to take one example, were a favorite and constant subject of the Times and other papers.

[MoMo]

Did a very quick search for NY Times coverage of abuses in the Soviet Union. Here's a quick look at some of the many, many articles that I guess you would consider pro-Soviet...


A Soviet newspaper has published an article by a Moscow psychiatrist supporting Western charges that Soviet psychiatry was systematically used to suppress dissent in the 1970's. The psychiatrist, Mikhail I. Buyanov, asserted in an article in the teachers' newspaper Uchitelskaya Gazeta on Saturday that during the 1970's Soviet psychiatrists gave law enforcement officials ''the idea that anyone opposed to anything was, hiddenly or openly, a mental case.'' Mr. Buyanov goes well beyond anything published here in charging, as Western critics and Soviet dissidents have long maintained, that Soviet psychiatrists systematically abused their profession to suppress dissent.
--
In a reflection of the Kremlin's irritation with President Reagan's plans to dramatize human-rights issues during his visit to Moscow, a senior Soviet offical said today that a planned Presidential meeting with Soviet dissidents would be an unwelcome breach of superpower protocol. Soviet sensitivity on this issue was underscored by the action of security officials in Leningrad who reportedly warned two advocates of Jewish rights, both invited to meet Mr. Reagan in Moscow next week, that they should not attempt to travel to the capital. One dissident, Yevgeny Lein, told human-rights advocates in Helsinki, Finland, that he and Mr. Zelichonok had been warned to stay away. ''They were warned they would live to regret it if they went to the Reagan meeting.''
--
Soviet psychiatry is under extraordinary attack, not only from dissidents and from
longtime critics in the West, but from the Soviet press. While articles in the Soviet press have not openly discussed the confinement of political dissidents, several newspapers have reported cases of corruption, abuse and incompetence in the psychiatric
profession. The reports have included accounts of the locking up of healthy people by mistake or because they annoyed Government officials.
--
Ten human rights monitors were killed, two disappeared and hundreds more were abused in the last year, according to a report issued today by Human Rights Watch. The countries in which the most cases of abuse were reported were Chile, Czechoslovakia, South Africa and the Soviet Union.
--
A political dissident recently released from a Soviet psychiatric hospital said today that the habitual use of punitive psychiatric treatment in the Soviet Union remained unchanged despite recent criticisms of such practices in the Soviet press.
''There are no changes,'' said the dissident, Vladimir Titov. ''On the contrary, it's getting nastier.'' Mr. Titov was released Oct. 9 from the special psychiatric hospital in the Russian city of Oryel. Mr. Titov said his most vivid recollections were of two strong psychotropic drugs that caused fever, pain, slurred speech and left him unable to lie, sit or stand comfortably.
---
Dr. Anatoly Koryagin, the Russian dissident psychiatrist, today called for the creation of an international tribunal to investigate and to combat the use of psychiatric treatment as punishment for political dissidents in repressive countries.
---
(From an article in the NYT by a group of dissident Soviet émigrés): Are Mikhail S. Gorbachev's new policies the historical turning point we have been praying for, signaling the end of oppression and misery in the Soviet Union? Or are we witnessing only a short-lived ''thaw,'' a tactical retreat before the next offensive, as Lenin put it in 1921?
---
(From an interview with a freed Gulag prisoner): Prisoners live with biting hunger, intense isolation, occasional beatings, petty indignities. And sometimes death. Mr. Grigoryants watched two fellow political prisoners die last year at Chistopol.
---
The latest move stepped up debate among some of the Soviet system's severest critics, the dissidents, about how much faith to put in Mr. Gorbachev, and what role they should play in his campaign for change. Interviews with dissidents recently released from labor camps and prisons invariably stress the misery of those left behind, and always include the cautionary phrase, ''We shall see, we shall see.''
(continued)

[MoMo]

Anatoly T. Marchenko, one of the best known Soviet political dissidents, has died in prison, his wife learned here today. He was 48. Mr. Marchenko had spent more than 20 years of his life in prisons, labor camps and internal exile. He died in the prison at Chistopol, in the Tatar republic, while serving a 10-year term for ''anti-Soviet agitation and propaganda.''
---
While rejoicing crowds surrounded Anatoly B. Shcharansky on his arrival in Israel on Tuesday, Yuri F. Orlov was probably alone, according to his wife, stoking up his drafty wood stove in a remote, frozen settlement in Siberia. Mr. Orlov's wife, Irina, returned recently from a monthlong visit to Kobyai, the Yakutian village of 2,000 in northern Siberia where he is in forced residence after serving seven years in a labor camp. The temperature was 40 below zero while she was there, and even with constant stoking, the house was freezing by morning. The toilet was an outhouse, and water came from blocks of ice cut from a lake.
---
Hovering over preparations for the Soviet-American summit meeting, as over any high-level East-West contact these days, is the plight of thousands of people who have clashed with the Government or simply want to leave the Soviet Union. For the dissidents, divided spouses, relatives of political prisoners, religious sectarians, nationalists and others who have come into conflict with the authorities, the issue is hardly abstract.
---
Today, a decade after the signing of the Helsinki accords that touched off that flurry of dissident activity, 18 of the 20 people who joined the Moscow Helsinki watch group have been imprisoned or sent into internal exile or have gone abroad.
---
Apart from a few isolated voices, the dissident movement of the 1970's is dead, and Mr. Meiman says that after his years of activism and the imprisonment of many of his friends, the human rights situation in the Soviet Union is worse today.

[MoMo]

In the interest of accuracy, I've also looked up your assertion about the "Greek" cartoonist.

He wasn't Greek, he was Austrian. A lower Greek court did unfortunately impose a six-month sentence, on the grounds that his book "The Life of Jesus" was blasphemous, but an appeals court overturned that, which is what appeals courts are for. The man called the appeals court finding "very reasonable." His book, incidentally, has been published without incident in several countries you doubtless would consider socialist (because they're European): Austria, Germany, France, Hungary and the Czech Republic.

[Jwaksman]

I'm sorry for not putting links. Here (http://www.ananova.com/news/story/sm_1253726.html?menu=news.quirkies) is the story about the cartoonist. I quote:


"A cartoonist who portrayed Jesus as a pot-smoking hippy has been sentenced to six months in prison by a Greek court.

Austrian Gerhard Haderer's comic book The Life of Jesus shows the son of God crossing the Sea of Galilee naked on a surfboard.

It depicts the Last Supper as a drinking binge and the late Jimi Hendrix as a heavenly friend of Jesus.

The cartoonist, who did not attend the hearing, described the Greek court ruling as "absolutely scandalous".

Publisher Fritz Panzer said: "After all, Greece is a member of the European Union and, so you would think, not a religious state, in which an artist's freedom of expression is kicked to the ground."

Haderer's lawyers have appealed against the sentence which can only be imposed if Haderer travels to Greece.

The book cannot be sold in Greek shops until legal proceedings have been completed.

The case against Haderer was started after the Greek Orthodox Church submitted a complaint when the volume first appeared in Greece in February 2003.

At the time Athens public prosecutors ordered all copies of the book to be seized."



And as for the New York Times covering up for Stalinism, I refer to the case of Walter Duranty, who was the NY Times writer who reported on Stalin's 5-year plans. His coverup was so blatant that the Pulitzer Prize committee was considering taking back his Pulitzer Prize (I don't remember if they actually did it or not). Some links:

http://search.barnesandnoble.com/booksearch/isbninquiry.asp?endeca=1&userid=30L1IBADQA&ean=9780195057003
http://www.pbs.org/newshour/media/media_watch/jan-june03/duranty_06-11.html
http://www.weeklystandard.com/Content/Public/Articles/000/000/002/791vwuaz.asp?ZoomFont=YES

[MoMo]

You said, and I quote, "There was a huge scandal during the Cold War where newspapers, most notably the New York Times, completely ignored the travesties of the USSR. Their reporters knew..."

So, Duranty's reporting during the late 1920s and early 1930s came during the Cold War??? I don't think anyone had yet heard the term at that point. And Duranty, whose work the Times has since renounced, was just one guy, not "reporters."

[Jwaksman]

Oh, I'm sorry, the New York Times coverup started before the Cold War....



Anyway, Duranty was THE Soviet reporter. He was huge at his time. And his writings were extremely influential. One of the biggest causes of the pro-Soviet mood in the US during the 1930's was because of Duranty's positive reporting. Everyone assumed that what he was reporting was true.

Back then it wasn't like today, where there are dozens of reporters everywhere. Duranty was presenting the USSR to the world. And he covered it up.

[Jwaksman]

Not that this was the only time the NY Times covered up for evil rulers. They also tried to push the Holocaust under the carpet. Fearing the name "Jewish newspaper" they pushed Holocaust news to page 15. They never mentioned Jews during the Warsaw Uprising (it was a Polish revolt, in their papers, not a jewish one). There have been books published on this cover-up also...

[MoMo]

You started out alleging a NY Times "coverup" DURING the Cold War. When I disproved that, with abundant documentation, you changed your tune to make reference to Times coverage of 20 or 30 years earlier.

Just keep flappin' that jaw...

SOMETHING will eventually come out... ;)

[mzungu]

if drug prices are in fact going up by only 3% and you're factoring in the higher cost of new drugs, that doesn't mean that it is simply new services that explain the 15% annual increases in health care costs. drug prices, as i showed months ago, were only about 12% of total health care costs, so no matter how much they go up, they are not going to be a big factor in the overall health care costs. we're talking about many other services. and regarding generics, the fact is that drugs are patented for quite a while (i.e. no generics--so people have to buy the patented variety, which are cheaper in other countries) and marketing to doctors and patients has succeeded in getting people to use drugs still under patent even if there are equally effective generics.

[Jwaksman]

You started out alleging a NY Times "coverup" DURING the Cold War. When I disproved that, with abundant documentation, you changed your tune to make reference to Times coverage of 20 or 30 years earlier.

Just keep flappin' that jaw...

SOMETHING will eventually come out... ;)




:rolleyes: Whatever, I proved my point and you are just arguing over a silly detail rather than admit that you were wrong. The point was that the NY Times covered up the horrors of the soviet union. The soviet union was just as bad in 1930 as it was in 1950. Why don't take your own advice and admit that you're wrong when you are, in fact, wrong.

[MoMo]

A silly detail? The argument was not whether the Soviets were as repressive in the 1930s as they were in the 1980s. It was whether the NYT covered up abuses DURING THE COLD WAR, which I proved not to be the case.

Why don't you take MY advice, and stop trying to re-cast the argument?

:D

[Jwaksman]

No, my point was that the NY Times covered up the SOVIET UNION. Look, let's say that I said, "[so and so] was because of the oil crisis in the 1980's" - would my statement be wrong because I had put the wrong date by accident?


The fact is that I pointed out that the NY Times covered up the horrors of the Soviet Union, making Americans think that things were way better than they really were. You argued that this wasn't true. I pointed out that you were wrong. And you are picking on the date that I chose.


Whatever. I know that you're a lost cause, and I'm not trying to convince you. I know that other people coming here and reading this will recognize the coverup, and remember to always do the best research that they can in any situation. Never rely on a single source of news information, especially if it's the New York Times.

[MoMo]

If you had said that "World War I was settled once and for all when the Allies dropped a nuclear bomb," I'd think that, yes, the fact that you had your dates or sequence wrong by several decades was relevant.

You're condemning the NYT for all times because of the admittedly poor coverage by its Moscow correspondent in the '20s and '30s. If his coverage then was sufficient to predict that NYT coverage 80 years later would still be suspect, as you suggest, then I would now like -- I'm going on record -- as warning DyeStat posters that in 2085, jwack will still be getting his facts wrong and twisting other people's arguments.

[Jwaksman]

I never said that the NY Times cover-up of the Soviets and of the Nazis means that they have to be covering anything up today. What it means is that they could be covering things up. So could any other media source. NY Times isn't too much different from any other media source, they just had two of the most famous coverups of the 20th Century.


I'm saying that only reading one source for your news is not wise because you might not be getting all of the information. It's important to read several sources, on both sides of any issue, in order to get the complete picture of what is going on.



If you actually read what I wrote, and didn't just project absurd statements onto me, these conversations would go much more smoothly and quickly.

[mzungu]

The Times served as a propaganda voice for the Bush Administration's fallacious case for WMD in Iraq in 2002-2003. Through Judith Miller (I believe) and others, they simply reported unsubstantiated WMD claims straight from Ahmed Chalabi and the Bush administration. And that is a HUGE error, considering that it was the primary basis for American acceptance of a war that has killed over 1600 Americans and over 20,000 Iraqi civilians, while coinciding with a 3-fold increase in world terrorism.

[MoMo]

The picture is a little more complicated than that.

A number of Times reporters were reporting from the opposite side of the picture, properly raising questions about the administration's WMD assertions.

[Jwaksman]

mzungu, the New York Times was a "propaganda voice" for the Bush Administration??? If I told you that Fox News was a "propaganda voice" for the Clinton Administration, what would you tell me? That I was smokin' the dope. You can get my drift...

[jersey_guy]

Poor mzungu, now he will have to rely only on al Jazeera and Pravda for THE TRUTH.

[mzungu]

the two of you are so blinded by ideological prejudice that you can't sort out anything that either conflicts with your views or is not black and white. it is a fact that the Times reported on Bush Administration sources and Ahmed Chalabi falsely that Iraq had WMD for sure. And the Times apologized extensively for their failure to do anything to verify those reports. Moreover, Momo, the Times, as the public editor reported, gave FRONT PAGE coverage to all the WMD claims, but BURIED most of the WMD doubts from other reporters deeper in the paper. Even in the same articles where the front page gave WMD claims as true, there were sometimes doubts later on in the article, but usually at the end, and thus not on the front page. I read their stories skeptically because they conflicted with other reports, including but not limited to those of Hans Blix, and because they did not offer any clear evidence or cite their sources. When you miss on all of that, there's good reason for suspicion.

[Jwaksman]

I don't understand how someone could be so deranged as to charge that a newspaper whose record on political office endorsements is about 50,000 Democrats to 0 Republicans in the past couple of decades is somehow a propaganda machine for Republicans...




You know, someone gave me a good analogy about this. People who are Republicans wear red-tinted spectacles, and Democrats wear blue-tinted spectacles. So, since you wear blue-tinted spectacles, you only view leftwing-biased news as normal. Anything that is not leftist seems like rightist propaganda. Similarly, Jersey_Guy (or atleast his most recent incarnation) is wearing red spectacles. So, rightwing news (like Foxnews) seems normal to him, while everything else seems off through his red-tinted spectacles.


So, that's why you will never see leftist bias anywhere, cause it's not bias to you. It's just the TRUTH, as trackdaddy would put it. You fully expect everything to be pro-Democratic because, I mean, aren't Democrats right all the time? Anytime a newspaper doesn't present a completely leftist point of view it must have a conservative bias, according to you, because it's simply to the right of how you view the world.

[jersey_guy]

I don't wear red glasses. I wear a bull**** filter!!!

[mzungu]

okay, fine, the new york times DID NOT report with no evidence that there were WMD in iraq and they DID NOT subsequently apologize for that report.

[MoMo]

jwack, if you assume that newspapers' NEWS coverage follows exactly the same political lines as their editorial slant, you're simply wrong (even the Washington Times doesn't slant ALL their news coverage to match their far-right editorial stance).

Independent polls of election coverage show that while 2004 coverage was slightly more negative to Bush than to Kerry, that was the EXACT mirror opposite of 2000, when papers (yes, even the Times) were more skeptical of and tougher on Clinton. It happens every time. Incumbents, who have White House records and have burned some bridges, get tougher scrutiny; challengers, who bring excitement and something new, get a bit of a free pass.

[mzungu]

the chicago tribune has endorsed every republican presidential nominee in its history. why aren't you railing at them for their conservative bias?

[Jwaksman]

They do have a conservative bias. And since we all agree on that then it doesn't need to be discussed further. Once you admit the obvious, that the NY Times has a huge liberal slant, then we won't have to discuss that anymore either.


There are plenty of newspapers with right-wing slants. Most big cities have a secondary paper that has a right-wing slant to oppose the big establishment paper and it's left-wing bias. The Washington Post has the Washington Times. The Sun-Times has the Tribune. The NY Times has the NY Post. There's always demand for the bias of both sides...

[MoMo]

The problem comes when you say,
The New York Times has a liberal bias, therefore I don't believe
a word in that paper. The New York Times (like the Washington
Post, the Chicago Tribune, the Los Angeles Times, etc., etc.) has a great many extremely smart, skilled, competent, experienced reporters and editors who are simply professionals doing the best work they can.
Do you deny this, or do you suggest they're all partisan hacks?

[Jwaksman]

What are you talking about? You're the one who only believes economic articles if they're written by Krugman or Dowd. Since you obviously haven't read a single one of my posts in the last 6 months, I've been arguing over and over again that bias in the news media means that you have to get your news from more than 1 place. You have to go to different places with different types of bias, to get balanced opinions.


Go back and read my posts. You'll be amazed at how coherent they are.

[Biscuit_AQ]

taking the high road again are we?

[mzungu]

it is when you say that the new york times and washington post are BIASSED and then compare their editorial stance to rags like the new york post or washington times that the argument becomes ridiculous. all sources are not equal. some papers do original investigative reporting that PROVES various claims, whereas other papers simply report political stances in the exact words of republican operatives, and there I mean the Washington Times, the New York Post, and Fox News. The Chicago Tribune is not a great paper, but an okay paper with some decent investigative reporting occasionally. But the standards of proof in their endorsements for president are incredibly low in comparison to their general reporting where they are not serving a specific mandate.

[MoMo]

What are you talking about? You're the one who only believes economic articles if they're written by Krugman or Dowd. Since you obviously haven't read a single one of my posts in the last 6 months, I've been arguing over and over again that bias in the news media means that you have to get your news from more than 1 place. You have to go to different places with different types of bias, to get balanced opinions.


Go back and read my posts. You'll be amazed at how coherent they are.

Read MY posts. I don't think I've ONCE cited Krugman OR Dowd.

What's more,

I INVENTED coherence.

:cool: