Random News Stories

[theCalmpsychopath]

http://humour.200ok.com.au/xmas_santareplies.html


stupid children

[P3nT4gR4m]

 

[tyrannosaurus vex]

He seemed like a "ton of fun."

it's grounds for a pardon, ya know.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/17506701/

[Thurnez Isa]

"Why Russia Still Loves Stalin

When I was growing up in the Soviet Union of the 1970s, it was President Leonid Brezhnev that I loathed. The dreaded Joseph Stalin seemed merely a name from a distant past. Back in 1956, he had been outed as a monster by my great-grandfather, Nikita Khrushchev, in the famous "secret speech" at the 20th Congress of the Soviet Communist Party and deleted from history.

But Brezhnev, with his sinister eyebrows, was everywhere. He brooded over me and my classmates from school posters, promising the bright, shining future of communism. And he had made his ominous presence felt in my own family. My school on Kutuzovsky Prospect was a haven for the party elite, where Politburo members -- including the Brezhnevs -- sent their children. My friends boasted of grandfathers who were ambassador to England or head of the KGB. But my once-powerful great-grandfather officially didn't exist. In 1964, Khrushchev had been "retired" by Brezhnev, removed as Soviet leader for the mysterious, undefined crime of "voluntarism" and exiled to a country estate outside Moscow. Like Stalin, he had been written out of the past.

At home, I was told that I should be proud to be a Khrushchev. At home, history still existed. My parents told me about the secret speech, though it didn't mean much to me until I was in high school. While it hadn't gone far enough in demystifying the totalitarian system, the speech had launched the period known as the thaw, when millions of Soviet citizens were released from the gulag, and opened the door to a more frank exchange of ideas and to a limited flow of foreign visitors and goods. The freedoms that the former communist countries enjoy today have flowed from the cracks in the system that Khrushchev introduced with his speech of Feb. 25, 1956.

Yet nearly 50 years to the day from that speech, my great-grandfather has become a scapegoat for many of the perceived ills of post-communist, "democratic" Russian society. And Stalin, the man he exposed as a brutal dictator who terrorized and oppressed the nation, is enjoying a virtual rehabilitation, with opinion polls revealing his shocking popularity, especially among the young.

It's not surprising. After the anarchy that followed the collapse of the Soviet Union in 1991, a period when democracy came to represent confusion, crime, poverty, oligarchy, anger and disappointment, it turned out that Russians didn't like their new, "free" selves. Having for centuries had no sense of self-esteem outside the state, we found ourselves wanting our old rulers back, the rulers who provided a sense of order, inspired patriotic fervor and the belief that we were a great nation. We yearned for monumental -- if oppressive -- leaders, like Ivan the Terrible or Stalin. Yes, they killed and imprisoned, but how great were our victories and parades! So what if Stalin ruled by fear? That was simply a fear for one's life. However terrifying, it wasn't as existentially threatening as the fear of freedom, of individual choice, with no one but oneself to blame if democracy turned into disarray and capitalism into corruption.

This is why the country rallies behind President Vladimir Putin. Putin promotes himself as a new Russian "democrat." Indeed, Russians view him less like the godlike "father of all nations" that Stalin was, and more like a Russian everyman -- a sign of at least partial democratization. Putin often notes that Russia is developing "its own brand of democracy." Translation: His modern autocracy has discovered that it no longer needs mass purges like Stalin's to protect itself from the people. Dislike of freedom makes us his eager backers. How readily we have come to admire his firm hand: Rather than holding him responsible for the horrors of Chechnya, we agree with his "democratic" appointment of leaders for that ill-fated land. We cheer his "unmasking of Western spies," support his jailing of "dishonest" oligarchs and his promotion of a "dictatorship of order" rather than a government of transparent laws.

"Putinism," an all-inclusive hybrid that embraces elements of Stalinism, communism, KGB-ism and market-ism, is our new national ideology. A man for all seasons and all fears, Russia's president pretends that by selectively adopting and adapting some elements from his predecessors' rule -- the Russian Orthodox Church of the czars, the KGB of the Soviets, the market economy of the Boris Yeltsin era -- he is eliminating the extremes of the past, creating a viable system of power that will last. But his closed and secretive system of governing -- the "vertical power" so familiar from the pre-secret speech era, with information once again manipulated by the authorities -- suggests that his proposed "unity" is yet another effort to rewrite the past.

And so the secret speech is no longer seen as a courageous act of political conscience, in which Khrushchev, in order to secure justice for Stalinism's victims and liberate communist ideals from the gulag's grotesque inhumanity, called for reform of the despotic system he had helped to build. In the Russian media today, the speech is dismissed as something far more ignoble: Khrushchev's effort to avenge his oldest son, Leonid, whom Stalin had allegedly persecuted for betraying socialist ideals by serving the Nazis during World War II.

These rumors about Leonid have been surfacing since the Brezhnev era. Until recently, the public had by and large dismissed them as "planted" KGB propaganda. But today, as the country looks for an easy answer to its feelings of insecurity, the Khrushchevs -- father and son -- have become favorite scapegoats for Russia's problems.

Khrushchev's critics consider the collapse of the Soviet Union to be as much his fault as Mikhail Gorbachev's or Yeltsin's. The fall of the communist system didn't exactly seamlessly usher in democracy, despite people's expectations. Russians were in such a hurry to get rid of the negative burdens of the Soviet regime that they got rid of everything positive, too. In a sweeping negation (much like Khrushchev's denunciation of Stalin), they were told that the nearly century-long Soviet period had been completely useless. The 1990s refused to recognize the communist era -- which had indeed brought Russia oppression, but also industrialization, educational growth, near-universal literacy, victory in World War II, science and space developments. This tendency to dismiss the past, never to fully repent of its sins, is common in Russian history, and it allows for a film of nostalgia to take hold.

Deprived of national pride and their lifelong beliefs, Russians experienced the demise of the Soviet era as the end of empire and a sense of national identity. In a state of moral, material and physical despair, they yearned to feel better about themselves and their land. The image of Stalin, with his wise, mustachioed smile, filled the void. And because he refuted him, Khrushchev became the architect of Russia's ills.

In her book, "Stalin: The Second Murder," journalist Yelena Prudnikova writes of Khrushchev's posthumous denunciation of Stalin as if it were a murder: "If it weren't for [Khrushchev's] execution [of Stalin] we wouldn't have come to such a sorry state. Since then we have lived increasingly useless and dirtier lives," because this "murder of Stalin was also the murder of his people. The country, deprived of high ideals in just a few decades, has rotted to the ground."

My great-grandfather tried to begin the process of freeing Russia from Stalin's bloody past, but the nation has never fully dealt with the crimes of Stalinism. Instead, the complexities of life in a fragmented modern society that can boast of no momentous achievements -- no more superpower status, no new Sputniks -- have made Russians nostalgic for the "strong state" they once inhabited. It's a cycle that will keep on repeating itself until Russia finally and fully confronts its past."

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/02/11/AR2006021100845.html

[Cain]

Actually, the Russians really don't give a shit about Stalin's victims.  Honestly.  They're more interested in making sure they know where their next meal is coming from to worry about historical abstract moralizing.

On the other hand, the American owned newspapers love a chance to stick it to the Russians any chance they get.  This article gives a good reason as to why this might be
http://www.exile.ru/2004-September-04/book_review.html

And this, too http://www.exile.ru/2003-May-03/the_gki_archipelago.html

[Cramulus]

http://www.wilmingtonstar.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20070307/APN/703072914

It took the 22-year-old Cornwell about 150 hours and $400 in parts to modify a mini-fridge common to many college dorm rooms into the beer-tossing contraption, which can launch 10 cans of beer from its magazine before needing a reload.

With a click of the remote, fashioned from a car's keyless entry device, a small elevator inside the refrigerator lifts a beer can through a hole and loads it into the fridge's catapult arm. A second click fires the device, tossing the beer up to 20 feet - "far enough to get to the couch," he said.

[Suu]

http://www.wilmingtonstar.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20070307/APN/703072914

It took the 22-year-old Cornwell about 150 hours and $400 in parts to modify a mini-fridge common to many college dorm rooms into the beer-tossing contraption, which can launch 10 cans of beer from its magazine before needing a reload.

With a click of the remote, fashioned from a car's keyless entry device, a small elevator inside the refrigerator lifts a beer can through a hole and loads it into the fridge's catapult arm. A second click fires the device, tossing the beer up to 20 feet - "far enough to get to the couch," he said.

O_O! Fucking awesome!

[Cain]

http://www.exile.ru/2007-March-06/war_nerd.html

News from the War Nerd on the secret VP Office plans to break up the Middle East into little tiny bitty states, presumably so Iran can steam roller over all of them and become a regional hegemon, if not outright superpower.

[Thurnez Isa]

the one that interests me is the free nation for the Kurds
... I must say im more the skeptical

[Cain]

Thats the promise that is being made to back Kurdish armed groups opposing the Iranian government....not to mention the the NeoCons have shown nothing but contempt for Turkey.

[Thurnez Isa]

Im very skeptical that could be done peacefully though
though the more i think of it i guess it is possible at least in the short term

[Triple Zero]

http://ha.ckers.org/blog/20070310/my-lunch-with-samy/

Samy is the guy who wrote the famous "samy is my hero" mySpace worm, which was in fact the most virulent and successfull internet worm in the history of the internet. if you don't know the story of Samy, follow the first link in the article, which is an interesting and fun read of itself.

[Thurnez Isa]

http://ca.news.yahoo.com/s/afp/us_company_pg_amway

"P&G not in league with the Devil: court

WASHINGTON (AFP) - Procter and Gamble Co. does not worship Satan, according to a US court ruling that revolves around a decades-old urban myth targeting the world's biggest consumer goods company.ADVERTISEMENT

P&G said late Monday it had won 19.25 million dollars in a civil suit brought against four former distributors of direct-selling company Amway who were accused of spreading false rumors.

Last Friday's jury award in Salt Lake City represents the latest in a long line of court battles between P&G and Amway over the devil-worshipping claim, which has taken on new currency in the Internet era.

"This is about protecting our reputation," Jim Johnson, P&G's chief legal officer, said in a statement.

"We will take appropriate legal measures when competitors unfairly undermine the reputation of our brands or our company," he said.

The former distributors were accused of rehashing a rumor that dates from at least 1981, to the effect that P&G is in league with the Devil.

According to the false urban legend, the global company's logo contains a "666" symbol, its bosses have appeared on television talk shows to declare their love of Beelzebub, and part of its profits go to the Church of Satan.

Amway, part of the Alticor Inc. group of companies, direct retails products like consumer goods through independent sellers in more than 80 countries.

Amway has itself been forced to debunk accusations that its business model amounts to little more than a "get rich quick" pyramid-selling scheme."

[LMNO]

Amazing.


The Devil actually got away with it.


Score one for Satan.

[Jenne]

http://blog.washingtonpost.com/offbeat/2007/03/high_court_takes_bong_hits_4_j_2.html

High Court Takes "Bong Hits 4 Jesus" Case, Toke Three

"Free Speech or Half Baked Lawsuit?"

When a joke is taken seriously, that's irony, but when it's taken so seriously that the Supreme Court is called upon to determine how future jokes can be made, that's meta-irony. And yet, there it was, a Borat-like moment in the most hallowed of judicial halls: the Morse V. Frederick case. At question in the narrow interpretation: Was it wrong for an Alaska high school principal to tear down her student's banner during an off-campus field trip because it read "Bong Hits 4 Jesus?" And, despite the absurdity of hearing justices parse the minutia of that "sophomoric" prank, what was at stake in the wider scope could not have been more serious: the regulation of free speech within America's public schools.

Further heightening the irony, though, is that no clear solution presented itself. In reviewing the Court's transcript and the multitude of reader comments from yesterday, there were two arguments that struck me as fundamental to this case broadly. First, since the Court's decision may set a precedent for the extent to which students can dissent with their schools, will a decision favoring student Frederick create a situation in which teachers are unable to keep order for fear they will be sued? Second, will a decision favoring Principal Morse create a situation in which schools can punish any student who openly disagrees with their "mission," no matter how oppressive that "mission" is?

Since neither option is appealing, a more narrow focus on the specifics of this case is necessary to further define what constitutes disruption and free speech. And this is where the oral arguments become really ironic. It appears that because Frederick's banner was a joke, and not a political statement (protected under Tinker V. Des Moines), he might be on shakier ground. The justices seemed to hint that if in the school's mind he was encouraging drug use rather than advocating its legalization, tearing down the banner may have been justified. That is to say, had it read "Vote Yes For Bong Hits" or "Give Pot A Chance" or "Make Marijuana Mandatory," he may have been better protected. However, as one reader noted -- and this case seems to exemplify -- humor and satire that point out absurdity are often vehicles for political statements. Take away students' capacity to mock authority, and you undermine political expression. Protect it, and every class clown will test and push the limits further. Therefore, it would seem no matter which way the Court leans, the joke's on them, and us.


By Emil Steiner |  March 20, 2007; 11:42 AM ET