The_Llama, I’m aware of what happened with Sen. Edward Kennedy. It’s just that Liberal’s mention of him was a far leftfield (rightfield?) potshot that had nothing to do with the topic at hand.
Anyway, Salon has an article about Mr. Fischer’s current problems that’s worth a look (if you don’t mind having to watch a short ad if you’re a non-subscriber).
Does anyone know when Fischer is supposed to arrive in the U.S.?
You, on the other hand, are the Good Judgment Fairy, the ruler of the world, the arbiter of all things fair and balanced, and the only one among us who is immortal, omnipotent, and omniscient. Now, swallow the pill or I’m calling in the guard.
The topic “at hand” — brought to us by Hamlet — was the statute of limitations, and the fact that the commission of the crime must be sufficiently distant in time from the charge of the crime for the statute to apply. I then noted that Teddy the Lady Killer is in the clear since he was never charged for his crime. Are you following so far? Because if you are, then that’s if. If you’re not, then stay clueless.
The mighty Icelandic Chess Association challenged Bush to pardon Fischer the other day; you heard it here first, folks!
Loosely translated by me - I can’t find an english version anywhere (I would have thought this was all over the US media…;)) and it’s my third language so…
Anyhow, I can’t see how anyone could stand up to the ICA.
Ordinarily, I would not give the ICA a second thought, but in this election year, the Viking vote in critical battleground states could make all the difference.
God bless the Icelandic Chess Association.
Yeah, those ICA guys are right. Those other chess players should also be charged. I assume that they are American citizens? If so, arrest them. If not, put some small pressure on their home nations to charge them.
These are serious charges and should be taken seriously. Throw the bok at 'em all. Art is never an excuse for criminal behavior.
That is a very interesting article. Thanks for the link.
Just so we’re all on the same page:
He’s not in legal trouble for being the Greatest. Chess. Grandmaster. Ever.
He’s not in legal trouble for behaving like an asshole
He’s not in legal trouble for spouting lunatic-fringe hatemongering conspiracy theories (but many want his taken into consideration in passing judgement on him)
He’s not in legal trouble for being mentally unstable
He’s in legal trouble for having violated a trade embargo and travelling abroad on an expired passport/visa (or something like that was the excuse for detaining him).
Say what we will about libertarianism, the real world we live in is a world where we are subject to the police power of the state. And if his 1992 Belgrade match were an act of “civil disobedience”, then the thing for him to do would be to come back to the USA and defy the authorities to arrest and jail him for it, to call attention to the injustice of it all. It’s not “civil disobedience” if you flee from the consequences.
In the real world, laws are written to protect government from its citizens rather than the other way around. In the real world, sufficient wealth or political clout can buy or strong-arm whatever results are most expedient for those who hold power. In the real world, law is understood only by the lawyers rather than by the populace. In the real world, there are literally millions of laws, some of which overlap, contradict, or have faded into obsolescence. In the real world, law is used as a tool of coercion. Fuck the real world and its law.
Lib, you’re starting to sound like someone looking to join Rage Against the Machine. Or a WTO protestor ninny.
Still, it’s good to see you acknowledge your complete disinterest in the real world.
And as someone who has dedicated his life to the study and practice of law: fuck you.
Law isn’t complex because of some grand conspiracy or because of lawyers seeking to hold on to secret wisdom. It’s complex because it addresses real-world problems, and real world problems are frequently complex in nature. One size rarely fits all, and the more the law is tailored to address specific problems, the more complex it becomes.
And yes, it’s an imperfect and sometimes contradictory system. Like all things crafted by the hands of men, it has flaws. Heck, I could give you a long list of things that I think need changing in the legal arena. But just because it isn’t perfect doesn’t mean it isn’t good.
Bobby Fischer can play chess like few others. He is also a pussy who could have sought help for his problems. He was afraid of losing, Liberal. He was very afraid. Winning defined him. He had nothing except that.
You know, Dewey, we’ve had our disagreements over the law in an ideal sense, how it should be practiced, what perspectives we should adopt, etc. That’s fine. And I have a huge amount of respect for lawyers. Absolutely huge. Just knowing someone is a lawyer elevates them in my eyes.
Ignorance of law is not an excuse, which is a fucking good thing because picking up the TCSA and trying to find out if a shipment you’re importing is part of it is just about fucking impossible for a layman of any kind to do with any sort of reasonable haste as would occur in a business setting. So DHL’s lawyers wish me to sign my name to assert that a package they have in their possession complies with the TCSA regulations. How the fuck am I supposed to do that, jog down to wherever the hell they imported it to and inspect a box I cannot inspect without signing my name away in the first place? No. They just want someone else they can hold responsible. Push off the blame.
Real world problems? We have a fucking army of full-time professionals to study and argue a law that we are all held accountable for. That’s a fucking problem all in itself.
This doesn’t diminish my respect for lawyers. It diminishes my respect for law. I can separate the two. I hope you can, too.
No one is arguing that the law is perfect, or that there aren’t things that could be reformed or made simpler. These are real problems that ought to be addressed. But that doesn’t mean “the law” writ large (as opposed to this particular law) is to blame. It means you’re dealing with a complicated area – here, toxic substances – and all of the compromises and carveouts that dealing with that area entails.
The answer to that problem is to reform those areas of the law that are problematic. It isn’t to say “fuck the law” and retreat into some farcical political-theory fantasyland.
On that matter I am wholly practical. I am an anarchist. 
And as someone whose life has been dedicated to being that law’s punching bag: fuck you back.
Would you be upset at the fact that cells grow if you had cancer?
The fact that the law is imperfect – some laws have unintended consequences, and some are just plain bad – does not mean it isn’t good overall.
I’ll tell you what: let’s line up those places that are devoted to the rule of law, and those places that aren’t, and see which are more desirable places to live in.
I’m not against the rule of law per se. I just think one law is sufficient. I thought you knew that.
Shall we traverse this road yet again?
Your one law is insufficient because it provides no meaningful guide to behavior; I can take almost any situation and make your one law justify an entire range of competing actions.
Law is complex because life is complex, and only becomes increasingly so. It isn’t a grand conspiracy. It’s social evolution.