I definitely believe that Politkovskaya's murder was a government hit of some sort. Let us hope Kasparov survives until the election.

I remember when "60 Minutes," I believe it was, did an interview with Putin. Bush may liked him but he gave me a chill. What does it say about Bush that felt he had looked into his soul and liked him? I hope not birds of a feather.

Nazaryan describes how Politkovskaya vociferously condemned her countrymen's betrayal of the sacrifices which the Soviet dissidents made by yielding to individual desires for comfort and stability over democratic liberties. Alarming as this trend was to her (and me), Nazaryan's mention of Gary Kasparov gave me a small light of hope.

If you have seen the short documentary about Kasparov the chess master playing the computer Deep Blue about ten years ago, you will have become acquainted with the beginning of Kasparov's transformation from single-minded chess genius to political activist. To summarize briefly, with the advent of more complex computer "thinking," it was hotly debated whether a computer could ever "out-think" a human being. Ultimately, this resulted in a match between the computer Deep Blue and Kasparov, who, like many others, thought beating the computer would be a piece of cake. It turned out to be quite otherwise, and the film does an amazing job of showing how this episode turns Kasparov's world upside-down, shaking his confidence completely, and pretty much ruining his chess career.

To me, however, it seemed that the crisis had shaken him from the single-minded, and ultimately pointless, pursuit of retaining his title of chess champion of the world for the rest of his life. It freed up his great gifts to be used elsewhere. And it seems that he has a great passion for Russia and its political future.

It is my hope that more of the Russian people will follow Kasparov in this personal transformation to shift their focus from personal goals to their collective future. Throughout their history, they have undoubtedly shown that capacity.

Like the title of Nadezhda Mandelstam's book, we will "Hope Against Hope." Indeed, "nadezhda" means hope. If Politkovskaya had been able to finish her book, among all her angry words, I'm sure we would have found "nadezhda" somewhere.

Reading the article, I was struck by this paragraph:

"For while she found an audience in the West, where she was routinely showered with accolades and awards, Politkovskaya always wanted her words to resonate at home. 'We have emerged from socialism as thoroughly self-centered people,' she pronounces in 'A Russian Diary' with characteristic acerbity, noting that most of her countrymen would choose a luxury vacation over the freedom that Soviet dissidents had fought so hard to attain. Reading this uncompromising volume is not unlike listening to a parent scold a wayward child, and Politkovskaya's anger can be hard to swallow unless one already sympathizes with her position. At the same time, it is difficult not to share her disgust with the 'bacchanalia of indifference' that has allowed Putin to dismantle the nascent foundations of Russian democracy in favor of what he once ominously branded 'the dictatorship of law.'"

Do we not have our own "bacchanalia of indifference" in this country? Bush and his cronies are systematically dismantling the Constitution, with a Congress that just sits back and makes empty gestures of "outrage," doing little to nothing to stop it. The more right-leaning Supreme Court is making decisions that further consolidate power in the hands of the already-powerful, leaving the rest of us more powerless. And yet, the average American is more concerned with the fate of Paris Hilton than the fate of the soldiers in Iraq, or the fate of democracy. Ironically, to friends I have described political events of this Bush administration as the "Sovietization of America." Perhaps the late Ms. Politkovskaya would have agreed with me.

Because we have a free press, and many, many wonderful journalists exposing the truth. And there is nothing the president or anyone else in gov't can do to dismantle our free press...and this is wholly unlike what is happening in Russia, as characterized by Politkovskaya's assassination. I believe you have missed the point.

I'm with the previous post by all politics is local.

Our major media in the U.S. are controlled by corporate conglomerates that have a vested interest in the status quo - or the status quo ante I should say. While this is not the same - or as thorough - as Putin's leverage in Russia, it's a well-established fact that circles of influence and power, even in free(er) societies like the U.S., intersect. Is there a better example than Fox News?

The right-wing echo chamber that Glenn Greenwald so ably dissects in his blog does everything it can to prevent inconvenient facts (or inconvenient interpretation of those facts) from reaching the American public. It's aided and abetted by these media conglomerates. Thus, the war in Iraq.

Moreover, our government has spent most of the last six years doing whatever it can to take away our civil liberties. We've already lost habeas corpus. The trends are not favorable. I can be neither complacent about prospects for freedom in the U.S., nor overly dismissive (simply because it's Russia) of what happened to Politkovskaya.

The U.S. mainstream media has all the appearance of being open and impartial and varied, even though it isn't. There's debate, but terms of the debate are fixed by the political and corporate interests that be. And I'm not just talking about Fox News and the right-wing. Voices of dissent and opposition are routinely marginalized, unfairly discredited or simply ignored by the MSM.

Anyone who doubts it, should give Glenn Greenwald's blog a read.

New Statesman published an article earlier this month by Politkovskaya's colleague Roman Shleinov, chief investigative reporter at Novaya Gazeta. In "The Rules of the Game", Shleinov outlines the environment reporters are facing in Russia in depth. The problem is not simply one of official corruption and lawlessness, but the legacy of a weak civil society and an apathetic, disengaged populace that does not believe it has any ability to affect outcomes.

Here's the link: http://www.newstatesman.com/200706110025