The Finals
Angela Merkel (Germany) vs. Vladimir Putin (Russia)
And so it came to pass that the second annual FP March Madness Democrats vs. Dictators Tournament of Champions has ended with a final showdown between Germany's Iron Chancellor and Russia's pugilistic prime-minister and president-elect.
Along the way, many loyal readers and disgruntled bracketologists have asked us: just where exactly do these games take place? Well, it all began a few weeks ago at "The Reaping" when 32 world leaders were selected by lottery, paraded through the streets of The Hague on horse-drawn chariots dressed in all their finery, then forced to enter the arena to compete in a deadly competition of endurance, strength, and cunning, all managed from afar by the cruel and capricious gamemasters at Foreign Policy magazine.
There were some unexpected twists along the way, including the last-minute benching of Mahmoud Ahmadinejad by Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, Benjamin Netanyahu's upset of Barack Obama, and newcomer Kim Jong Un's impressive run to the final four. But in the end it came down to two global powerhouses.
Putin is making his second consecutive appearance in the finals, and after last year's incident, he was careful to leave outgoing President Dmitry Medvedev under lock-and-key back in Moscow. "I am from Leningrad," Putin remarked to reporters before the match began, drawing an obvious historical analogy. "We do not surrender."
As is her style, Merkel was a bit more subdued, telling a supporter that she was simply glad "not to have to deal with Nicolas for a few days."
After winning the coin flip, Merkel chose the event and venue for the first challenge: A penalty kick shootout at the Stadion der Freundschaft, home field of East Germany's most distinguished football club FC Energie Cottbus, of which she is an honorary member.
With Putin's small frame in goal, the chancellor acquitted herself well in front of the hometown crowd, sending three of her five kicks sailing over the Russian's head. However, the visitor had a trick up his sleeve. Relying on some old associates from his days as a KGB agent in East Germany, Putin had his balls outfitted with a special remote-controlled gyroscrope, causing them to veer sharply away from Merkel's outstretched hands at the last moment. He scored 5 out of 5, easily taking the challenge amid a chorus of boos.
For the second event, Putin played host on the snow-driven Kamchatka Peninsula in Russia's Far East. Once again taking advantage of Merkel's well-known cynophobia, the Russian leader challenged her to a dog-sled race. Putin left the jittery German in the dust and quickly built up such a lead that he was able to stop for a bit of hunting along the way. After bagging a Kamchatka brown bear, three ermines, a bighorn sheep, several rare Stellar's sea eagles and an orca (all with his trusty harpoon, of course), the overconfident Putin returned to the race only to find that Merkel, who had overcome her fear and fed her Siberian huskies a peculiar cocktail of Red Bull and Lowenbrau, had overtaken him. The second round went to Merkel.
The final tiebreaker took place at a neutral location: 49° 56' 49" W, 41° 43' 57" N. Yes, you guessed it sports fans: THE FINAL RESTING PLACE OF THE TITANIC!
With guest judge James Cameron supervising (and live tweeting) from the surface, the two leaders piloted small submersibles down to the wreckage of the bow section for a torpedo and robotic claw battle within the ship's interior. It was clear from the start that Merkel's high-tech unterseeboot was the superior craft, outmaneuvering Putin's leaky lodka through the decaying ocean liner's once-sumptuous banquet halls.
Merkel finally cornered Putin in the engine room and lined up a clear shot for a torpedo. Seconds passed as she pounded on the red button. Nothing. Frustrated, she looked closer at the small text on her craft's launching mechanism, which read: "Realizzato in Italia."
"Sabotage!" Merkel cried as Putin launched his torpedo, crippling her craft's steering system and forcing her emergency ascent to the surface. Not yet satisfied with his performance, Putin climbed out of his craft and swam up 13,000 feet, clutching Kate Winslet's necklace -- which he had just happened to come across while he was down there -- in his triumphant fist.
As his theme music blasted from the decks of the remarkably phallic aircraft carrier Admiral Kuznetsov, Putin was crowned 2012 World Leader March Madness champion by the editors of FP and vowed to retain the title for at least the next decade, regardless of the results of future contests. Putin wins.
* * *
Thanks everyone for reading and playing along. Congratulations also to Josiah Bragg, Juri Schnoeller, and Tim C., who tied for first place in our reader contest with the Putinesque score of 49. The top ten scorers will be receiving free one-year subscriptions to FP. See you next year!
Final bracket:
The Semifinals:
Game 29
Angela Merkel (Germany) vs. Dilma Rousseff (Brazil)
Who gets the edge: the up-and-coming superpower or the Teutonic titan? Rousseff might have had the advantage here, but after blowing $12.7 million on the World Cup, she just didn't have the resources to launch a competitive March Madness bid. Despite having beers tossed at her by irate Greek fans, Merkel kept her cool, executed her game plan with classic German efficiency and put an end to the tough Brazilian's impressive run through the tournament. MERKEL WINS.
Game 30
Kim Jong Un (North Korea) vs. Vladimir Putin (Russia)
The report from the Korean Central News Agency: In a most glorious display of leadership and skill embodying Juche ideal, Esteemed Young Comrade Kim Jong Un unleashed a torrent of righteous thunder on the Bald Coward. All present were quick to acknowledge that North Korean way of competition was superior in all respects. "The Young Master has taught me importance of Kim Il Sung ideology," said an obviously inspired Lebron James. "Esteemed Comrade Kim Jong Un is my inspiration and also my best friend." After dispatching the Bald Coward, the young master announced that having demonstrated his skill, he would gracefully bow out of competition rather than continue through this pointless charade organized by imperialist lackey propaganda journal Foreign Policy, thus demonstrating the central Juche tenets of humility and restraint.
Reality: Putin beat up on him like a 10-year-old green belt from Tomsk Oblast. PUTIN WINS.
--
Stay tuned for the grand final of March Madness 2012, midday on Wednesday, March 28. And check to see how your bracket's doing on the leaderboard. With each round of games worth double, there's a lot of movement -- and remember there are 10 free subscriptions to the "imperialist lackey propaganda journal" on the line.
Also, if you've been having fun with this and want us to do it again next year, go vote for our Dictators vs. Democrats bracket over at the Atlantic Wire's meta-bracket Battle of the Brackets, where we're up against that "capitalist stool-pigeon newsletter" Forbes.
WELCOME TO THE ELITE EIGHT! Check out the recaps below and see which readers still in the running on the leaderboard.
Game 25
Benjamin Netanyahu (Israel) vs. Angela Merkel (Germany)
As these two heavy-hitters prepared for battle on the big stage, everyone was the on their best behavior, trying not to bring up...you know... history. Netanyahu came in riding high off his upset victory against Barack Obama in the Sweet 16, but he may have been a bit too overconfident. Turns out that Merkel's still has a few tricks up her lederhosen. That German submarine recently purchased by the Israeli Navy turned out to be a Trojan horse -- and the Kaiser of KOs torpedoed the Israeli PM's impressive run through the tournament. Down goes Bibi! MERKEL WINS.
Game 26
Dilma Rousseff (Brazil) vs. Cristine Lagarde (IMF)
Rousseff came into this one looking for payback. A European-dominated IMF has been pushing Brazil around for decades. Not anymore. Like Kaká bending in a corner kick, Rousseff structurally adjusted the French economist's whole universe, forcing her to concede three seats on the IMF Governing Board before calling off her unrelenting attack. Desculpe Senhora Lagarde, but in these rounds it's not acabo a brincadeira any more. ROUSSEFF WINS.
Game 27
Ayatollah Ali Khamenei (Iran) vs. Kim Jong Un (North Korea)
Anti-doping authorities nearly called this match off after reports of "enrichment" by a mysterious Dr. Khan, but the contest was allowed to go forward when it was revealed that both competitors had been given the same advantage. And what a matchup it looked: the aging theocrat's experience vs. the youthful vigor of the esteemed comrade. The Supreme Leader vs. Supreme Commander. But one thing's for sure: North Korea's already existing nuclear program trumps Iran's potential one. As time ran out Kim's patented 360 dunk (the Centrifuge) added insult to injury, as the Ayatollah was heard cursing his scientists for telling him that breakout capacity would be enough and sulked back to Tehran. KIM WINS.
Game 28
Vladimir Putin (Russia) vs. Hu Jintao (China)
This was the one the world had been waiting for. The final match of the day pitted two superpowers against each other for undisputed dominance of the Eurasian landmass. Hu started out strong, launching a surprise attack against Russia's vulnerable east (a move that basically involved sitting at the far end of the court). But in the end, the lame-duck dictator's heart wasn't in it, distracted as he was by coup rumors and plans to hand over power to that upstart Xi Jinping. "Wait, so you're letting him take over, like for real? And you're not coming back after six years?" asked a clearly befuddled Putin. The party secretary could only shake his head ruefully as he was dispatched from the competition by a judo roundhouse kick. PUTIN WINS.
Game 21
Ayatollah Ali Khamenei (Iran) vs. Thein Sein (Myanmar)
The Supreme Leader has seen this whole "gradual reform from above" thing tried before, and he's not a fan. Following up on his surprise substitution for Ahmadinejad into Round 1, the Ayatollah Rock'n'Rolla steam-rolled through this one leaving the Burmese leader sulking back to Naypyidaw with his tail between his legs. KHAMENEI WINS.
Game 22
The Castro Brothers (Cuba) vs. Kim Jong Un (North Korea)
It's an old-school Commie showdown! Can the stolid old cadres hold their own against Lil' Kim's New Jack Swing? While Cuba's got a lot more going for it than North Korea these days -- an educated population, some infrastructure, trade relations with most of the world's countries, good weather, music that isn't creepy -- brute force tends to dominate in the dictator bracket. And while Raul may be in fighting shape, Fidel spends most of his time these days falling off of things. Meanwhile, Kim's not playing around. As his official news agency puts it, "Anyone hurting the dignity of the DPRK supreme leadership will find no breathing spell in this land or sky." Now that's a suffocating defense. KIM WINS.
Game 23
Vladimir Putin (Russia) vs. King Abdullah (Saudi Arabia)
Abdullah's been at this whole authoritarian petro-state game since Putin was in diapers. (Little known fact: infant Putin fashioned his own diapers from the skin of a narwhal.) Putin was reportedly enraged that Obama's defeat by Netanyahu on Tuesday now makes impossible a showdown with his arch-nemesis, and all the excess capacity in the world can't save Abdullah from a vicious beat-down at the hands of a 5'7 ball of fury. The House of Saud gets taken to the house. PUTIN WINS.
Game 24
Hu Jintao (China) vs. Omar al-Bashir (Sudan)
Please. If it wasn't for Chinese support, Bashir would have spent the last four years eating Dutch prison food. There was some commotion before the event started when George Clooney ran onto the court demanding to be arrested, but once things got underway, it was over chop-chop. HU WINS.
GAME 17
Barack Obama (United States) vs. Benjamin Netanyahu (Israel)
On paper, the leader of the free world might seem to have all the advantages. But no one knows how to throw a well-timed elbow like the Tel Aviv Tornado. Last month's AIPAC summit in Washington, at which Obama and his Republican rivals competed against each other in a who-loves-Israel-more-athon, ought to be evidence enough of who's the senior partner in this special relationship. Yes, Bibi probably would like some of Obama's bunker-buster bombs in case he decides to go ahead and attack Iran, but he's not about to ask permission if they decide to go ahead with it. Bibi's box-out offense has Barack backing down: if Israel bombs Iran, spiraling gas prices are an election year nightmare, and even the frosty relationship between these two could prove to be a liability for the U.S. president in November -- say, alienating key voters in a swing state like Florida. And it's only going to get worse ... now that he's had his clock cleaned in March Madness. It's the biggest upset of the contest to far. NETANYAHU WINS.
GAME 18
Julia Gillard (Australia) vs. Angela Merkel (Germany)
It's the world's most powerful woman against ... the world's 23rd. Gillard might be a rising star in the antipodean league, but she's no match against the Bundestag's top brawler. This match turned out uglier than this year's Australia Day. MERKEL WINS.
GAME 19
Moncef Marzouki (Tunisia) vs. Dilma Rousseff (Brazil)
This one's a close match and all about personal toughness -- both leaders have spent time behind bars in their country's formerly authoritarian regimes and could more than hold their own against a Putin or a Hu in the final. But frankly, Dilma's looking sharp these days, and Marzouki ... well, he looks a bit like an older Malcolm Gladwell, sans hair. And when it comes down to country, Tunisia may have ambitions to become North Africa's engine of economic growth, but Brazil is the country of the future that actually became the country of the future. Marzouki's short-lived Cinderella story ends here. ROUSSEFF WINS.
Game 20
David Cameron (Britain) vs. Christine Lagarde (IMF)
Cameron may have been tucked into bed by Obama last week, and he certainly needed his rest going up against the formidable Lagarde, once described by Vogue as a "planet with a powerful field of gravity, orbiting through the skies of global high finance." And with Britain backing away from the European project and the IMF wading to help save it, it's clear who's star is ascendant here. In the end, the Old Etonian proved unable to escape the gravitational pull and was burned up in the atmosphere of economic turbulence ... or something like that. LAGARDE WINS.
The Sweet 16 is now set. Final recaps from Round 1 games below. See how your bracket is shaping up each day on our live leaderboard.
Game 13
Vladimir Putin (Russia) vs. Viktor Yanukovych (Ukraine)
After last year's crushing defeat by Obama (thanks only to a last-minute intervention by Dmitry Medvedev), Putin rode his tricked-out trike into this year's competition looking for revenge. Yanukovych is a controversial newcomer to the dictator's side of the bracket, having been criticized for rolling back Ukraine's democracy since he was elected in 2010, but nonetheless came out swinging -- looking to make the most of his opportunity to compete. There was a bit of confusion prior to the game when officials informed Putin it wasn't necessary to remove his shirt, but once things got under way, the prime minister and president-elect employed his patented "cutting off gas supplies" maneuver and easily got the better of his opponent. Did anyone think Putin was really going to let Ukraine tell him what to do? Said Putin: "You may be Viktor, but I am victor." PUTIN WINS.
Game 14
King Abdullah (Saudi Arabia) vs. King Abdullah II (Jordan)
Two Abdullahs enter. One Abdullah leaves. Both monarchs have survived the Arab Spring largely unscathed; Jordan's king by introducing some modest reforms, Saudi Arabia's by, well, buying off his people with billions of dollars. And with increasing tensions in the Persian Gulf driving oil prices up, it's always a mistake to bet against the House of Saud. Abdullah II puts up a valiant fight -- and gets some points for being a pretty sensible Middle Eastern monarch in these crazy days -- but it's the aging patriarch who takes it. Jordan's team managers will meet next week to consider whether the globetrotting Queen Rania might have been a more formidable competitor. ABDULLAH WINS.
Game 15
Hu Jintao (China) vs. Islam Karimov (Uzbekistan)
A question mark hangs over Hu in this year's competition. While he is the undisputed leader of one of the world's preeminent military and economic powers, he's also something of a lame duck -- awaiting the arrival of heir apparent Xi Jinping later this year. And while Xi isn't in the stands watching his boss play this early round, there are rumors swirling that he plans to sit in. It's hard to say if that's going to help Hu -- who is already feeling a bit Manning-esque uncertain as to his political relevance, but this first-round matchup is still a cake walk. Despite Uzbekistan's natural gas reserves and improving security relations with the United States, Karimov is in no position to compete with Asia's top dog. HU WINS.
Game 16
Aleksandr Lukashenko (Belarus) vs. Omar al-Bashir (Sudan)
The final matchup of Round 1 features two severely weakened international pariahs. Bashir has seen unprecedented protests against his regime and suffered the humiliation of having his country split into two over the past year (don't you hate when that happens?) while Lukashenko spent the year cracking down on protesters and now faces tougher sanctions than ever. Bashir, meanwhile, recently passed the three-year anniversary of the ICC's warrant for his arrest and seems more entrenched than ever. (He's even paying a visit to his old foe South Sudan.) On the other hand, Lukashenko recently dismissed criticism of his regime by German Foreign Minister Guido Westerwelle by quipping defensively, that it's "better to be a dictator than gay." He doesn't sound all that confident. BASHIR WINS.
Game 9
Mario Monti (Italy) vs. Moncef Marzouki (Tunisia)
It's a cross-Mediterranean showdown between two newcomers to the tournament. The former central banker Monti is known for a cerebral and efficient -- if not exactly thrilling -- style of play. Marzouki, who was frequently arrested and spent years in exile as a human rights activist, plays with more passion but has little on-court experience. "Super Mario's" reformist zeal has been tempered a bit lately by battles with Italy's entrenched government and labor interests, whereas Marzouki -- despite tensions with Islamist parties within this government -- is still the leader of last year's "most likely to succeed" democratic revolution. And while Italy's managers ponder whether to bring back Monti's predecessor, a guy for whom flair was never really a problem, the Tunisian takes this one. MARZOUKI WINS.
Game 10
Manmohan Singh (India) vs. Dilma Rousseff (Brazil)
This battle of the BRICs isn't actually as close as it seems. The former Marxist guerrilla fighter is more than tough enough to handle a 79-year-old economist. Perhaps age isn't entirely to blame, but Singh, hampered by an anachronistic attachment to nonalignment in foreign policy, just doesn't seem to know which basket to shoot on. And the crowd's not entirely sold either: there's a widespread perception that he's just keeping the seat warm for the coach's son. Some are interpreting the Obama White House's decision not to designate Rousseff's trip to Washington next month as an official state visit as being a snub to the Brazilian leader, so she may be angling for a semifinal throwdown with Obama. ROUSSEFF WINS.
Game 11
David Cameron (Britain) vs. Cristina de Kirchner (Argentina)
It's a high-tension grudge match over the Falklands -- or the Malvinas, if you prefer. Cameron studied up on March madness during his trip to the United States last week. Kirchner, meanwhile, has been racking up celebrity endorsements including Sean Penn, Roger Waters, and Morrissey. But with the 30th anniversary of the Falklands War approaching in early April, it's not really clear that Argentina is in a position to retake the hydrocarbon and sheep-rich islands (passing non-binding resolutions isn't going to cut it). Plus, Prince William is on the case. The Iron Lady would be proud. CAMERON WINS.
Game 12
Christine Lagarde (IMF) vs. Ban Ki-moon (UN)
The final match of the day is the much-anticipated multilateral melee. The six-foot Frenchwoman certainly has the height advantage, and when it comes down to it, more geopolitical clout too. While the IMF is at the center of the crisis response in Europe, last year's bold authorization of the Libya intervention has proven to be a momentary anomaly. While Ban seems to want to take action to prevent the ongoing humanitarian crisis in Syria, his hands are tied by Russia and China, making the U.N. more irrelevant than ever in addressing global security crises. Lagarde warned last week that the global economic recovery would be "a marathon, not a sprint." The same might be said of her progress through this competition, but either way, she's off to a great start. LAGARDE WINS.
Game 5
The SCAF (Egypt) vs. Mahmoud Ahmadinejad (Iran)
Going into the game, Egypt's tough-as-nails transitional military junta appeared to have the advantage in this one. A year after the overthrow of Hosni Mubarak, the military's grip on power seems pretty secure -- although the upcoming election could change that. The military even cracked down on foreign-funded NGOs without seriously damaging its international relationships. Ahmadinejad, meanwhile, limped into this first round, dinged by enemies at home and abroad. Beset by sanctions and international pressure, he recently became the first president in Iranian history to be hauled before parliament to face accusations that he has mismanaged the country's economy and defied the Supreme Leader. So, as they took the floor...
[Announcer]: The SCAF has taken the court. And here comes Ahmadinejad in his trademark baggy shorts, button-down shirt, and zippered Members Only jacket.
[Announcer 2]: Hey, wait, what's happening?
[Announcer]: He's being called back to the bench!
[Announcer 2]: Who's that talking to him?
[Announcer]: It looks like Iran's Guardian Council! Is there going to be a last minute substitution here?
[Announcer 2]: Is that who I think it is?
[Announcer]: Yes, it's Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei! He's lacing up his old-school Jordans and telling Mahmoud to take a seat!
[Announcer 2]: Looks like it's clear who's running the show, folks. And there's fire in that wily old veteran's eyes...
With Ahmadinejad riding the pine, Khamenei squeaks by the upstart Egyptians in a nail biter. KHAMENEI WINS. (Scoring note: If you picked Ahmadinejad, you still get points for the Ayatollah advancing.)
Game 6
Mohammed VI (Morocco) vs. Thein Sein (Myanmar)
It's a battle of the reformist autocrats. With longtime regimes imploding all around him last year, Morocco's Western-friendly king undertook a program of modest reforms, including a constitutional referendum and parliamentary elections. They may just have been wallpaper, but did enough to quell the worst of the Arab Spring-style protests. Myanmar's turnaround, though, seems the real deal. A country once frequently mentioned in the same breath as North Korea is now allowing its most famous dissident to run for office and playing host to the likes of Hillary Clinton. It's certainly too early to describe Myanmar as a democracy yet, but Thein Sein gets points for degree of difficulty and SLORCs his way through to the next round. THEIN SEIN WINS.
Game 7
The Castro Brothers (Cuba) vs. Robert Mugabe (Zimbabwe)
It's recreation hour at the dictator senior center. Mugabe (age 88) has been severely hampered for the last three years by an internationally imposed coalition government. He's hoping to jettison his pesky opposition partners by holding elections this year, but it's possible the government may not have enough money to hold the vote. Perhaps he was able to raise a bit of money from the Trump's recent hunting excursion in Zimbabwe, but it doesn't look good. The Castros (combined age 167) aren't as formidable as they once were, but other than death, it's hard to imagine anything that could remove them from power at the moment. Plus, an upcoming papal visit may bring good luck. The double-team Castro Bros. defense manages to hold off the diminutive African dictator. CASTROS WIN.
Game 8
Kim Jong Un (North Korea) vs. Hugo Chavez (Venezuela)
The final matchup of the day features unknown newcomer Kim Jong Un looking to make a name for himself on the big stage against veteran contender Chavez. But can the younger Kim go deeper in the tournament this year than his father, who was summarily dumped by Putin in round two of last year's March Madness? El Presidente can still trash talk with the best of them -- "mendacious gay Nazi Zionist" is nothing compared to the torrent of verbal abuse he unleashed on the pudgy 28 (or maybe 29) year-old rookie. But hampered by illness and an emboldened Venezuelan opposition, Chavez was looking a bit tired as he made his way to the locker room at halftime. And as the "brilliant comrade" took to the floor for second-half action, Chavez was nowhere to be seen. As we later learned from a pre-recorded message, he jetted off to Cuba at the last minute for some unspecified medical treatment ... giving Kim the win by forfeit. KIM WINS.
Game 1
Barack Obama (United States) vs. Nicolas Sarkozy (France)
Despite dysfunction in the Republican field of challengers, Obama's got a tough road ahead of him. Between rising gas prices and increasing chaos in Afghanistan, the president faces a tough reelection battle. On the bright side, employment numbers are starting to pick up and so are the president's approval ratings. (Not to mention the demolition derby on the GOP side.) Sarkozy, meanwhile, is slightly trailing in the polls heading into next month's election and spending his days scrapping with the far right about halal beef labeling and fending off allegations that his campaign was funded by the Qaddafis. The two incumbents may both be facing some tough moments, but how do they stack up on the court? Even with Sarkozy's lifts, the petit prince can't stop Obama's hook shot.The defending champ cruises through this one. OBAMA WINS.
Game 2
Benjamin Netanyahu (Israel) vs. Recep Tayyip Erdogan (Turkey)
Neither of these guys has been getting great press lately. Erdogan has faced increasing scrutiny abroad for his crackdowns on the free press and civil society. Netanyahu has received criticism at home for what some see as cavalier use of Holocaust imagery when discussing the threat from Iran. But in terms of diplomatic power, it's not even close. Erdogan's efforts to play mediator in the Middle East have mostly come to naught of late, while the speeches at last week's AIPAC conference demonstrated that Israeli security -- in particular, Netanyahu's hawkish vision of it -- still dominates in Washington. Let's put it this way: Erdogan might be a silky point guard, but Bibi's version of the power forward is all elbows -- and he's already looking down the road to a matchup with his old pal, Barack. NETANYAHU WINS.
Game 3
Julia Gillard (Australia) vs. Felipe Calderon (Mexico)
An intriguing match-up of two dark horse contenders. It's not even really close though. With a general election coming in July, Calderon is something of a lame duck and his PAN party is struggling in the polls. As the game begins, Calderon comes out guns ablaze -- but we all know how well that strategy has worked in his unpopular and highly deadly multi-year campaign against Mexico's drug cartels. Gillard, meanwhile, stays cool as a kookaburra having recently demolished former Prime Minister Kevin Rudd's attempt to return to power. Aussie, Aussie Aussie, Oi, Oi Oi! GILLARD WINS.
Game 4
Lucas Papademos (Greece) vs. Angela Merkel (Germany)
Oof. Given that a German-dominated EU essentially installed Papademos in his current office, this one wasn't much of a contest. FP's game scouts report that Papademos appeared to just let Merkel score at will, though German commentators attributed his lack of defense to Greek laziness. Merkel, meanwhile, dug in her heels, literally, drawing blood from the Greek PM with nearly every shot. It won't help Merkel's reputation in Greece, where anti-German sentiment is at an all-time high, but it was a blowout. There might have been a sidebet going on -- or Merkel didn't cover the spread -- because at the end she was seen to be grudgingly slipping some cash to Papedemos as he was helped off the floor. MERKEL WINS.
The brackets are now set. The competitors are laced up and ready to go. It's time to play World Leader March Madness, 2012.
Defending champion Barack Obama is back to defend his title this year, hoping that a second straight victory could power him through November. President-elect Vladimir Putin, fresh off a controversial election victory, is looking for revenge. North Korea's new supreme leader -- and reported basketball enthusiast -- Kim Jong Un, is looking to avenge his father's defeat in last year's competition. The Arab Spring revolutions have brought us both Tunisian Interim President Moncef Marzouki on the democrats' side and Egypt's military junta -- the SCAF -- facing off against regional powerhouse Mahmoud Ahmadinejad in the first autocrat matchup. And Bibi's back in the picture.
Notable first-round rivalries include Falklands/Malvinas pugilists David Cameron and Cristina Fernández de Kirchner, a demolition debt derby between Lucas Papademos and Angela Merkel, a battle of the reformist autocrats between Morocco's King Mohammed VI and Myanmar's Thein Sein, and an Middle Eastern Abdullah-Abdullah showdown.
Here’s how to play: Fill out your bracket by clicking on the name of the leader you think will win each round. Enter your name, email -- and Twitter handle, if you’ve got one -- and click submit. Then share your brackets via Facebook and Twitter to spread the world. The deadline for bracket submissions is 12 p.m. U.S. Eastern time, Thursday, March 15. Then, once games begin, follow the leaderboard to see how you stack up. The readers with the top 10 scores will receive a free one-year subscription to Foreign Policy. Let the madness begin!




(39)
HIDE COMMENTS LOGIN OR REGISTER REPORT ABUSE
JACKOBAILEY
6:02 PM ET
March 12, 2012
Tunisia and Venezuela
Can I ask why Venezuela is included in the Dictator column and countries like Bahrain are completely missing?
Furthermore, why is Tunisia (which according to Polity was up until 2010 less democratic than Venezuela http://www.systemicpeace.org/polity/tun2.htm http://www.systemicpeace.org/polity/ven2.htm) included in the democracy column?
Whilst, as the Polity IV data shows, Venezuela doesn't have the greatest level of democracy, it is still on the democratic side rather than the authoritarian side and would probably be better understood as an anocracy.
I understand that with the context of the Arab Spring it'd be nice (and convenient) to include Tunisia in the democracy column, but given that a transfer of power hasn't occurred yet, we can't make any meaningful judgement as to the strength of its democracy at the moment.
Unfortunately though, I imagine that this is probably due to an editorial guideline or assimilated views from the popular media in the United States. A shame.
BEACHBABY
5:37 PM ET
March 15, 2012
Are you related to Sean Penn ?
You have obviously never been to Venezuela. Visit and then get back with us, I promise you will change your mind.
ERIC EKVALL
10:07 AM ET
March 16, 2012
Venezuela on the democratic side?
Mr O'Bailey,
Before launching off in defense of Venezuela's so-called democracy I would urge you to to take a brief break from, to borrow your terms, the editorial guidelines and assimilated views that spring from some die-hard remnants of the so-called progressive media, and do your homework.
You will discover, if you have an open mind, that Hugo Chávez has been working to build an authoritarian state ever since he dismantled the constitution in 1999, began collapsing all branches of government into the executive, thoroughly undercut the independence of the national electoral commission, turning it in the process into a virtual ministry whose function is to keep him in power indefinitely, tortured and jailed political prisoners, created a national database of political dissenters and denied them their civil rights, and began expropriating private property (to date, millions of acres of productive farm and ranchland, and hundreds ofindustrial and business concerns) in, of course, "the name of the people."
For those of us who live in Venezuela, it is painful in the extreme to read so much of Hugo Chavez's propaganda masquerading as informed comment in the international media. His is a cleverly-disguised dicatorship which has one of the most well-oiled, relentlessly manipulative "public information" programs in the world, designed to convince people like you that while he might be a bit heavy-handed in his tactics, he's still at heart a democrat.
Don't fall for the con.
JEAN KAPENDA
3:52 PM ET
March 16, 2012
How About Our Own African "Konies" (Oops Dictators?)
What don't we start a campaign calling all these madmen "Kony" or "Konies" instead of the outdated terms of dictators or tyrants? Instead of saying "African dictator", "African Kony" would sound much better! I'd prefer "Iranian Kony" to "Iranian dictator". How about that? And when they align their own "Kim Jong Uns" for succession, why don't we start using the term "Baby Kony"?
The power may reside in the words to change this world, and make it a better place for all! Please don't forget our own African dictators (oops, Konies)!
JEAN KAPENDA
3:54 PM ET
March 16, 2012
How About Our Own African "Konies" (Oops Dictators?) Edited
Why don't we start a campaign calling all these madmen "Kony" or "Konies" instead of the outdated terms of dictators or tyrants? Instead of saying "African dictator", "African Kony" would sound much better! I'd prefer "Iranian Kony" to "Iranian dictator". How about that? And when they align their own "Kim Jong Uns" for succession, why don't we start using the term "Baby Kony"?
The power may reside in the words to change this world, and make it a better place for all! Please don't forget our own African dictators (oops, Konies)!
ALFTHESACREDBURRO
4:22 PM ET
March 21, 2012
Jean Kapenda, you're not serious, are you?
Please tell me you're not serious? You don't work for Invisible Children, do you? You haven't recently gone publicly insane, have you?
THUSALWAYSTOGENIUS
6:24 PM ET
March 12, 2012
Thus Always To Tyrants
“Thus Always to Tyrants” is said to have been shouted by Marcus Brutus during the assassination of Julius Caesar in 44 BC. It was also shouted by John Booth during his assassination of Abraham Lincoln in 1865. Also, it is the state of Virginia’s motto, which is associated with the American Revolution (assassination of British rule).
It is basically seen as an epithet against abuse of power. It can be literally translated into “it always happens to tyrants”.
Thusalwaystogenius
XANTIUM
7:59 PM ET
March 12, 2012
Let's hope the judges don't get bribed
Turn your cameron folks, putin your votes, ban the game-bashir's and find out hu's gonna win
FONELLY
8:21 AM ET
March 19, 2012
agreed
Interesting game senerio really. I'll share at twitter and facebook pages this.
ALFTHESACREDBURRO
4:24 PM ET
March 21, 2012
Haha, well said Xantium.
Well said indeed.
After "cameron" and "putin", I thought you were simply a reserved user of the space-bar, but bashir came around, and laughter washed over me in an awesome wave.
AR
2:26 AM ET
March 13, 2012
Putin and Yanukovych are not
Putin and Yanukovych are not dictators. They were elected fair and square. Typical western garbage propaganda. Whine and smear when those who would pander to western interests are not elected.
SEOSEMLT
3:38 PM ET
March 16, 2012
Ha Ha
Putin was elected fairly? No propaganda at all just true... Advokatas
ONABUS
12:31 PM ET
March 19, 2012
America on a slippery slope
The quote below is from a Chinese newspaper. I couldn't resist posting it. A bit in bad taste, but the imagery is arresting.
But reality isn’t like this; when the Americans wake up to find, to their surprise, that this is a shattered dream, they will precipitate the most dangerous moment in the Middle East. They will be like the peacock that tried to display its tail feathers, but exposed instead its own dirty buttocks.
http://watchingamerica.com/News/148551/punishing-iran-the-us-will-end-in-failure/
Champions of democracy, how far will you go to stop 'Occupy Wall Street?' and other protests that are surely going to erupt in America soon?
A land where corporations have human rights and lobbyists have made a mockery of your Constitution.
TIMWX
5:09 AM ET
March 25, 2012
Not true...
You'll find that when you do the research you'll discover that most elections are rigged in one way or another, even so called democratic elections.
- Zygor
JOHNBOY4546
3:06 AM ET
March 13, 2012
Putin just won an election.....
... so I can't see how he gets put in with the dictators.
And neither Ban nor Lagarde should be put in a list that contains the heads of governments, since neither heads a government.
And Netanyahu is an odd choice, since he heads a government that insists on controlling several million Palestinians by pointing a gun at them.
SMCGIFFEN
7:43 AM ET
March 13, 2012
Who's elected and who isn't?
The idea that Chavez is a dictator is laughable propaganda and everyone outside the US and the disgruntled 'natural rulers' of Venezuela recognises that. It's true that Putin won an election but he used some dirty tricks, kind of like JFK in 1960 and Bush in 2004 (but not 2000, when he didn't win at all.) But, more to the point, who on earth elected Papademos and Monti?
JOHNBOY4546
3:59 PM ET
March 13, 2012
"Putin won an election but he used some dirty tricks"
Yeah, I keep hearing that.
Sure, I do, but nobody ever explains what those "dirty tricks" are.
Other than, of course, this one: the bastard won.
XERION
3:39 AM ET
March 27, 2012
Who're you to approve about Putin???
I'm russian. I'm simple fin.manager. I'm free man, I can say and do everyting except shooting in shools:)) And I've elected Putin. All my friends who I know have elected Putin. 60% of russian people have elected him. It's true our democracy!
Putin's patriot. He likes our country, our people and protects our foreign interests. Corruption - is internal russian's people promlem. And we will decide it self.
What your business how We live? Was you in Russia to make theese exclusions? Who will be the best president of Russia on your mind - McCain, Zuckerman?? Ha-ha... You hate not Putin, you hate Russia. Napoleon and Hitler were hate Russia too. Are U from this gang?
and...
Who's bastard now? Who?!! who?!! who?!! (It's like stupid english song: who let the dogs out:))))
EEBAUMANN
9:56 AM ET
March 13, 2012
Yanukovych is included ahead of...
Aliyev, Nazarbyaev, or Berdimuhamedow? What standard for defining dictatorship are you using for this FP? Were you just trying to fill a post-Soviet quota with leaders who you thought might garner better name recognition?
REALREALIST
11:43 AM ET
March 13, 2012
how stupid can this be....
eom
BILL K.
9:40 AM ET
March 29, 2012
I can't be more agry
it is.
TEXASAGGIE
4:57 PM ET
March 14, 2012
Realrealist, Really?
lol I thought it was kind of fun.
I don't know how its judged, but the IMF is a scary organization. I put Lagarde to win it all.
AYERSGREGORY
9:33 PM ET
March 15, 2012
my best friend's mother makes
my best friend's mother makes $72 an hour on the laptop. She has been without a job for 6 months but last month her income was $7745 just working on the laptop for a few hours. Go to this web site and read more......... m a k e c a s h 4 . c o m
NAMEMINUSNAME
9:35 PM ET
March 15, 2012
hey angry people
this is a joke. it's funny. I laughed. no need to go on saying "Oh these westerners don't know a drue democrat when they see one". in popular culture and the minds of a lot of people, these dictators are people who cling to power, even when it's illegal. I agree that Bush never won his first election, the news just messed up the time zones. but the fact is, there are some really stupid people in this country, whole regions of them, and whatever happened, happened without a ballot fixing. And JFK did a pretty good job for a "cheater". one more thing. "EEBAUMANN", yes, yes they are trying to get names people know, because most of the people doing this don't know who the mayor of their town is, much less a dictator form a small country in europe
JEMRIFFSTER
12:54 PM ET
March 16, 2012
Khamenei?
What the hell? Why wouldn't they have picked Khamenei to represent Iran before today? It's not like the power struggle between him and Ahmadinejad wasn't decided a while ago. I specifically picked SCAF to win over Ahmadinejad because he's been more or less sidelined. If I had known the round would have been between SCAF and Khamenei, I would have picked Khamenei. Pulling a surprise substitution like this is ridiculous and unfair.
EVERYTHINGBAGEL
7:32 PM ET
March 16, 2012
Could use work for 2013
I think the Khomeini substitution is hilarious and appropriate, but none of these picks are consistent. Khomeini gets through because of consolidated (authoritarian) political power, but Sein goes on because of democratic reforms? The 2011 explanations were equally random. I love the concept, writing, and humor, but nothing, this year or last, holds any rhyme or reason.
Many, many Democrats vs. Dictators fans coming into it are DG wonks. Maybe for 2013 you can keep the humor but get input from some big-in-the-field practitioners to avoid disappointing and alienating people from what truly is an excellent idea and a huge traffic-generating concept. I'm sure they'd be happy to oblige.
BOATSWAIN
9:34 PM ET
March 16, 2012
Country progress
I to me it seems they are picked Sein over Mohammed because he's done more to progress his country. He's playing a delicate balancing act between US and China on assistance while improving QOL throughout the country. While a true democracy might not flourish there, hopefully they are willing to accept aid next time they have catastrophic flooding in the lowlands.
EVERYTHINGBAGEL
10:35 AM ET
March 17, 2012
Whoosh.
Whoosh.
TOM_MCNEAL
3:43 AM ET
March 17, 2012
RUBBISH!!!
Sorry, replacing Amadinajad with Khameni at the last minute is like replacing Lehigh with Duke at the last minute. TOTALLY UNFAIR!! The Scaf dominates the Iranian president, but has no chance against Khameni!! I DEMAND A new bracket!
Sorry, what's that about Duke?
TRADEJACK
1:14 PM ET
March 17, 2012
Seriously?
this is a joke! FP - There is no way the SCAF could ever take on the religious leadership in Iran...we all agree on that. But Ahmanidejad had been damaged in the recent week - so be fair!!! What the hell was this substitution about??? Even if you meant it as a trick i.e. "the religious leadership pulls the strings", we all know this, but this has to be more elaborate...this matchup was fixed, and I want to get my subscription to FP!!!
JAN Z. VOLENS
8:01 PM ET
March 19, 2012
The real game: U.S. & NATO "partners" against everybody!
No, make that: New Yaaark&London against the entire world! In the end-stage - the game calls for "total spectrum domination" by New Yaaark & London over everything on the planet. I won - send me the prize !
DANADAMS
2:08 PM ET
March 21, 2012
This is actually not a bad
This is actually not a bad fun idea but it does seem to have a few flaws.
1. Its democrats against democrats and dictators against dictators so the title and premise is wrong.
2. Some of these dictators were democraticallt elected even if the fraud was upfront ratyer than buried in money like the democrats!
FLANCREST
10:43 AM ET
March 22, 2012
Merkel v. Bibi
This is going to be ugly. German vs. Israel. Merkel will have to be very careful with her pre and post-game comments. She'll definitely need to avoid talking about how she's developed a "solution" to Bibi's offensive sets. And certainly no mentions of "hit the showers" after the game.
ARTURBARRERA
10:19 AM ET
March 23, 2012
Some voters crazy
These polls are unrealistic
What? Where is Obama and Cameron?
jajajaja The Guerrila Rousseff?
This is crazy fool
AEMI
11:34 AM ET
March 28, 2012
I hope this doesn't come down
I hope this doesn't come down to Merkel vs Putin & Koni.
(Koni = Putin's dog)
GALUPH
11:50 AM ET
March 28, 2012
On how I realized that FP is "imperialist propaganda"
(A comment not merely on this article)
I am an average Internet surfer. I did not approach this site with any prejudice. I found this site by following links and resort here because many stories published on this site are on the topics that I am interested in. I have visited FP on and off for about two years now, and think I have seen enough to discern a few patterns, which, to be specific, are that the stories here can always be pigeonholed into 4 categories.
The first category, the stories that concern America: America is ever righteous.
America might have made mistakes, but that is only because they were perpetrated by certain individuals the writers of the stories happen to disagree with. The system is never wrong. And the writers always employ respectful language even when it comes to the party that would bear the most vitriol.
Then, there are those that concern the "Allies": the "puny" Europe for example. Here, the tone degrades a little. The writers would often critize the system or the culture or the national character of their "Allies" in slightly condescending language, just enough to make the point that they are inferior to the superior America. But it is still all under "friendly" terms; just a little jab from their "big brother". America is sure that the intentions of the "Allies" are good, only that their competence is questionable.
Then, there are those that concern the "Arch-Enemies": China and Russia (and Iran for the moment). Here, the tone changes completely. China and Russia (and Iran) are simply EVIL. Nothing good can come of them. Their systems are worthless. Their leaders are simply BAD guys, without the least ounce of humanity. The language used here is without fail denunciatory, with a fair amount of jeering and contempt mixed in.
Then, at the bottom of the heap is North Korea. What a sorry existence. In fact, the writers feel so sorry for it that they only make fun of it, in a benevolent attempt to make the atmosphere lighter. The language is completely without respect, and their leaders are mere wackos that somehow managed to pull off a stand-off against the almighty America. But since this is a fact that the Americans find both inexplicable and humiliating (how can such a small and poor country defy the will of the mighty Americans?), North Korea's leaders are painted as mystery wackos with magical powers when it suits the purpose to explain away America's failures, and also as physically feeble gooks that cannot stand one punch from the mighty White man when the occasion calls for the (verbally) beating the hell out of them to establish their inferiority and to have some fun and pleasure of putting the weak in their place to avenge America's frustratoin and humiliation. Don't blame the writers for discrimination. They did not do it on purpose. They just discriminate against the Asians so much that they could neither see it nor help it any more.
Anyway, this four categories of characterization and language are absolutely not to be mis-applied. Can you imagine North Korea's contemptible category is used for America, or America's righteous category used for China?
The fact is, of my whole experience with FP, for all my reading here in two years, I have never seen one positive story about China or Russia, not even to mention Iran and North Korea. You know what? I happen to think that China's Commnuist party might have actually done something right getting their country past Japan to become the world's second largest economy, weathering the global financial crisis without slowing down their through-the-roof GDP growth rate, and keeping their 1.5 billion people largely content and employed. I always see reports on the flarings up of China' protests. How many protests would America have if it had 1.5 billion people? And do not tell me that the Americans, even in their current numbers, do not protest. Where is the media when it comes to protests in America? Why don't they report every protest at home with the same voraciousness and unconditional support that they do in China?
Also, during the recent Russian election, there was not a single positive report of Putin. Does not a story have two sides? There were anti-Putin rallies, and there were pro-Putin rallies, but only the former were reported. And according to FP reports, Russia is basically a failed state that gets nothing right. Is it really the case? Does not Putin at least get SOME things right to lift the living standards of the Russians so dramatically compared to his predecessors? Does not Putin at least get SOME things right to make Russia again a power to be reckoned with? And after having done these things for the Russians, does his support still only come from stuffing every ballot box he could get his hands on, as the reports were impressing? Does not he deserve to be considered the most qualified candidate for Russia's Presidency in his own right?
You know, things like this, the other sides of the stories, the sides that do not get reported, the inconvinient truths that people do not like or want to hear, are the real emblems of honest journalism. And the lack of which really do the objectivity of media such as FP in. Do all Foreign Policy stories on China and Russia have to be negative? Is China and Russia's pure evilness, abjectness, corruptedness, and worthlessness all Foreign Policy have to say to its readers when it comes to reporting about these countries? Are their polities, for all the complexity of their existences, really without one positive side to report on? Is the exclusive and incessant reporting of these unadulterated negative views helpful in giving the readers an objective picture of these countries and forming anything less than radical "foreign policy" outlooks?
There is only one result and one purpose to such non-stop exclusive negative reporting of the countries considered America's rivals, while America and its allies are portrayed in a whole different light with a whole other different standard: to make America look good and anyone that it deems a threat look bad. And if this is not "imperialist propaganda", then what is?
I know that the term, "imperialist propaganda", may be seen as often associated with and found in Communist propaganda against America (think about it: when the word "propaganda" is used with Communist or America's other rival countries, people simply assume it is true; but when used to describe the behavior of the American media, people only find it not credible and even objectionable. Why such diametrical perceptions?), thus is dismissed by many at the outset as annoying, meaningless, false, slandering, and even whining; a slogan and accusation that, since it is often uttered by the Communists, only the exact opposite of which can be true. Well, at least that is how I felt. But then the patterns emerged, and I could no longer hold the term against the fact it tells. Then there came a point when I just was not going to take it any more, so I spoke up.
The writer of this piece first stages a buffoonery using the North Korean leader, mocking him for his ideology and his ideology's rigid clamp on him, and then putting the term in his mouth to mock the term discrediting its veracity. The writer then uses the buffoonery version of the discredited term on FP itself to show his disregard and contempt for its worth to describe FP and thus disassociating FP with the term. In doing so, he also mocks and discredits it further. Finally, the writer, by redundantly repeating the term and thus framing it as a trite and empty slogan, strenghtens the effects of his parody of it.
The intended result of the parody, of course, is to make anyone who dares to accuse FP having anything to do with "imperialist" and "proganda" appear the same raving ideologue wacko as the mocked North Korean leader, a mere ranting little yellow man who only does so because he is brainwashed by the Communist propaganda in which he grew up, is so meek that he only dares to speak behind the anonymity and the protection of the thousands of miles of distance of separation the Internet provides between him and the tough FP staff and writers (the writer of course forgets about the drones and the strategic bombers to which Americans oftern resort when it comes to getting rid of their critics; perhaps FP can hire one too?), and is so physcially weak that he is easily crushed by the much stronger and superior White men whose martial spirit is obviously so strong that it often leads them to killing sprees of foreign civilians, hunting them as games, and ever so gracious and honorable afterward in paying $50,000 for each human life they took away.
By parodying the term and anyones who uses it to describe FP in the context and pretext of a buffoonery, the writer makes it possible to take no responbility for his words, and he can make his effort look like a burlesque, and easily frame anyone who has a problem with it as someone who cannot take a joke. Staging a buffooneries is also useful in that it makes what he writes readily acceptable to readers, since people do not often think critically it comes to buffooneries, and are quite amenable to be influenced when they laugh. Thus, by extracting laughs from his readers, the writer tries to simply mock away the critics and the criticism, so that he does not even need to deal with any truth that might be in it.
I happen to think that, you know, to mock away criticisms and critics through rhetorical effects might achieve the short term goal of suppressing the inconvinient things that you do not want to hear or consider threatening to your agenda, but it does not deal with the root of the problem. You might be able to make the critisms go away for a while by simply refusing to acknowledge them, but they always come back to haunt you, since the the cause of the problem is still there. Ultimately, I think that addressing them, having more objective reporting, can only be in FP's best interets as a "global magzine". People, no matter where they come from or where they are, have a craving for truth that in the end will neither be smothered by censorship nor be exploited and misled by propaganda of any kind. I just do not think you can fool all the people all the time. They will find out the truth, and the speaker of truth will have the influence that no merchant of propaganda can ever hope to rival. Still, how FP deals with the criticisms and what path it chooses will depend on how it views and positions itself: will it aspire to be an objective speaker of truth, or will it simply stay content in being a hired gun to churn out propaganda?
I know FP might argue that it is only doing the same things that news organizations in China and Russia are doing. Well, if they are doing propaganda and you are doing the same thing, then you are doing propaganda too. It only proves the point. I also know that FP may respond to the criticism by contiue mocking. Well, do what you must do. But as I have laid out, other than mocking, discrediting, and insulting your critics, you might have some better alternative to deal with the criticisms which may actually lead to your own betterment.
Finally, since the writer, in his article, made a not so tacit suggestion that anyone who criticize FP should just go away on their own initiative and refrain from reading or criticizing FP, I would make a suggestion too: that in the future if FP writers and editors are in the mood of writing or publishing any more propaganda, they should first consult their own journalistic ethics and integrity, if they still have any of those left, and see where these things would lead them to.
VANEDOR
3:30 PM ET
March 28, 2012
Re - GALUPH
Interesting opinion that I know is pretty popular world-wide.
The problem is that, North Korea to take the most extreme example, the western medias (as it’s not limited to FP) paint is as bad because it’s genuinely “bad”. Everyone who has ever been to that country have pretty much the same opinion. Citizens are brainwashed to literally worship the Great Leaders as if they were some sort of god. The country is cut from any contact with the rest of the world, people who don’t display the proper respect to the president are sent to re-education centers, not to mention the almost chronic famine… And you wonder why North Korea has a bad reputation?
I think you over exaggerate how “evil” Russia and China are painted in FP. Sure, China is often seen as a country that support dictatorship in foreign countries (look at Syria these days), where human right are sacrificed in the name of economic growth. There is a permanent censure in China where people are not free to protest and get jailed for trying to. See the Occupy movement we had last year all over North-America or even the Tea-party protests there was a couple of years ago? No such thing could even happen in China and don’t tell me it’s not been covered by FP! Yet, the difficulties the Chinese leadership face are often mentioned. But personally, I feel the excuse the Chinese government is using, the size of its population, is pretty bogus. India got a population that is similar and is much more democratic. It’s a matter of scale.
HORNKATHARINE
3:55 PM ET
March 28, 2012
my neighbor's mom makes
my neighbor's mom makes $89/hr on the computer. She has been out of a job for nine months but last month her pay check was $14103 just working on the computer for a few hours. Read more on this site .... Lazycash9.com
BOBBIETT
3:28 AM ET
March 29, 2012
Hahaha
As a citizen of Russia, I will say that Putin's record in dictators, and talk about the falsification of the elections is lying template Western main stream media :)
But here's the thing, that all those listed in these competitions fade to the background of Putin - it's true.
Glory To Russia! :)