I'm a Russian woman in America now

[ECOCKS]

Interesting. I went by a local Russian bar/cafe a couple of days ago (introducing my son to the various Baltika brews and causing considerable constrenation to my wife) and was hearing a bit about the local church (St. Seraphim) in our area. Mostly the comments concerned that while it was the closest thing to a central focal point for the Ukrainian and Russian community in the area it still seemed pretty low-key. I remember attending church in Kyiv one day and discovering that there was the big fresh country honey sale that afternoon. That lack of marketing understanding was very apparent in their, "selling for one day then we're gone and you're outta' luck!" approach.

Benches and English language services are interesting changes but the curtailed availability to reach an icon strikes me as a bit odd. I guess I was mostly curious if there was any sort of more evolved after-services schedule? BTW, I was also disappointed that none of the Russian at the cafe knew of ANYONE in the community teaching Russian (  :noidea: ).

Can't help but ask if you like the bench seating? Change for the good or the better?  

[bobb]

North of you is a town named Sevastopol

Sorry to sound like I'm nit-picking but the name of the city in California is Sebastopol.  It was a very nice place to live back in the late 70's when I spent two years living there.  It may still be a great place to live now.   

[Sculpto]

Sorry to sound like I'm nit-picking but the name of the city in California is Sebastopol.  It was a very nice place to live back in the late 70's when I spent two years living there.  It may still be a great place to live now.   

Its still a nice place.. if you like dope smoking old hippies, vegans, animal rights activists and ultra liberals. 

[JR]

Can't help but ask if you like the bench seating? Change for the good or the better?  

My ex was indignant about the benches. When I visited a few churches in Russia I thought it odd there weren't any. Guess it's a matter of what your are used to.

[OlgaH]

Makarov is out on bail right now, and it's starting to look like he might get away with what he did.. When that happens, what message do you think it'll send to the average Russian entrepreneur?. Don't give up the good fight, do everything by the book and watch the bad guy rot in prison?. Yeah, right..

Don't forget that his arrest was appealed in  European Court   and despite of European Court he spent in remand prison 2 years and about 4 months  and was released on bail, his case in the Tomsk Court and depends on the witnesses. He is not only and  first mayor in Russia under criminal charges.

For example as I remember mayor of Toliatti got 7 years in prison for bribery.  

I would say it's the system that makes it possible for most people to have a decent life, but try explaining that to someone who longs for CHANGE..

maybe people deserve the system that they choose.  

Entrepreneurs in Russia can sit and cry  and continue to give bribe being victims or to offer bribe   or they can unite and act as the Russian Union of industrialist and entrepreneurs suggest.

Another example in Saratov a chief of the Department of architectural control got 3,6 years in prison for bribery. And there many such examples.

http://www.help.su/press/page_15_1.htm

[ECOCKS]

My ex was indignant about the benches. When I visited a few churches in Russia I thought it odd there weren't any. Guess it's a matter of what your are used to.

LOL - One of my SsIL is a Baptist. When we visited their church my wife decided that the Baptists had it better and benches (with cushions!) might well increase attendance. I noticed that they had extended the service with a lot more singing (sigh...as if the Baptists don't already have plenty of songs in the regular service). Service ran a couple of hours and there was noticeably more socializing afterwards.

[Jazzyclassy]

Hello,
First of all, I think this will vary from woman to woman and a person will always stay as he or she is, but living in another country a person has to adopt to a new life.
There's not any difference for me coming from Moscow to an American village because now I can see that any American village is highly developed and has high living standards.
Moscow has adopted so many American things; for example, the cinemas there are mirror images of the ones here and so are the shopping malls. This is only two examples but there are many more like holidays that have been adopted. There are many American companies there also and not just McDonalds.
We have been taught this American influence since 1992. That is another reason I don't suffer from any culture shock in general. The picture that I see now is perfect for me; it's what I saw in my mind before I came here and I wouldn't change it.

To be honest, the only surprise I had was the Orthodox church here. It is much different than the ones in Moscow but I will learn to accept it.

Natasha

Oh that is great you have such a feeling, very good for you And you are right it depends on a person so i just gave my thought about it
And i agree with you surely:)

[Blues Fairy]

I don't see how we can reestablish our industrial base without enacting protectionism

Here's how: cut the taxes on business, cut the entitlements, and voila you'll see economic growth like it's been proven times and times over.  But no, same silly socialist policies and same silly argument for protectionism.

When I see the state of California cutting the budget in so many extreme ways it causes me to ask.. after they eliminate ALL the services the state was providing for the social safety net in health and education.. what will be left?  Just a bunch of politicians and their aides and the leftover career bureaucrats who all make comfortable six figure incomes yet produce nothing of value to anyone.

See, when government spending and programs are cut, the size of government itself tends to shrink and so does the number of career bureaucrats and their incomes.   

[Sculpto]

Blues.. you misread my post.  I am not in favor of protectionism.

also, take a look at how the government spends its money... entitlements are far from the highest percentage.  The military and so called defense by far outweigh any other expenditure. 

What you propose is a return to the stone ages and an unregulated society that will be ruled by bribery, power of force and blatant deception.  Our society is not evolved enough for the kind of anarchy you propose.  As much as you accuse me of some kind of knee jerk reaction to conservativism, I think you are having an even more extreme reaction to the excess of the Former Soviet Union.  You have experienced, or your parents, so much control you don't want any, where I see a lack of control allowing a different kind of abuse.  The truth is I remember this country when McDonalds was not on every corner and there was regional flavor and individualism still meant something.  Nowadays, instead of the government enforcing conformity, the corporations have done it instead.  So, its basically the same coin but opposite sides.. but you may not like hearing this but our views are not nearly as far apart as you would like to argue.

There needs to be a balance between the powers of government and the needs of business and the needs of the people.  Without that balance you have a miserable populace that feels abused and taken advantage of by the corporations and ignored and taken advantage of by the government.  Shoot, if thats the kind of world you want to live why come to the USA?  You could go to Uzbekistan or just about any country in Africa for that...

I suggest you take a look at how governments like South Korea provide support for industry and for the people.  Compare that to Chile or Argentina.  Which country is progressing?  Which country is providing a better standard of living for its population?  Why?

[Blues Fairy]

also, take a look at how the government spends its money... entitlements are far from the highest percentage.  The military and so called defense by far outweigh any other expenditure. 

Wrong. SS and Medicare outweigh the military, and still growing exponentially while the military budget is being cut. 

What you propose is a return to the stone ages and an unregulated society that will be ruled by bribery, power of force and blatant deception. 

You're hopeless.

[Sculpto]

http://www.csmonitor.com/2008/0206/p02s02-usmi.html

http://www.cbpp.org/cms/?fa=view&id=125

http://www.warresisters.org/pages/piechart.htm

The reality is there is just no need for so much money to be spent on the military.  We don't need to fill that international vacuum anymore.  We never should have wasted all that money in Iraq.  Please tell me ONE thing positive the war in Iraq did for us?

and.. all you can say is I am hopeless?  You can't have both BF.. you cant have a society ruled by the rule of law and a sense of fairness and not have some forms to govern such laws.  We are either a society that takes care of itself.. or we are a society that says I take care of me and screw everyone else.  So, which one do you want?  What kind of world do you want to live in?  What kind of world do you want your child to grow up in?

[Ronnie]

A few points about the comments BF and Sculp have made.  This may not seem like the place, but isn't such an important topic, one that affects the lives of those who will be living here in the future worth discussion in any venue?

So let's see..

Protectionism.  Neither BF or Sculp are in favor.  I am.  The fact is the word is applied to tariffs placed on imports.  A tariff on imports and excise taxes is precisely the way the founding fathers envisioned that the federal government would be funded.  There were no income taxes authorized by the the constitution.  To protect our jobs from leaving our shores and to protect our ecomony from this huge transfer of wealth out of our economy is not by any stretch of the imagination a bad thing.  The only thing that is said against such tariffs is that our trading partners will retaliate.  Excuse me, but they already do, and in case you haven't noticed, they don't buy a heck of a lot of goods from us anyway so how can their raising tariff our mythical goods hurt us?  Our biggest export is tourism (incoming) and our trading partners are powerless to have any effect on that.  
Some argue that increased tariffs caused the great depression.  That claim is demonstratively false.  I can refer anyone to a study if they are so interested.  So who and what is behind the slandering of tariffs?  When you figure out who profits from it, you will understand.

Unregulated enterprise.  This is the straw man argument that Sculp and others make.  If BF is in favor then I disagree with her.  Some rules are necessary in any enterprise as well as enforcement of those rules.  Some of you know I was and am a baseball player.  I love the game.  When you play it, or watch, you might understand the perfection of it's design.  A shortstop with a strong arm has just the right amount of time to throw out a fast runner on a ground ball but only if he fields and throws cleanly.  There are many other similar aspects to it that make it a great game.   In some leagues, the powers that be have tried to modify the rules to make it more fair.  It doesn't work.  It nearly ruins the game.  And so it is with business.  Some rules (regulations) are necessary to keep it business from turning into a Mafia activity with all that goes with it.  But trying to make the rules too stringent means the marketplace becomes overburdened and starts to stutter and fall.  That's where we are today.  

Defense.  The primary purpose of our federal government is to provide for the common defense of the states.  There is really little else the founding fathers saw a need for the government to provide.  Most federal programs, including social security are, if you want to know the truth, unconstitutional.  That means that the constitution does not authorize the creation nor the funding of these programs, and if the constitution does not authorize it, that power is reserved exclusively to the individual states.  Contrary to popular belief and national security aspects aside, the defense budget may be the only thing that keeps manufacturing jobs alive in this great country.  The "Buy American Act" forces the defense department to spend it's budget on American goods and services providing millions of good jobs for American.  A strong defense is what keeps us secure.
Sculpt makes a good point about us spending money abroad securing other nations.  It's something the constitution doesn't allow truthfully, but he must remember that most of money isn't spent abroad but right here in support of those operations.  Paychecks are deposited in the warfighters' stateside bank account, Humvees, boots and rifles are of USA manufacture and contracts are service contracts awarded to American companies. 

California's Budget Crisis  Sculp mentioned "drastic cuts in services".  Last week I looked online at an excel pivot spreadsheet of California's budget each year going back more than twenty years.  The growth in spending has been staggering.  The deficit could be completely eliminated by merely rolling back spending to what was in 2003-2004.  How drastic is that?  Californians of all stripes, conservative and liberal, voted overwhelmingly last week to say "no" to tax increases.

I just want to encourage everyone to look beneath the surface on these important questions.  The truth is right there if one looks.

[Sculpto]

A few points about the comments BF and Sculp have made.  This may not seem like the place, but isn't such an important topic, one that affects the lives of those who will be living here in the future worth discussion in any venue?

So let's see..

Protectionism.  Neither BF or Sculp are in favor.  I am.  The fact is the word is applied to tariffs placed on imports.  A tariff on imports and excise taxes is precisely the way the founding fathers envisioned that the federal government would be funded.  There were no income taxes authorized by the the constition.  To protect our jobs from leaving our shores and to protect our ecomony from this huge transfer of wealth out of our economy is not by any stretch of the imagination a bad thing.  The only thing that is said against such tariffs is that our trading partners will retaliate.  Excuse me, but they already do, and in case you haven't noticed, they don't buy a heck of a lot of goods from us anyway so how can their raising tariff our mythical goods hurt us?  Our biggest export is tourism (incoming) and our trading partners are powerless to have any effect on that.  
Some argue that increased tariffs caused the great depression.  That claim is demonstratively false.  I can refer anyone to a study if they are so interested.  So who and what is behind the slandering of tariffs?  When you figure out who profits from it, you will understand.

Unregulated enterprise.  This is the straw man argument that Sculp and others make.  If BF is in favor then I disagree with her.  Some rules are necessary in any enterprise as well as enforcement of those rules.  Some of you know I was and am a baseball player.  I love the game.  When you play it, or watch, you might understand the perfection of it's design.  A shortstop with a strong arm has just the right amount of time to throw out a fast runner on a ground ball but only if he fields and throws cleanly.  There are many other similar aspects to it that make it a great game.   In some leagues, the powers that be have tried to modify the rules to make it more fair.  It doesn't work.  It nearly ruins the game.  And so it is with business.  Some rules (regulations) are necessary to keep it business from turning into a Mafia activity with all that goes with it.  But trying to make the rules too stringent means the marketplace becomes overburdened and starts to stutter and fall.  That's where we are today.  

Defense.  The primary purpose of our federal government is to provide for the common defense of the states.  There is really little else the founding fathers saw a need for the government to provide.  Most federal programs, including social security are, if you want to know the truth, unconstitutional.  That means that the constitution does not authorize the creation nor the funding of these programs, and if the constitution does not authorize it, that power is reserved exclusively to the individual states.

California's Budget Crisis  Sculp mentioned "drastic cuts in services".  Last week I looked online at an excel pivot spreadsheet of California's budget each year going back more than twenty years.  The growth in spending has been staggering.  The deficit could be completely eliminated by merely rolling back spending to what was in 2003-2004.  How drastic is that?  Californians of all stripes, conservative and liberal, voted overwhelmingly last week to say "no" to tax increases.

Ronnie.. you make a good case for protectionism.  Stated as you have done gives me pause to think about it. 

We agree about enterprise.  Enough freedom for someone to innovate and actually produce something but enough regulation to keep them from polluting and or abusing their employees.  Here is an example.. I once worked as a PM for a company producing high quality office furniture.  The owner was rather corrupt and was employing a high number of undocumented workers for a variety of financial reasons.  Here they are.. lower wages.. and more importantly the ability to claim a lower number of workers for the workers comp insurance.  One day EPA came in.. they discovered over 20 55 gallon drums with sludge on inside.. waste from the finishing department.. $70,000 fine because they had been cited before plus forced the company to develop and implement a viable waste storage and disposal program.  Another day.. one of the undocumented guys almost cut his thumb off because a machine had not been properly maintained and the safety guard removed.. they sent him to the doctor but did not make a workers comp claim.. just paid the hospital directly.. a week later when he came back to work with no feeling in his thumb he asked to go back to the doctor.. they refused and told him to get to work or leave.  he chose to leave.  A few days later.. here comes the Migra.. BUSTED.  25 of the 60 people in the production department were undocumented and it turned out working for $5 an hour.  The company closed permanently about a year later.  The undocumented ruined thumb guy called the Migra.. hows that for justice?

Defense.. we have two very big oceans between us and our so called enemies.  With the exception of the 911 attacks the ONLY country to have ever attacked us was Great Britain.  So, why exactly do we have military presence in over 150 countries around the world?  My point is our military has not been on a defensive posture since before WW2.  Perhaps it is time to rethink our foreign policy priorities? 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deployments_of_the_United_States_Military

California budget.. I agree with you.. although.. when you make an analysis like that you must also compare it to the GDP of the state and the population figures.  California is not like other states that have relatively stable populations.  We have a constant influx of immigrants from other countries and from within the US who are relocating here for one reason or another.  It has often been said in SF that part of the reason the city government is so screwed up is because we get so many transient people who come for a year or two.. do their duty and vote.. and skew the results and don't stick around for the consequences of bad ballot measures or elected officials.  Then we also get idiots like Chicken John who run for office to self promote and end up wasting valuable electoral resources.  Even though I am not a big fan of Gavin he is oddly a pretty good balance in this city.. especially compared to the two mayors that preceeded him.

http://www.google.com/publicdata?ds=uspopulation&met=population&idim=state:06000&q=california+population

As you can see we have added MILLIONS of people in a fairly short amount of time.  Is it not reasonable to expect the budget to grow at the same pace as the growth in population and resulting growth in GDP?

[OlgaH]

So, why exactly do we have military presence in over 150 countries around the world?  My point is our military has not been on a defensive posture since before WW2.  Perhaps it is time to rethink our foreign policy priorities?  

California teachers protest budget cuts in San Diego

[Ronnie]

Defense.. we have two very big oceans between us and our so called enemies.  With the exception of the 911 attacks the ONLY country to have ever attacked us was Great Britain.  So, why exactly do we have military presence in over 150 countries around the world?  My point is our military has not been on a defensive posture since before WW2.  Perhaps it is time to rethink our foreign policy priorities?  

Agreed.  We have no reason to have so many bases in so many countries.  But these countries' politicians rail against our presence for internal political gain, then fight like hell behind the scenes to keep us from actually taking down our tent.  The bases are an economic boon they just don't want to see removed.   The DoD argues that these bases are important support mechanism should be find ourselves at war overseas and I'm sure you'd agre, that if we MUST be at war in the future, better that it be located over there than over here. (You mentioned 9/11 but you forgot apparently about 12/7/41).  My point was more to underscore that defense spending is one of the most enduring jobs programs the US has every had.

[Ronnie]

California teachers protest budget cuts in San Diego

 The state with the highest average teacher salary was Connecticut, at $57,760. California was a very close second, where the average teacher salary is $57,604. New Jersey teachers make approximately $56,635 per year. Rounding out the top five were Illinois and Rhode Island, with the average teacher salary at $56,494 and $56,432, respectively. The state with the lowest average teacher salary was South Dakota, at $34,039.

(source: Employmentspot.com)

[Sculpto]

Agreed.  We have no reason to have so many bases in so many countries.  But these countries' politicians rail against our presence for internal political gain, then fight like hell behind the scenes to keep us from actually taking down our tent.  The bases are an economic boon they just don't want to see removed.   The DoD argues that these bases are important support mechanism should be find ourselves at war overseas and I'm sure you'd agre, that if we MUST be at war in the future, better that it be located over there than over here. (You mentioned 9/11 but you forgot apparently about 12/7/41).  My point was more to underscore that defense spending is one of the most enduring jobs programs the US has every had.

yes I did forget about PH, though, the stupidity of that attack strategically was so huge its hard to imagine why they even did it...

so, defense spending is an appropriate use for government funds while job creation programs and infrastructure and safety net are not?

[Sculpto]

The state with the highest average teacher salary was Connecticut, at $57,760. California was a very close second, where the average teacher salary is $57,604. New Jersey teachers make approximately $56,635 per year. Rounding out the top five were Illinois and Rhode Island, with the average teacher salary at $56,494 and $56,432, respectively. The state with the lowest average teacher salary was South Dakota, at $34,039.

(source: Employmentspot.com)

factor in cost of living.. 56k in California is not enough to be a home owner and in many locations have even a decent standard of living.  In SF that will get you a studio apartment in a marginal part of town.. no car..

[Ronnie]

yes I did forget about PH, though, the stupidity of that attack strategically was so huge its hard to imagine why they even did it...

so, defense spending is an appropriate use for government funds while job creation programs and infrastructure and safety net are not?

Defense spending is not just appropriate, it was the driving argument behind the formation of the federal government.  I would like to refer anyone who is interested in knowing how far we have drifted from the original purpose of the union, to the website of the Constitution Party.  www.constitutionparty.com

I find little to disagree with in their platform.

[Ade]

Defense spending is not just appropriate, it was the driving argument behind the formation of the federal government.  I would like to refer anyone who is interested in knowing how far we have drifted from the original purpose of the union, to the website of the Constitution Party.  www.constitutionparty.com

I find little to disagree with in their platform.

To me they sound just like any other hypocritical anti-abortion pro-life, pro-execution, pro-gun, bible thumping group of fundy Christian isolationist red necks.

[Sculpto]

To me they sound just like any other hypocritical anti-abortion pro-life, pro-execution, pro-gun, bible thumping group of fundy Christian isolationist red necks.

              

[Ooooops]

...pro-life, pro-execution, pro-gun...

That's what I never get - how a person can be pro-life and pro-execution/pro-gun at the same time?... 

[ECOCKS]

Easily.

Pro-life for babies has nothing to do with pro-death penalty for certain crimes nor being pro-gun for defending yourself or family.

[Sculpto]

Easily.

Pro-life for babies has nothing to do with pro-death penalty

you see no hypocrisy there?

[Ade]

Easily.

Pro-life for babies has nothing to do with pro-death penalty for certain crimes nor being pro-gun for defending yourself or family.

Even forgetting the humanitarian issues for a minute, research has shown that executing people 1) is not a deterrent 2) doesn't provide a victim's families with any peace of mind or closure 3) is far more expensive than keeping someone in prison for the duration of their natural lives.

As for guns being used for "self defence" I've yet to see any reliable evidence which shows that they are any good for this. Most people when attacked have no time to pull a gun and use it defensively and of those that do, they definitely risk escalating a dangerous encounter to a lethal one, lethal to them that is. Guns are one of those psychologically comforting ideas that give the impression that you are safer when in fact you are not.

As for pro life for "babies"; a bunch of cells without coherent thought is not a baby. The potential is there for sure, but where do you draw the line, at the sperm and egg which also have the potential for life? No contraception then?