In my mind there is an unsettling feeling

On how it is that I should pass my life.

It seems Earth’s pulchritude’s so freeing

That I’d be happy merely so observe its might.

But there is a concurrent want to achieve;

To be appraised for my abysmal work.

And who knows which emotion I should now believe,

And which I ruthlessly should burke?

 

White clouds drift by the azure sky,

The air is crisp and rich with loud autumnal smells.

Migrating birds tell winter’s nigh;

The leaves are painted with red and yellow aquarelles;

And as they softly whisper in the wind,

Take flight and dance descending down to earth-

I ask myself: perhaps it is our purpose to observe

God’s world, because its beauty is of immeasurable worth.

 

But there is such a potent stigma which decries

This calm and peaceful way of living.

Ascending higher - aggrandized;

The acts of taking and receiving.

I ceaselessly feel pressed

To be the best that I could be.

It’s like a small, malicious pest

Which is ingrained in you and me.

 

And what is wrong for us to just reflect?

To be at ease and only to observe?

We always search for ways we can affect;

To be the potentate and not to serve.

But if we all bring nature nearer and not judge

Those who don’t have an equal zeal to rise and be more giving,

 Then we’ll our fear of failure and unease forejudge

And there will be no dichotomy of living.

 

 

 

“We’re young for such a short, short time but we are old forever,”
I heard a wizened drunk man say while passing Demsey’s on Broadway.
His discourser was not impressed, but I felt chilling tremors pass;
The words were lucid, simple, true. They made me think, of course, of you.

We spend our brightest years apart. We briefly meet and then we part.
These vivid days fall into stygian nights in which I still dream of my plight.
In our minds there’re so many reasons why we cannot be together now;
But if from each the essence is procured, not one is worth the pain endured.

I have to prove that I am strong and independent. I cannot succumb
To roles which women always play, because as much as I’m ashamed to say
I care how people look at me. And I want all of them to see
That us two, we are different from the rest. And you, of all men, are the best.

So please, I beg you, come to me, before the last days of our youth will flee.
And if you cannot leave your dreams for now, I’ll gather up the courage to somehow.
I’ll pack them for a while away in hopes of unwrapping them again someday.
And though it’s something that I never thought I could, for our love, dearest one, I would.

On "What Not To Wear" it was once said that no one really knows the definition on business casual. The inventors of the concept just came up with the idea to sell more cacky pants. Very clever sales tactic. Casual Fridays is the one day of the week you can bring out your personality and not have to be bound by yet another rule imposed on us white collar workers.
This is the one chance Americans get to wear their most beloved article of clothing in the world: jeans! Interesting fact: jeans were invented in the 1950s for workers. Jeans for women had the zipper on the right pant. In the 1960s jeans became popular in the youth culture. While being very common in the United States, jeans were considered quite the commodity in the Soviet Union, where if you possessed a pair, it meant you were quite the fashionista.

Since getting a job, I began putting more thought into my everyday apparel. You obviously can't simply pull on sweatpants and a hoodie before going to work if you feel even a wee bit lazy anymore. In my wear log I'll be showing some of the fun outfits I came up with mostly from pieces I had either for a really really long time or which were very inexpensive.

Being a Russian, I used to wonder what was the point of free verse poetry. It seemed to me nonsensical to compose in this style. If you're not going to rhyme, write a short story. Therefore, I basically deemed all American poetry a sham.
But two weeks of listening to The Writer's Almanac changed my mind. Every morning Garrison Keillor reads a poem which are most often composed in free verse. They were beautiful and true. Full of so much emotion and life. Then I understood something: writing poetry in free verse frees you from thinking about rhyming and allows uninhibited flow of thoughts. Instead of thinking of a rhyme for a word, you can carry on and on. There is truth and complete honesty in a free verse poem. Here is a poem I particularly liked, which I heard on the Writer's Almanac.

What I Understood
By Katha Pollitt

When I was a child I understood everything
about, for example, futility. Standing for hours
on the hot asphalt outfield, trudging for balls
I'd ask myself, how many times will I have to perform
this pointless task, and all the others? I knew
about snobbery, too, and cruelty—for children
are snobbish and cruel—and loneliness: in restaurants
the dignity and shame of solitary diners
disabled me, and when my grandmother
screamed at me, "Someday you'll know what it's like!"
I knew she was right, the way I knew
about the single rooms my teachers went home to,
the pictures on the dresser, the hoard of chocolates,
and that there was no God, and that I would die.
All this I understood, no one needed to tell me.
the only thing I didn't understand
was how in a world whose predominant characteristics
are futility, cruelty, loneliness, disappointment
people are saved every day
by a sparrow, a foghorn, a grassblade, a tablecloth.
This year I'll be
thirty-nine, and I still don't understand it.

Every morning I jog. The now cold air sweeps past me, cutting my face.
In the past I liked the feeling of coming home after such an excursion.
I would quickly shower, put on a warm sweater and run to your room.
You would still be serenely sleeping as I crawled into your bed.
I do not like my mornings so much anymore, as I wake up alone under a cold blanket.
It’s been four months.

Sitting alone in a coffee shop, drinking my coffee and eating a piece of cake. Reminiscing on all those times when we used to do this together. You would get tiramisu and make me eat the cream as well as the savoiardi.
Even though the cake is just as sweet and the coffee just as musty, they taste dull in my mouth.
The thought of you grips my stomach and squeezes my soul. It’s been four months.

I liked the walks we used to have. Each one was an adventure. Our conversations were sometimes deep and other times trivial.
Now I must contend against the boredom I feel and settle for listening to podcasts, which are filled with important information.
I can now name all the senators and leaders of European countries. And I can discuss foreign politics, German literature, and talk of scientific innovations.
But it does not matter, since I cannot discuss it with you? It’s been four months since we’ve seen each other and it will likely be many more till the day I see you once more.

Is it really worth it? This is what I ask.
I have a good life. In every way I should be content. But half of me is missing.
Ephemeral happiness of the day to day is still there. A joke still brings evokes a laugh and a friendly act a smile. But that peaceful, joyous state of my conscious has gone. I feel restless.

I have felt this way from the moment we said good bye. And as the first, second, third and forth month went by. And it will not pass until I am with you again. It’s been four months, but it feels like years.

Вчера мы с Машей решили пойти в молл. В то время как сестра отбирала, что она хочет купить, громко хваля низкие цены, мимо прошла девочка, и, улыбнувшись, заинтересованно посмотрела на нас. Оказалось, что она из России, живёт в Америке с пяти лет, и недавно переехала в Вашингтон, получив здесь работу. Так как у меня (как и у многих моих знакомых) процесс поиска работы до сих пор не увенчался успехом, я поинтересовалась как ей это удалось. Лена рассказала, что она связалась с организацией которая подбирает компаниям работников. Через две недели Лену наняли в юридическую фирму. Она дала мне адрес организации и её имейл.

Статистика гласит: 70 процентов работ найдины через знакомых. В это время когда интернет стал главным источником информации, заменяющий газеты и телевизор, некоторая информация гораздо более эффективно передаётся через людей. Приведу ещё один пример: я в основном искала работу по нескольким общим известным поисковым сайтам как Монстр.ком. Приехав в Вашингтон, я связалась с моим другом Ричи, который давно здесь живёт и попросила его о помощи. Так он мне написал огромный имейл: куча сайтов организаций в политической сфере, советы как состовлять резюмэ, и т.д, а так же книгу как получить государственную работу. Вот человек! Выдал мне больше полезной, уже отфильтрованной от всякого бреда, информации чем Гугл! Очень приятно, что хоть в этой сфере человек остался непревзайдённым. И, что люди так помогают людям.

Fresh out of college, I have currently been looking for a job.
Unfortunately, people in my position, with little work experience and only a bachelor's degree to show as proof of being at least somewhat adequate, cannot opt for much in the current job market. I do, however, have a great academic record, internships, and past leadership positions I held at my university. I was then very interested in an opening I found on monster.com. A company was looking for candidates for their "Accelerated Management Training Program." The ad proceeded to describe this position as being a wonderful opportunity to get a feel for all aspects of the business world: how to market a product, manage a team, and work in human resources. The company website stated that their mission is to provide Fortune 500 companies like AT&T, Staples, Direct Energy, which cut marketing departments, their marketing services. It said that their company's strategy is make the business-customer relationship personal by meeting with their clients face to face. "This is just what I am looking for!", I thought. Not to mention the position is in New York and what can be more exciting? I sent my resume and cover letter. After a few days I received a call from Cathie, the HR representative praising my resume and expressing a desire to meet with me. "Unfortunately," she said, "We are only recruiting candidates from the area." With the recession and all I thought this was not surprising and after talking it over with my parents we decided that if it's something I am really interested in, they would pay for the flight to New York and the hotel.

I prepared like crazy for the interview. I bought the "250 Most Common Interview Question" book, made sure I was impeccably dressed, and came to the office a full two hours before the interview. The interview went well. I answered all the questions the "right" way and engaged in small talk about Russia with the manager. Now the position seemed to me even more appealing. The manager said that he wants to eventually take the firm into the international market and that I could be his top person for that, considering my international background. I was invited back the next day for a second interview.

The following day I was told I would be shadowing an employee on her day of work. I pictured something like going to various businesses on appointments and making presentations of products. Instead of driving up to a business, we drove up to an apartment building in the Bronx area. Then it hit me: we were about to do door to door sales. Starting from the top floor and working our way down. We knocked on 75 doors and asked people to switch from their gas and energy suppliers over to Direct Energy, the company's client. This lady was, as many sales people are, pushy to no end. Two people switched. At lunch she started explaining the structure of the business. All pay was commission based, health benefits included Blue Cross Blue Shield dental and basic medical coverage. She showed me the "tremendous growth opportunity" bringing up examples of 6 people who became managers opened their own branches within 2 years (btw, all costs they had to take out of their own pockets). Out of how many people she didn’t say, but by my estimates at least 300. I broke the news to her then and there. I thanked her for her time and said I am looking for something else.

I am absolutely bewildered at how unethically this business behaved. Information given at the interviews and their website was very misleading. My recruiter also told me after that she didn’t know it was door to door marketing until the second interview. Is this a company I want to work for? No thank you… If they need to be intentionally dishonest and thus lure candidates into their office I’m sure they won’t think twice to screw you over in the future. So, job hunters, beware...always ask all the questions, even if you think the answer is obvious!

Here is something I think would be interesting to try. Though I don't think the pain and the time getting used to it is worth it. I wonder if something quirky like this would ever become "alternatively popular," like skateboarding and dressing emo and then eventually pass. But I guess now it hasn't even made it there!

To Run Better, Start by Ditching Your Nikes

Posted using ShareThis

President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad spoke today on Iranian national television about the role of the United Nations in nuclear disarmament. Like with North Korea and India, the United States has attempted to persuade Iran to abandon its uranium enrichment program and to open its plants to international inspection. But unlike these countries Iran remained indifferent to the entreaties. In exchange for Iran's cooperation in suspending its uranium enrichment program, the United States promised to ease economic and diplomatic sanctions it has imposed on Iran for the past decade. Ahmadinejad proudly rejected the proposal responding that Iran is using its nuclear technology solely for energy generation and pointing out the bias existent in the United Nations. He said it is unfair for members of the Security Council to require Non Nuclear Weapon States to dismantle their nuclear programs when they themselves possess nuclear weapons. He also condemned attempts of the United Nations to curb nuclear energy production of smaller nations while closing its eyes to members of the Permanent Five's expansion of atomic arsenals.

Mahmoud Ahmadinejad brings up valid points. News have been circulating that the United Kingdom plans to spend approximately 3bil pounds on replacing its nuclear supply of warheads. Bound by Freedom of Information Act to release such information to the public, documents implying UK's decision to upgrade its warheads have been released, despite of the assurance of the British Government to the contrary. Such a massive upgrade will require at least 4 decades to complete and comes before a non-proliferation conference scheduled for 2010. Such a long commitment goes starkly out of line with foreign secretary Willam Hauge's recent statements calling countries to take urgent steps to reform and better enforce the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty. The United States is taking center stage in bringing about suspension of nuclear programs in India and North Korea. The US however possesses the largest number of nuclear weapons: 9,960 nuclear warheads 5,735 of which are considered active, though the United States is bound by the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty to move towards nuclear disarmament.

In some things President Ahmadinejad got it right: Permanent Five should stop dictating policy and begin developing a global plan on how to create a nuke-free world. This means the United States, Russia, China, France and the United Kingdom has to each begin dismantling its nuclear weapons.

This summer I traveled to Japan after indefatigably working for two months to save up for a two way ticket and a JR train pass. During the three weeks of my stay I came across many new and interesting cultural quirks. For example the Japanese make a point slurp as loudly as they can when eating noodles as eating quietly may offend the cook or when going up the escalator they stand on the left side and pass on the right. Another is when a Japanese person wishes to express his or her gratitude, they lightly bow their head.

I also got a chance to become more acquainted with Japan’s fascinating history which is given so little attention in both American and European public schools. In Tokyo I visited the Edo Museum which illustrated the highly sectarian society existing in Japan until the second half of the 19 century. In Kyoto I went to a local museum dedicated to the life of their national idol: Sakamoto Ryoma, the man who fought for the westernization of Japan, which allowed it to become a world power. A stop in one of the cities, however, left a heavy feeling.
Though more than half a century has passed since the atomic bomb was dropped on Hiroshima by the United States, killing 140,000 people and razing 90 percent of the buildings, there remains a kind of melancholy, unpleasant aura amidst the hustle and bustle of the city.

The Hiroshima Peace Memorial Museum has numerous artifacts which belonged to victims of the bombing. A small tin lunchbox with a deformed top filled with ashes instead of the food which had been placed there. A red half melted tricycle belonging to a little boy who died from radiation the same day the bomb fell. Clothing with holes in it, created by the heat from the explosion. After seeing the horror which was inflicted on these people it seems unfathomable that weapons which brought such devastation still exist in the world and are still being developed and possessed by the world’s leading countries – United States, Russia, China, France, and the United Kingdom. A study jointly conducted by University of Colorado and Rutgers University found that in case of a nuclear war the detonation of “only 0.03 per cent of the explosive power in the world’s arsenals,” would bring about the death of more than a billion people from radioactive fallout, increased UV radiation, climate change, and starvation. This reiterates how important it is for countries to come together and begin taking measures in reducing their supply of nuclear weapons. Both Russia and China recently made statements that they wish to take part in assembling a document banning the production of fissile materials used for other than non peaceful purposes and laying the ground for an active reduction in the world’s nuclear arms. This gives hope that other countries such as Iran will also begin to cooperate with the rest of the world and increase transparency of its nuclear programs. The conference on nuclear non-proliferation is scheduled for 2010.

The Lisbon Treaty was killed last Thursday in Ireland. Being the only country bound by its constitution to put the treaty to a referendum, Ireland cast it down by a margin of 53.4 to 46.6 percent. This poses significant drawbacks to ratifying the Lisbon Treaty, which is must be approved by all 27 member nations.

The Lisbon Treaty aspires to better organize the European Union’s administration and voting systems. After adding 12 members in 2004 it has become virtually impossible for the EU to function efficiently. In a complex 247 page document riddled with technical terminology, the Lisbon Treaty calls for creating a full time European president, a new foreign policy chief, and a smaller European Commission created by a rotation of seats. This is supposed to make decision making easier by not requiring the consent of all 27 member countries. Those opposing the treaty spread false rumors that it will decrease Ireland’s influence in the EU and raise taxes. It is not surprising that the Irish were confused on what they were voting!

José Manuel Barroso, the president of the European Commission, said he believed that the treaty was still “alive.” So far 18 countries have approved the treaty, and despite Ireland’s rejection, other EU members, who are likely to vote in favor of the Lisbon Treaty, will continue the ratification process. These nations hope to “lay the heat” on Ireland to put the treaty up for another vote.

Ok, this is really funny!


BARACK OBAMA:
The chicken crossed the road because it was time for a CHANGE! The chicken wanted CHANGE!

JOHN MC CAIN:
My friends, that chicken crossed the road because he recognized the need to engage in cooperation and dialogue with all the chickens on the other side of the road.

HILLARY CLINTON:
When I was First Lady, I personally helped that little chicken to cross the road. This experience makes me uniquely qualified to ensure -- right from Day One! - that every chicken in this country gets the chance it deserves to cross the road. But then, this really isn't about me.......

DR. PHIL:
The problem we have here is that this chicken won't realize that he must first deal with the problem on 'THIS' side of the road before it goes after the problem on the 'OTHER SIDE' of the road. What we need to do is help him realize how stupid he's acting by not taking on his 'CURRENT' problems before adding 'NEW' problems.

OPRAH:
Well, I understand that the chicken is having problems, which is why he wants to cross this road! so bad . So instead of having the chicken learn from his mistakes and take falls, which is a part of life, I'm going to give this chicken a car so that he can just drive across the road and not live his life like the rest of the chickens.

GEORGE W. BUSH:
We don't really care why the chicken crossed the road. We just want to know if the chicken is on our side of the road, or not. The chicken is either against us, or for us. There is no middle ground here.

COLIN POWELL:
Now to the left of the screen, you can clearly see the satellite image of the chicken crossing the road...

ANDERSON COOPER - CNN:
We have reason to believe there is a chicken, but we have not yet been allowed to have access to the other side of the road.

JOHN KERRY:
Although I voted to let the chicken cross the road, I am now against it! It was the wrong road to cross, and I was misled about the chicken's intentions. I am not for it now, and will remain against it.

PAT BUCHANAN:
To steal the job of a decent, hardworking American.

MARTHA STEWART:
No one called me to warn me which way that chicken was going. I had a standing order at the Farmer's Market to sell my eggs when the price dropped to a certain level. No little bird gave me any insider information.

DR SEUSS:
Did the chicken cross the road?
Did he cross it with a toad?
Yes, the chicken crossed the road, but why it crossed I've! not be en told.

ERNEST HEMINGWAY:
To die in the rain. Alone.

GRANDPA:
In my day we didn't ask why the chicken crossed the road. Somebody told us the chicken crossed the road, and that was good enough.

BARBARA WALTERS:
Isn't that interesting? In a few moments, we will be listening to the chic! ken tel l, for the first time, the heart warming story of how it experienced a serious case of molting, and went on to accomplish its life long dream of crossing the road.

ARISTOTLE:
It is the nature of chickens to cross the road.

JOHN LENNON:
IMAGINE all the chickens ---in the world crossing roads together, in peace.

BILL GATES:
I have just released eChicken2007, which will not only cross roads, but will lay eggs, file your important documents, and balance your check book. Internet Explorer is an integral part of eChicken. This new platform is much more stable and will never C%>cra...#@&&^(C% ...... reboot.

ALBERT EINSTEIN:
Did the chicken really cross the road, or did the road move beneath the chicken?

BILL CLINTON:
I did not cross the road with THAT chicken!!!! ......... What is your definition of chicken?

AL GORE:
I invented the chicken!

COLONEL SANDERS:
Did I miss one?

DICK CHENEY:
Where's my gun?

AL SHARPTON:
Why are all the chickens white? ......We need some black chickens

For the past month I have been reading Samantha Power’s book “‘A Problem from Hell:’ America and the Age of Genocide.” Winner of the Pulitzer Prize and National Critics Circle award, this book gives a detailed account of America’s response to genocide in the 20th century.

“A Problem from Hell” teaches a valuable lesson; no matter how countries respond to genocide outside their boarders they are going to be criticized. President Bill Clinton was severely reprimanded for not pressing the United Nations to help the Rwandan Patriotic Front fight the murderous Hutu regime and not giving the commander of UN peacekeeping forces Romeo Dallaire requested American troops. Then, Clinton was bashed again for allowing ethnic cleansing to continue in Srebrenica.

On his third try it seemed like Clinton finally got it right. When Serbian president Slobodan Milosevic threatened to persecute the Albanians in Kosovo, the United States threatened to use its military power. When Milosevic’s deadly tactics did not change, the U.S. made the decision to bomb Serbia until it conceded. And once more NGOs and the press censured Clinton for using air force and not willing to put American troops in danger, not truly caring about the Albanians, and acting before at was apparent that large numbers of Albanians were being killed.

Personally I think it’s truly horrendous that the United States stood idly by as genocide unfolded in Turkey, Cambodia, Iraq, Rwanda, and Bosnia. When you see such unspeakable and unlawful persecution of a race, you always have to act. I applaud United State’s intervention, but agree that the execution could have been better.

I recommend this book to everyone! A warning though: it is not for the faint hearted. I started having nightmares about two thirds way into the book and had to take a break and pick up "The Three Musketeers" for a bit of light reading :)

On May 20th I attended the Center on the United States and Europe 5th Annual Conference hosted by the Brookings Institute, the largest political think tank in Washington, DC. Topics being discussed all dealt with current world events. Among them was the question “What does Russia Want Special guests included Strobe Talbot, the 12th United States Deputy Secretary General of State, principal Time correspondent on Soviet-American Relations during the 1980s, and now the President of the Brookings Institute; Jan Peterson, former Norwegian Foreign Minister, and Hans-Ulrich Klose, the past Mayor of Hamburg now serving in the German Parliament. The Russian Government Spokesman, Dmitri Peskov, did not attend. According to a member of the German Consulate, he had never planned on coming in the first place because of transitional period in the Russian government.

The panel Chair, Steven Pifer from the Brookings Institute, outlined four wishes of the Russian Government. First, that it may implement political and economic policies without interference of other countries. Next, he said, Russia wants to have an input on world issues. Third, it desires a better working relationship with Europe and the United States. And last, to expand Russian business to Western markets. Talbot added that what Russia does not want is autarky and a return of the Cold War.

Steven Pifer said that for some reason much of Russian’s political decisions are based on feelings and not facts. He feels that while the United States has put the Cold War behind and is prepared to work with the former Soviet Union as a new government, Russia is insecure and harbors resentment towards the rest of the world. An example of this is the United States defense Missile system to be built in the Chech Republic and Poland which Russia has rebuked, demonstrating that it still views the West as an enemy. According to Peterson, the problem is that “Russians have never confronted their history. They have never asked why they have problems with other countries.”

Russia is a large country riddled with problems and in dire need of internal reforms. Peterson pointed to high inflation, a worrisome heath system, censored press, heavy corruption and crumbling infrastructure. Klose said that Russia is on the verge of decline because of its rapidly shrinking population and the fact that the country is virtually running on its natural resources.

Panelists agreed that the best policy is to work with Russia. Even though Russia faces a challenging future, there is a growing European dependence on Russia’s energy supply, which makes a case for the West wanting Russia to be on their side. But more, Europe and the US want to help foster democracy and technological development.
“We want to get the Russians out of the corner instead of cornering them,” summarized Klose.

The next item raised was why democracy is not successful in Russia. A poll conducted in 2005 showed that 66% are for a strong leader rather than a democratic one. Klose explained that Russians associate democracy with Boris Yeltsin’s presidency, marked by corruption and a deep economic and political crisis. After his second term, the firm hand of Vladimir Putin promising stability seemed like a blessing in disguise. Klose also pointed out that perhaps the Americans expect results too quickly. They want to see Russia turned into a democracy in 20 years when they need to understand that it is a long and painstaking process which will only start to bear fruit after 2-3 generations. “Where should all the democrats come from? They were never there before,” he argued.

All in all I thought the panelists offered a very interesting perspective on why Russia is the way it is. The importance of diplomacy was reiterated by all members and the need to encourage President Medvedev to part with Kremlin's old ways.

Though Vladimir Putin has stepped down from presidential office he is not gone from Kremlin. As Dmitry Medvedev was inaugurated on May 7th, Putin assumed the role of Prime Minister just an hour later. It was difficult to tell if the ceremony focused more on Medvedev’s coming to power or leave of the extremely popular Vladimir Putin.

Members of the “Other Russia,” an anti-Putin coalition, view Medvedev’s arrival as a chance for Russia to become more democratic and free. During his inauguration speech the new President called for developing "civil and economic freedom" and vowing to work for "a better" Russia. Medvedev also has a reputation of cooperating with the West and being an intellectual, having been hailed as an extremely capable lawyer (whether or not this is true is unknown).

However, everyone is aware of Putin’s prevailing power. Now is an incredibly unpredictable time in Russia’s history when the power of the President might actually shift to the Prime Minister.

Personally, I believe this is a very likely scenario. As Putin will secure more and more power behind his new title, the new President will be left in the background.


Links: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/7136556.stm
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/7136556.stm
http://www.economist.com/world/europe/displaystory.cfm?story_id=11376699

Вчера мы с Машей провели целый день вместе, посещая государственные прослушивания и дебаты в Конгрессе. Получить разрешение пройти в здание Конгресса, которое выполняет функции Думы в Америке, было на удивление просто. Я узнала в интернете, в каком здании находится офис конгрессмена, представляющего мой округ, и явилась туда. Секретарша немедленно выписала мне два пропуска. Пройдя через досмотр, который был гораздо менее доскональным, чем в аэропорту, нас пропустили в зал нижней палаты конгресса (мы решили не ходить в Сенат), гле мы могли слушать, как депутаты, которых мы избрали, спорят о том или ином потенциальном законе. Всё, как говорится, на глазах у народа.

А теперь расскажу для контраста историю, произошедшую со мной прошлым летом в Москве. Одним из моих хобби было ходить по городу и находить всяческие государственные здания. Так вот, таким образом я наткнулась на здание Министерства Инностранных Дел. На дверях было вывешено расписание, в какое время и в какие дни допущены посетители. Сверясь с ним, я смело вошла вовнутрь, но дойти успела недалеко. Меня остановил охранник и грубо осведомился, что я тут делаю. Я указала на объявление и сказала, что мне пройти можно, но охранник лишь ответил, что ничего не знает, и попросил меня выйти.

Так я узнала, что возможность наблюдать, как оперируют законодательные органы - привилегия открытого государства.

Побывав в России этой зимой, я имела возможность расспросить людей об их отношении к нашему президенту и государству. Конечно, любой, кто бывал в России хоть проездом или читал местные газеты, знает, что россияне обожают Путина. Аргумент, обычно приводимый в его пользу, всегда один и тот же: он приподнял российскую экономику и улучшил средний уровень жизни. Никто и не оспаривает этого. Неудивительно, что при всей коррупции хоть часть прибыли с продажи нефти на международном рынке достанется народу России.

Стоить заметить, что эта заслуга не классифицирует Путина как хорошего лидера. В конце концов, Сталин поднял экономику СССР до небывалых высот и дал всем работу, а его репутация – это репутация кровавого диктатора. Все достижения Путина в экономической сфере блекнут перед процессом сворачивания гражданских свобод, которые являются необходимым компонентом здорового обшества. Так вот, о какой основе демократии забыл Владимир Владимирович? Ах да, о свободе слова. При кратком осмотре прошедших событий нетрудно прийти к выводу, что его уже почти нет.

Владимир Путин вытеснил либеральных редакторов газет «Московских Новостей» и «Известий». Он приказал разогнать «Марш Несогласных» в Москве, чего никогда не произошло бы в Европе или в США, и когда закон России не запрещает мирные демонстрации. 19 мая Каспарова и других лидеров «Другой России» не пустили в Самару, где состоялся ещё один «Марш Несогласых». При его режиме собрали журналистов всех крупных газет и объявили, что с этих пор 50% новостей должны быть «хорошими новостями про Россию». Владимир Путин в скором времени объявит своего «преемника», так как мы явно не можем решить сами, кто будет следующим президентом.

Мы предпочитаем оставаться слепыми ко всему, что происходит в нашей стране, получая взамен только ощущение, что нас вновь боятся и «почитают» другие страны. Как Матвиенко сказала Итогам, «Менталитет российского человека требует лорда, царя, президента … авторитарное правительство». Эти слова полностью отражают всё неуважение и презрение этого режима ко всем нам.

I have compiled a list of the top 10 questions which I most often receive when Americans find out that I'm Russian and when Russians find out that I am living in the States.

Top 10 Questions from Americans:
10. Is Russia a third world country?
9. That makes you Asian, right?
8. Do you eat borsch?
7. Do polar bears roam the streets of Moscow?
6. Are you a part of the Russian mafia?
5. How do you survive in that cold?
4. Are you related to the Russian basketball player?
3. What do you think of Putin?
2. Do you drink vodka?
1. Where do you like it better?

Top 10 Questions from Russians:
10. Is "Black" more politically correct than "Negro?"
9. Are Americans really overweight?
8. How did such a stupid man as George Bush get elected president?
7. What is the national average income in the United States?
6. How fluent are you in English?
5. Is it true that the States have a poor level of education?
4. How hard is it to get American citizenship?
3. What is the American national kitchen like?
2. Why are they always smiling?
1. Where do you like it better?

Both Americans and Russians play off of common stereotypes when asking questions, but whereas the questions of the former are more open ended and intended to be delivered with humor, the latter tend to be more pushy and scathing in their comments.

This is a little humorous story that happened to me last week.
Last Tuesday my friend Stephanie and I were walking back to our dorm from German class. Because it had snowed the day before, the ground was covered in snow and we took extra care of stepping only in the holes made by people who came before us. As we were maneuvering around the piles of snow, I saw something black across a white background. It turned out to be a Motorola Razor phone!
That evening I started receiving calls from the owner's "Auntie Lydia" and "Mamma" and probably every single person from his contact list. The following day I got a text message addressed "to whoever is reading this" stating where he lives and telling me when to deliver his phone. I confess that I was a little shocked - in my heart I was counting on a reward for my kindness and bigheartedness! I wrote back that he could either come by MY dorm room to claim it or that I would return it tomorrow as I had a class next to where he lived.
Later I wished that I would have gotten rid of it the very same day I found it. Before my Communications class I took extra care to put the phone on silent, but apparently the Razor was smarter than me because it rang anyway just as one of my classmates began giving her speech. At first when I heard the loud rap I thought, "Arg, these Americans never have the sense to turn their cell phones OFF!" After about ten seconds of listening to the compositions of Big Snoop Dog, I realized that the sound was in fact coming from my own backpack. Needless to say, I was very embarrassed.
In the end, I actually did return the phone after battling the urge to flush it down the toilet.