Planet-Love.com Searchable Archives

As I had mentioned earlier, my wife is taking a 5 1/2 month vacation back home this spring.  We had concerns regarding such a length of time between us, especially with Marina's dislike for life in the US.  This was my last "acid test" for her, to see if we could survive the seperation and whether she would be willing to come back afterwards.

Well, three months into our voluntary separation, I've found that we are just as strong as ever, if not stronger.  We talk 3 times a week and Marina is regretting being away from me for so long.  She says that she doesn't feel complete without me and while she doesn't like America, she can't wait to get home nevertheless.  We are even starting to do a little preliminary planning towards starting our family.

This is, of course, great news for me.  I have always believed that couples should have the freedom to choose whether to stay together.  Those that choose to do so, tend to stay together longer and with a better quality of life.  The MOB route has a serious potential to make your mate feel "locked" into your marriage, which could cause long term depression or lead to a lot of resentment.  I believe I have Marina finally committed to a lifetime of marriage.  It only took some time apart to make her realize what she was missing.  :-)

On a side note, Marina wants me to find a nice husband for her 40 year old mother.  Her mother wants someone around her age with a very active libido.  California region preferred, but anyplace in America really would be fine.  Any takers?  :-)

... in response to Sealing the deal, posted by John K on May 13, 2003

John,
Remember the grass is always greener back in Ukraine until they get there and see what they've forgotten about their country. My wife also didn't like America at first, she only remembered the good things in Ukraine. It took one visit home and when we got back things were alot better for her, although she still misses everything and everyone alot. The stubborness plays a factor too;-)
Of course a good marriage also makes the transition easier.
Good luck!

... in response to Sealing the deal, posted by John K on May 13, 2003

:)))

So, you are 39 and your mother in law is 40 and she wants someone her age while you get the daughter?  LOL

I think that most would take the daughter and not the mother. So, Mom most likely  will not find it as easy to get a man your age as the younger woman. However, I wish her luck. BTW how old is your wife if I might ask. Don't worry, I am not the Sheriff of the age police.

Also, thanks for sharing. Please update us again when she returns. I for one would be very curious to see how she changes relative to her dislike for America when she returns. There could be a favorable change there. I am sure that I would not be the only one interested.

Congrats and good luck,

Greg

... in response to Now wait a minute , posted by thesearch on May 13, 2003

I was born in March 1964.  Marina was born in June 1980.  In less than a month, she'll be 23.

The age thing was a big concern to me when we were first writing.  I thought she was a lot older than what she was.  Imagine my surprise when I found out the twenty something girl was actually eighteen!  I was going on 35 at the time and I was very uncomfortable getting serious with someone so young.  Marina didn't seem to think there was any problem with it.  Of course, she has a thing for older men, that I didn't know about.

In the end, I decided that I wouldn't hold her youth against her, since she didn't hold my age against me.  We met shortly after her 19th birthday.  The first couple of days were unusual, but we quickly got comfortable with each other.  Despite her poor English and my negligible Russian, we managed to communicate quite well.  The one time we had an interpreter around, she only asked a technical question regarding the immigration process.  The interpreter was highly surprised at how well we had adjusted to each other, despite the formidable language barrier.

In actuality, we really don't feel the age difference when we are together.  We just enjoy being with each other and creating our life together.  I felt the age difference for a few hours our first day, and a few hours the second day after we met.  After that, the age difference is pretty much an academic thing that really doesn't have a big impact on our lives, except when we plan the roadmap of our life together.  Children are becoming a big issue, as she still wants some good years left in me, once the youngsters leave the house...

... in response to Our age difference, posted by John K on May 14, 2003

John,

There are definitely women who prefer older men. If a guy chooses a younger woman this preference of the lady is important versus a lady who is willing to accept the older man because of wanting a better life or a green card.

Good luck to you both. Keep posting

... in response to Sealing the deal, posted by John K on May 13, 2003

So what about American is so disliked by your wife.  I am curious.

Robert D.

... in response to Sealing the deal, posted by John K on May 13, 2003

that she misses you. She will eventually consider America as her home once kids come along.

... in response to Sealing the deal, posted by John K on May 13, 2003

I always enjoy reading the successes, thanks for sharing!

May I ask what city your wife is from? I only ask because it seems that an FSU persons perception of America has a lot to do with what region they are from. My wife is from a small town outside of Kaliningrad and she hates it there because the economy of the entire region really is in shambles, as is the infastructure of the town she is from...and with any luck, where she'll be returning.

Funny, my soon to be ex really likes America except for all the d@mn Americans :-)

... in response to Re: Sealing the deal, posted by Travis on May 13, 2003

aren't there more mexicans in houston than americans?

... in response to Re: Sealing the deal, posted by Travis on May 13, 2003

Having been to St. Pete and seeing what I am told is a vibrant city by Russian standards,  I can not see how any Russian woman would not find here better, if they are married to a person of even modest means.   I realize there are some dull places here in the US and there are lots of cultural things to do in St. Pete, that are inexpensive, but it seem that most single women that are not strippers or worse, never get to go out to a decent restaurant, or even out for drinks because their incomes are so small. Most who can afford anything work in town and commute long distances just so they can afford inexpensive housing.  So where do you guys live that would be anywhere as bad economically if I may ask.

Robert D.

... in response to Re: Re: Sealing the deal, posted by Robert D on May 13, 2003

Like I said, my wife (soon to be ex) loves it here in America, she just doesn't like Americans. I live in Houston (in the suburbs anyway), and there is absolutely no comparison to Kaliningrad much less Zelenogradsk. Either way, my wife is not the norm! She has said she would prefer to live in Briton Beach because she doesn't normally associate with Americans and doesn't care to. Please keep in mind that my situation is drastically different than most on this board. Financially I don't do bad which is one of three reasons she "chose" me.

... in response to Re: Re: Re: Sealing the deal, posted by Travis on May 13, 2003

...she's confusing Texans with Americans. Btw, hows the Texas Dems doing? Still holed up in Oklahoma? ;-)

... in response to No wonder....., posted by LP on May 14, 2003

Still hiding!!! JERKS! Not like they haven't been the majority for the last 130 years. Now their the minority, they run and hide in Oklahoma. Panzies in my opinion.

... in response to Re: Re: Re: Sealing the deal, posted by Travis on May 13, 2003

Well Houston is a very progressive city.   Although it has no old city cham, which I could understand could bother someone accustom to old city charm (I live in New Orleans), good lord there are jobs there, the economy has been almost a model for the rest of the country, there is diversity there, great universities, good affordable housing, terriffic air flight avaliability, the only thing missing is good mass transit.  So I can not figure how  any Russian person, suffering through a bad economy, would not suffer through conditions there better than suffering through conditions in Russia.

Robert D.

... in response to Re: Re: Re: Re: Sealing the deal, posted by Robert D on May 13, 2003

I lived in NOLA for three years... Commuted back and forth to Houston for my profession... Fly to Houston on Monday morning and back home to New Orleans on Fridays... Never was able to find anything worthwhile in New Orleans for what I do... The joke in NOLA is that the only secure jobs are either making beds in the hotels or asking people "I bet I can tell you where you got them shoes!!!"

After three years of doing the SW Air commute, I gave up and moved to Houston, well, Clear Lake anyway... I would still live in NOLA today if the economy there wasn't so dependent on tourism... Funny thing was that the Monday morning / Friday afternoon flights back / forth ALWAYS had the same faces... People who had to travel to earn an adequate income to live in NOLA...

Houston may only be just across the border from "Cajun Country", but it's light years difference in culture, or lack thereof... Give me 5 pounds of bugs and an Abita and I'm in heaven...

Please, no flames... Just my opinion...

Good Luck...

... in response to Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Sealing the deal, posted by wizard on May 14, 2003

No flames at all.  Man you hit that one on the head.   This has been my complaint about this city, for some time.   The next one is crime, real and preceived.   Both issues if we do not figure things out will kill this city.    If were not for the city charm we would be another Detroit.  Dead except the burbs.  I remember when I moved here 25 years ago before the airport was built in Atlanta and at the start of the oil boom, we were doing very well and able to compete.  Now if you have a good job here, you spend most of your surplus money educating your kids at $8,000 a year for primary school alone.  Yikes.  And what goes for New Orleans, goes for the rest of our poor state in many ways.  Looks like Baton Rouge will be the place to be in La, soon.

And here is a secret no one likes to talk about.  Even Mardi Gras is smaller than 10 years ago.   I went to the quarter Mardi Gras day about 3 years ago, and walked right into Pat'o  and SAT at the bar at 4 in the afternoon.  Heck you can't do that even on a normal saturday.  The people still come but not nearly as many as years past.  

Robert D

... in response to Re: Re: Re: Re: Sealing the deal, posted by Robert D on May 13, 2003

Old city charm? That's why we drive to New Orleans :-) Gotta agree with the lack of mass transit, that in my opinion is the worst thing about Houston. My wifes issues don't have anything to do with the economy, her's are intent, and primarily how she went about achieving her goals. Greed is one of the 7 deadly sins...as are envy and wrath but whose counting. But that's ok, you reap what you sow! Come August I will elaborate more fully. Everything should be coming to a head at that time!

... in response to Re: Sealing the deal, posted by Travis on May 13, 2003

She spends most of her time in Sevastopol, with some interludes in Zhitomir.  For Marina, before she came to America, her only perception of America was based upon the long running soap opera "Santa Barbara".  It has played in Ukraine for many years now.  Coming to America felt to Marina as if she were in a soap opera itself, it was very surreal to her.

For Marina, life in America is very restrictive.  We have a lot of laws regarding age of drinking, public intox, public nuisance, disturbing the publicm, public curfews in various areas, etc.  In Ukraine, there are none.  While she was going to the shoe repair place to get a shoe fixed, she met a man who was in America for a while.  He described America as a light security prison, because of all the public laws we restrict ourselves by.  Marina, for a good part, agrees.

To a certain extent, Marina is indeed correct that America is a lot more restrictive than a lot of other countries, despite our claim of being the "land of the free".  American goverment tends to put the interest of society over the interest of an individual.  Individual rights are more rigorously supported when the cases represent society's failure to protect the rights of it individuals.  Example, cases involving any kind of discrimination are prosecuted more severely, as this is viewed as a failure of society to protect it's constituents.  

In other cases, where society imposed mores are viewed to be "right", individual rights can take a back seat.  Example: many Alabama(?) schools have their classes regularly interupted by students saying prayers of devotion over the school PA system.  This continues, despite protests of a minority of parents regarding this violation of separation of church and state.  Apparently, Jews, Muslims, and other "nonchristians" have the right to cover their ears...

---------

On a different note, one of the best paid "honest" jobs in Ukraine is a plumber.  My wife was talking to one the other day and he mentioned that he pulls down 4,000 hryvnas a month, the equivalent to $750 to $800 a month here.  That's excellent money over there.  Anyone who's a plumber could possibly make a long term stay over in Ukraine a financial possibility.

... in response to She's primarily from Sevastopol, posted by John K on May 13, 2003

Just as I said some time back , refering to a conversation one of my friends had with a graduate student from the FSU, she said "that she had more freedom there in a former communist state than we have here now and she found it ammusing that "we" thought we were "free" ". Isn't it ironic that it takes a foreigner to recognize the "light security prison" , when we as a people ask permission or obtain a license to do things that are garanteed to us as "rights" under the Constitution for the united States, darn, I forgot that's just an old piece of paper somewhere, which has presumably been replaced by the constitution of the United States. And who noticed? Most any school kid in Ukraine knows more, about the function of their (and our)government and it's history, than most college graduates do here.

Everything here is done in commerce, you do something against "public policy"---pay the man.

2 or 3cts.

Lynn

... in response to Re: She's primarily from Sevastopol, posted by Lynn on May 14, 2003

I think we are free as a society, but as an individual that can be an iffy proposition.  The problem is balancing an individual's freedoms versus the common good of society.  If the individual's freedom is too strong, you'll get anarchy.  If the society's influence is too strong, you'd end up with communism.

I thing the US is a lightly socialistic society, despite the negative connotations people apply to socialism.  We have enough laws and restrictions in place to ensure a relatively smooth functioning of society.  There are sufficient checks and balances to protect the bulk of the US citizenry against each other, and from overwhelming influence of the goverment.

I understand your feelings regarding people's forgetfulness of the Constitution, Lynn.  I too feel the pain sometimes.  Still, there are avenues to challenge unjust laws up to the Supreme Court, where they can be weighed against the intent of the Constitution.  I am constantly amazed at how well the Supreme Court upholds the Constitutional intent, and I even enjoy reading the dissenting opinions to get a better feel of how a decision impacts upon daily life.

I remember reading one colonist's request to the old country, pleading for them not to send any lawyers over here, lest they destroy the country from within.  Still, the lawyers, laws, bureaucrats, court and legal systems have managed to regulate our society into a place that tries to promote the well being of it's citizens.  The constitution is still alive and well, despite the best efforts of lawyers over the centuries...

... in response to I think we are nominally free, posted by John K on May 14, 2003

The Constitution "for" the united States was based on common law----under common law, if there was no injured party there was no crime. Unfortunately that Constitution was suspended when all the Southern delagates walked out in 1861 and it was at that point that the constitution (or charter)"of" the United States (corporate) came into effect. Note the "for" and "of", big difference. Under the 1789 version, each "State" is the same as a different "country" bound together by the Constitution only for the protection of the citizens of the states from threats from within the government or outside governments.

"If the individual's freedom is too strong, you'll get anarchy. If the society's influence is too strong, you'd end up with communism."

This country was started on the dream of individual "freedom". What we have today is Communism, it's just not called that, we are so politically correct, everybody has to be socialized, to fit into "society", in other words-----think what we want you to think, do what you are told and don't ask questions-------now ask you wife if that sounds any bit like the socialist youth camps in the FSU, I am sure she probably knows someone who was a part of that. Maybe that is part of what she doesn't like about Amerika.

By the way, does the supreme court rule on "law" or "public policy"?

way down South, in the land of cotton, where we came from is not quite forgotten...........

Lynn

... in response to Re: I think we are nominally free, posted by Lynn on May 14, 2003

Do, however, read some 'old' Regnery classics, if only, for your edification:

Garrett, Garet. The American Story. Chicago, 1955. (And, yes, of course, the Southern classic): Kilpatrick, James Jackson. The Sovereign States - Notes of a Citizen of Virginia, 1957.

The latter is shear brilliance; that is, if one understands liberty.

Vaughn

... in response to Well said, Lynn, posted by BURKE89 on May 15, 2003

Thanks, will make note of the recommended reading, a bit overwhelmed in some other studies at present.

Best regards from Dixie,

Lynn

... in response to Re: Well said, Lynn, posted by Lynn on May 16, 2003

www.lewrockwell.com.

The sane 'lib's' appear to fit your vision very well.

I, however, am still trying too shed the: ...

Regards from the high desert,

Vaughn

... in response to Re: I think we are nominally free, posted by Lynn on May 14, 2003

"Under common law, if there was no injured party there was no crime."

That looks like "no harm, no foul".  So an attempted murder, rape, burglary that didn't work out would be exonerated?  In this case, I'll take the newer interpretation, thank you.  Deterring crime is as important as punishing it.

"Under the 1789 version, each "State" is the same as a different "country" bound together by the Constitution only for the protection of the citizens of the states from threats from within the government or outside governments."  

Hmm, sounds like a lot of problems with this.  First, this reduces the "all men are created equal" concept, as each member state could be free to control its citizens through whatever application of laws each Governor saw fit.  Under such a condition, you might still theoretically see slavery in the old South today.

Also, extradition would be a major pain to enforce.  Commit a crime in one state then run for the border.  While that happens even today, murder is a capital offense and federal law transcends state supremacy to ensure that capital offenders will be brought to justice.  Under the old system, the capital offenders could easily avoid justice by jumping from state to state.

At least the old Constitution laid legal grounds for the North entering the Civil War to repatriate the South.  Secession could easily be interpreted as a "threat from within the goverment".  Otherwise, we could have ended up a series of little countries constantly at war, like what we see in Africa.  Had the secession succeeded, it could have spurred more and more breakups, creating a throwback to a feudal system akin to what was in the Balkans.  I would argue that secession is a form of quasi-goverment sponsored anarchy.

"What we have today is Communism, it's just not called that."

Um, pardon me, but do you own property?  Under Communism, that wasn't allowed.  Are you required to belong to a certain political party in order to get an advantage in life?  Under the old Soviet Union's communist system, that's what you had to do.  Are you subject to goverment controlled wage/salary caps?  Are you required to work or else be forced to go to a "work camp"?  Are all businesses owned by the goverment?  Such are the trappings of Communism.  As I said before.  I don't think we have become communist in any way, shape or form.  

"everybody has to be socialized, to fit into "society", in other words-----think what we want you to think, do what you are told and don't ask questions"

I'd like to see you say that to a skinhead, a black supremist or a militant homosexual.  :-)  Granted, there is a lot of media spin out there, trying to impress upon people what is "right" or "cool", but you always have the freedom to change the channel or turn it off completely.  If you do watch a presidential broadcast, the minority party also gets airtime for rebuttal.  Also, people do have the right to assemble and peacefully protest.  

While you might grumble about having to get a permit first, I think it's a good idea.  At least the civil servants know what to expect and are (hopefully) smart enough to keep the skinheads and black supremists from walking down the same street at the same time.  It allows the populace to know what's going on, so that they can participate or avoid the area on their way to work.  It is freedom of speech, mildly constrained by simple practicality.

'By the way, does the supreme court rule on "law" or "public policy"?'

The Supreme court rules upon law, of course, but the laws often have far reaching impacts on public policy.  Also, public policy can be challenged within the framework of law, to ensure that public policy doesn't overwhelm individual freedom.  Look at equal opportunity (EO) or equal employment opportunity (EEO) as examples of this.

I guess the issue really is how much freedom should an individual have?  If he has total freedom, you have anarchy.  If he has none, you have totalitarianism or communism.  I personally think a person's freedom should be limited where it causes another person to lose theirs.  If you disagree with this, I'm sorry, but I'm looking at the relatively smooth functioning of our society as a whole, as opposed to what you or I as individuals should be free to do.

As always, this is simply my 2¢ and strictly my own opinion.  You mileage may vary...

... in response to In rebuttal, posted by John K on May 14, 2003

[This message has been edited by Lynn]

"So an attempted murder, rape, burglary that didn't work out would be exonerated?" ---the attempt of these thing "is" a intrusion upon someone else----therefore it is a crime, where do you get that I said something like this wasn't? Punishment under common law was more severe than the social re-indoctrination camps of today.

Point #2, Each and every state has it's own constitution (most are patterned after the Constitution for the united States) or didn't you know that? Also, New York was a major slave trading port city and there were slave owners all over the north, although manufacturing overshadowed farming in those areas, it was still there. State's rights of self rule were a big part of the original concept of this "free nation". If you think for one moment that slavery was a reason for the war between the states then you are way off base, that wasn't even part of the equasion. Taxes, power, control was all it was about. By the way, do you know who Lincoln said was his greatest enemy? Bankers and lawyers. So, you are for Big Brother telling you what to say, do, think and who to worship?

"Um, pardon me, but do you own property?" No and neither do you, you may think you do but all you may have is a warranty deed--that only gives you the right to use the property with the government's permission.

"Are you required to belong to a certain political party in order to get an advantage in life?" That depends mainly on your status or should I say classification as a "citizen" wheater it be a national or a US citizen, the latter is considered to be a ward of the federal government----which by the way is the classification your wife falls under.
____________________________________________________________
"everybody has to be socialized, to fit into "society", in other words-----think what we want you to think, do what you are told and don't ask questions" to clarify this comment, I was actually refering to our so called educational system here.

            And.

"I'd like to see you say that to a skinhead, a black supremist or a militant homosexual. :-) Granted, there is a lot of media spin out there, trying to impress upon people what is "right" or "cool", but you always have the freedom to change the channel or turn it off completely. If you do watch a presidential broadcast, the minority party also gets airtime for rebuttal. Also, people do have the right to assemble and peacefully protest."

You better read Patriot Act I real close here, the new Partiot Act II and the DOD field manual on dealing with citizen combatants (incidently published a few months before 9/11).

"The Supreme court rules upon law, of course, but the laws often have far reaching impacts on public policy."

I think you better check your facts here, it has been years since they have ruled on anything but public policy.

"I guess the issue really is how much freedom should an individual have? If he has total freedom, you have anarchy. If he has none, you have totalitarianism or communism. I personally think a person's freedom should be limited where it causes another person to lose theirs. If you disagree with this, I'm sorry, but I'm looking at the relatively smooth functioning of our society as a whole, as opposed to what you or I as individuals should be free to do."

Thomas Jefferson said, "When the people are afraid of the government you have tyranny, when the government is afraid of the people you have good government"

Our Constitution was patterned after common law. Your statement: "I personally think a person's freedom should be limited where it causes another person to lose theirs." is in total agreement with common law concept-----just as I said before----"The Constitution "for" the united States was based on common law----under common law, if there was no injured party there was no crime." wouldn't someone be injured if their freedoms were restricted by someone else's actions?

By the way, what do you consider the supreme law of the land?

Just a quiz.

Lynn

... in response to Re: In rebuttal, posted by Lynn on May 14, 2003

I guess I'm going to have to do some reading up here.  I admit, I haven't bothered with either Patriot act and I hadn't even heard of the DOD manual on citizen combatants (BTW, how is a peaceful protestor a combatant?).

I was aware that each state had it's constitution.  That's part of every high school goverment class, for those that pay attention.  The point I was trying to get across is that there does need to be a federal set of laws that provide a common set of protections and enforcement, regardless of what state you live in and that it must preempt state laws.  Otherwise, you have a loose confederation of states that will constantly be at odds with each other.

I never claimed the Civil War was over slavery.  Slavery was a scapegoat reason.  Secession occured over what the South felt was it's inability to get adequate representation in Goverment, if I remember correctly, even though it had significant seats in the House of Representatives, due to a slave being counted as 2/3 of a man or something similar.  It's been a while since I read Kenneth Davis's book, so I'm a bit rusty on that one though.

I never claimed to be for "Big Brother".  I dislike goverment influence as much as the next person.  I do, however, realize that goverment is a necessary evil, because a significant percentage of people nowadays need the threat of legal retribution to keep them in line.  Otherwise, I'd likely be spending the bulk of my time locked behind my front door with a loaded shotgun (especially from some of my neighbors).  

Incidently, the last time I checked, the goverment didn't tell me who to worship, what to say, or what to think.  My mother on the other hand...  :-)  I did have some opinionated teachers, but that never stopped the students from challenging their ideas.  At least in Iowa, we are allowed to think for ourselves.  As far as what to do or not to do, there does need to be some regulation there.  Otherwise, I'd again likely be hiding behind my door with the shotgun.  

Most of the personally restrictive laws aren't federal, btw.  Zoning laws, DOT regulations, permits, property taxes, etc. are all part of civic law.  Civic law comes from state, county, and city goverments.  So if you're grouchy about having to buy a permit or pay property taxes, don't blame the US goverment.  Look a little closer to home for that.

As far as the "supreme law of the land", again according to my old high school goverment class, it is supposed to be the Constitution.  I suppose you have a different answer though.  :-)

I still don't think that the Supreme Court tackles public policy directly.  Their job is to review legal cases brought before it to first, determine if the case holds enough merit to be tried.  If there is legal precedent, the Court rarely takes the case, the exception being if the legal precedent is seen to be possibly flawed.  Second, in trying the case, the justices weigh the case against the precepts of the Constitution, to determine if the laws being applied, and the application itself of those laws, are valid within the framework of the Constitution.

It is through the Supreme Court's validation or nullification of laws, that public policies sometimes get changed.  The Supreme Court does not dictate public policy.  They simply determine whether laws are valid or not within the framework of the Constitution.  The laws, however, are what often shape public policy.  So it is the legislators, not the Court, who are truely trying to shape public policy.  The Court's function is simply to act as a check against those legislators, by ensuring that the laws they pass are valid.

Incidently, the right to peaceful assembly is a part of the Constitution (Article 21).  If any security act is enforced against this, the protestors have the right to go to court to get the act repealed.  I'm certain the Supreme Court would love to have that case on it's doorstep.  And I'm equally sure the ACLU would be waiting anxiously for the chance to try it.

I didn't mean to get into this debate, but I'm afraid I just couldn't resist.  I normally agree with you on most things, Lynn, but in this case I had to take exception.  Not with your facts, but with how you choose to apply them.  The Constitution and the canvas of legal precedents it spawns are not designed to be static.  They are dynamic and designed to be relevant to the needs of the population here and now.  Your historical stance regarding strong State and weak Federal goverments, while admirable, has already shown itself to be a catastrophic failure.  How else would you describe the Civil War?

Anyway, I'm going to do some reading and see what I can ferret out of this mess.  It's going to be challenging keeping up with you...  :-)

... in response to I'm gotta do some reading..., posted by John K on May 15, 2003

(BTW, how is a peaceful protestor a combatant?) That is what I would like to know, read the Patriot Acts, your right of free speech has been infringed upon.

"The point I was trying to get across is that there does need to be a federal set of laws that provide a common set of protections and enforcement, regardless of what state you live in and that it must preempt state laws. Otherwise, you have a loose confederation of states that will constantly be at odds with each other." Yes and no, the Constitution allows for certain things to be governed at the federal level, but not to the extent that it has been taken. The Constitution "for" the united States of America was "for" a loose confederation of states and yes there did come a time when they were at odds. Have you ever wondered, who benefited the most from the war? The causes of the war were a lot deeper than the popular history version.

"because a significant percentage of people nowadays need the threat of legal retribution to keep them in line." We all know that the threat of going to jail is not as fearful as it once was, in fact it is like a badge of honor for some to be able to say that they have pulled time, besides----"all" crimes are commercial, whether here or in the FSU, money talks---wheater it be in private or the court room--we've all seen it.

"As far as the "supreme law of the land", again according to my old high school goverment class, it is supposed to be the Constitution. I suppose you have a different answer though. :-)" Affaid so, it's the UCC.

I think you need to do some serious reading on the functions of the Supreme Court and while you are at it read the Ten Planks of the Communist Manifesto----I think if you do some serious checking that you will discover that we has at least one statute for each plank that either partially or fully puts each into effect.

"dynamic and designed to be relevant to the needs of the population here and now" It is and if you study it closely and realize if we had stuck to it as "originally written", we would be the strongest economic nation in the world instead of this huge debtor that we have become. Read Article I, Section 8 & 10, you will discover that threr is no legal currency here in the united States, only paper with a percieved value, just like the money in Ukraine. Up until 1913 our currency was the strongest in the world, by 1933 we were bankrupt, why? because the government sidestepped the Constitution.

Tell you what, if you will e-mail me a postal address I will send you two books that you may find quite interesting, one includes the Constitution, Bill of Rights, Declaration of Independance, The Ten Comandments and The Communist Manifesto, and the other is about "Useful Knowledge About Governing Bodies" and the author offers to print a retraction if you can prove him wrong on any account.

Happy reading, better get something for nausea, you might need it.

Lynn

... in response to Re: I'm gotta do some reading..., posted by Lynn on May 15, 2003

You should have my address in your inbox.  I guess I'd better start reading all those books on Jefferson that I set aside for a rainy day as well...

... in response to Address on the way, posted by John K on May 16, 2003

A Caveat Against Injustice

http://www.geocities.com/Heartland/7006/caveat.html

... in response to Address on the way, posted by John K on May 16, 2003

I'll try to have them in the mail tomorrow. By the way, if you are interested, I have found a source for "legal" size flags--- legal meaning as per Title 4 USC, ss 1,2,& 3 and Executive Orders----very hard to find, almost impossible, that is if you are interested----99%+ are illegal according to these and other regulations.

Lynn

... in response to Re: Address on the way, posted by Lynn on May 16, 2003

The missus doesn't want any flags on our property.  I offered to get her a Ukrainian flag and she objected even more than the idea of an American flag.  Ukrainians really don't have as strong a sense of national pride as Americans do.  I think if it weren't for the draft, there'd be no military...

... in response to Re: I'm gotta do some reading..., posted by Lynn on May 15, 2003

...John is wise enough to educate himself, most folks find it hard to accept they don't know what they don't know and he gets points for understanding that. Knowledge is power and most of our fine citizens could care less about investing the time to really learn what is going on. Kudos to him for making the effort.

... in response to At least...., posted by LP on May 16, 2003

To disagree does not mean someone does not understand incapable of understanding.  
There are some serious flaws in this thread.  
Robert D.

... in response to Re: At least...., posted by Robert D on May 16, 2003

....except that often the basis for disagreement stems from ignorance, especially in matters not easily comprehended or when one is not informed. I never said anyone was incapable of understanding, I'm only saying they're usually not well informed. Ignorance, by definition, is when one doesn't know better.

Being knowledgable about a subject can mean the difference between offering a simple opinion and possessing the facts. Facts usually impart a higher degree of truth. It takes real effort to learn things and one truth is that most people would rather die than make that effort. As a side note, MOB cultdom clearly demonstrates it's filled by men who need to work on thinking.

... in response to Re: At least...., posted by Robert D on May 16, 2003

[This message has been edited by Lynn]

Point I ; Maybe I should have modified his quote to  say "lack of knowledge" instead of "ignorance", but the point is that with knowledge comes responsibility and accountability.

Point II ; And that would be?

... in response to Re: Re: At least...., posted by Lynn on May 16, 2003

Well since I deleted this after I wrote it and do not feel like doing it all over again, let's try this.  I think it unwise to address some of the obersvations made as I think the feelings of some of you run so deeply as to make that exercise a bit usless.  So I will try this and then leave it alone.   I have had some experience with our constitution and have been lucky to have met, debated, etc, many constitutional experts with Phd and JD after their names and sometimes both.   Now I do not suggest that only people with letter after their names are any better at pouring p (iss) out of a boot than anyone else, or that they are never wrong or that have have any more common sense, than the next person.   But I have know some of these people who have made as their life's work (and their living too) dealing with, debating the constitution.  And I do value some of their opinions.    And this has left me to belief several things.  (including my own observations and reading etc).   The debate over strict construction and liberal construction of our consititution is nothing new.  I think it began befor the ink was dry on the original document.  I have watched the efforts of our society try to work within the document, and sometimes work outside of the document.  It is the latter that causes many of us concern, and normally finds that issue being address by the high court, or even by constitutional amendments.  (you know the place in the consitituion has those right folks like to rattle off after high school civics.  Freedom of association and religion, speech, etc, and the right to privacy.  ooops Did I say right to privacy, that which we hold so dear as being part of our constitution? More on that later)  
    I have watched our high court offer nothing more than terriffic legal fiction to justify Roe v. Wade ( I make no judgment on abortion right or wrong here, it is the constitution issue I address only) by holding that a prenumbra approach to our Consitituion indicates that we have something that we take for granted that is a constitutional guarantee.   The right to privacy.  You know that one.  The one we will shoot just about anyone that trys to deny us that right.   Well it was that "right" that was used to support a woman's right to an abortion.  Now this upset ultra conservatives and frankly strict constructionist as well.  (hummmm)
  I watched that same court as I recall, add another right to us, not mentioned in our consitution Mirranda.   Something that protects us, or was supposed to, from that so terrible police state we live in to assure we are afforded all of the rights under out consititution when the government decides we may have done something wrong.  Now here is the strange part.  Here Ultra conservations were please, because it puts some check on that evil government thing.   Here the liberals were happy too.  (now that is scary)   The problem is both Roe and Mirranda are just to examples of how our consitution and our leaders (and the courts) struggle to make decisions that reflect current concerns.   Is it perfect, nope.  Does it need correction or modification from time to time, you bet.  (you know like the amendments.  yep the ones that we like to much, free of press, religion, etc.)  Is the document flawed and we discover its flaws from time to time, SURE.   (sort of like the flaw in another document- that some hold so dear.  "We hold as self evident that all men are created equal" - well except Native American, slaves, and women. --- which leads one to think, is the document or its principles flawed?   Nope not at all.   It is our (or was our)inability to live up to those principles that was the problem.  
    You see folks our constitution allows us to mess with it or challenge it, ie poke prod etc, because it was created for that purpose.  Not to be static, and when we challenge it, for good or evil reasons of some, we are forced to deal with it, work it, and make it work.  Does it work all the time, nope, nothing that man has ever done works all the time.  Does it work most of the time? YOU BET.  Is there another example in any other country on earth that is any better, NOPE, that is why most eveyone tries to copy the original.   If our consitituion were not somewhat flexible, we would never have purchased the Louisiana Purchase, or even expanded to our western boarders.  If it were not flexible, you would not enjoy some of the freedoms you hold so dear, the privacy fiction, etc, and you would feel even more victimized by the evil nameless faceless beast the govenment.  (you know the ones we elect- and yes I know they may not represent all of your views, but nor do they represent all or even most of mine, but somewhere, somehow, these folks get the majority of those thinkless mindless fools to vote -or many folks are too busy drinking beer at home to vote and they get elected)
   The point is like everthing else, it works, may get broke from time to time, we make efforts to fix it, (not the best efforts sometime) but we are not headed to doom and gloom, at least not that i have seen when I started looking at it almost 30 years ago.  So that is the long way to answer your question, without going bit by bit at each point, as I am sure we could not begin to agree even on the base points to make a discussion of the finer points worthwhile.

No flames intended

Robert D.

... in response to Re: Re: Re: At least...., posted by Robert D on May 16, 2003

One last more specfic comment.  Yes I have read the Patriot
act.  Yes some of it disturbs me.  But I also know that we have passed many laws that once challenged by an agrieved party have been struck down, modified etc, after one shows that they are unconstitutional or the law are changed after the government has abused their powers, etc.  Just because congress does something wrong does not mean that there are a dozen little men in a smoke filled room seeking to find ways into my silly little life.  (heck that is what liberals think about everthing, including all corporate america.)   Sometimes such acts represent the efforts of well meaning people, or in some cases, decision makers that have run out of options to do what has to be done.  (in this case terrorism)  Now I do not justify what all is done, but I again as myself befor I am critical, what solution can I offer?   In my mind, we as amimals - which is all we are in the end- just smart ones it seems, we inside ourselves like nature always seek balance as an important way of survival.  When extremes rule, ie Hitler in Europe etc, well we sort of get out of balance and action is required to bring things into a more NATURAL order.   It is easy for us to know this balance as it is a natural part of our being in my belief.   My Grandmother always said, it is easy to do right, as it comes naturally if you let it.  It is trying to make wrong thing into right things that is difficult and it will always be so.
So I think I just chill and like the discussion, but frankly do not get alarmed and raise my voice when I think it makes a difference and wait for the balance to return as it has over and over again in  our history.

Robert D.

... in response to Re: Re: Re: Re: At least...., posted by Robert D on May 16, 2003

You made some good generalization points and in a broad view I have to agree that our govenment has worked fairly well so far, at least in the general public's eye---but then again as you said "most of them are too busy drinking beer to notice". The one thing that has kept it from going to far off kilter is Article II of the Bill of Rights and the fact that most American housholds have at least one firearm on hand.
If everybody sat back and waited for things to "balance", our soldiers would all be wearing the insignia of that communist spawned organization, the U.N., and our wonderful legislators would just turn the country over to them, and believe it or not it has already begun---Don't believe it? read the Desertification Act, check out UNESCO, do a little reading on Slick Willie and granting of jurisdiction over all major lakes and rivers. What has been going on and constantly escalating over the last 70 years is nothing "NATURAL", it is very methodical and gradual for fear of shaking up someone's beer, bring it to a head and causing the public to take notice.

So you are a lawyer, right? OK, got a question. If a person is found guilty of a crime and ordered to pay a fine and he has nothing but federal reserve notes in his pocket, can he be compelled to pay with them? chew on that for a while ;)

Lynn

... in response to late reply, been way too busy......, posted by Lynn on May 18, 2003

Well thanks or at least suggesting I may have at least a few good points.  I have had a few glasses of wine tonight so I am a bit slow and will end my comments on this thread with this.  I do think our efforts to seek balance would prevent us from giving our national identity to any other country or body.  We have an interesting history of seemingly being a very nice bunch of people, but with some idea of when we have had enough.   Think about it.  We left europe alone and even dd not attack Japan first even when we knew war would likely have to be fought.  (frankly we are too nice if you ask me, and should have followed Chruchhill's advice much earlier.  Heck waiting for years cost the lives of 20 million Russians, (then our temporary allies) and another 8 million allied civilians and combatants. When if we had taken Chruchill's advice, we could have attacked before Germany got too strong and saved many lives.   But that is for another day.   I think that our way of government really means that we will see a swing from time to time to one side or another and wait and see how most things work, modify it a bit, and then see how that works for a while. I frankly can think of many things I did not agree with if you take a snapshot of any point in history.   But in the long run, we have delt with some rather extraordinary things in the life of a relatively young nation.  (I think most of us forget how rather young our country really is)  Think about it.  We have survived, two world wars, and unlike some former "super powers" came away smelling like a rose.  We have survived, a civil war, two wars with England, one with Spain, one with Mexico, civil rights, the first and possibly a second wave of immigration, two economic failures, presidential impeachments, presidential assinations, good lord, have I forgotten any?  And yet, in spite of it all, unlike some of our friends, we have done rather well in my view, and are still the BEST example of how to make things work. Lynn  I bet if I asked you to give me an example of the place you would rather live than here, you would tell me to take a walk.  
  As for the money issue, I have heard many times the arguments on why it is soooooo bad we are no longer on the gold standard, etc.    Well I am no economist, but frankly even the gold standard required faith that gold had some value.  And frankly when we were all on it, well even before that, could anyone ever have thought of titanium, etc in the 1700's?  Nope.  So I guess it should have no value?  Think back to my suggestion regarding the need to be flexible, to change with the times, to be competitive.  
   I must say I admire your efforts to read and think as most of us spend more time figuring out what type of beer to drink than developing any political thought.    But I admire most the fact that there is room for us to not agree, to elect folks that represent our interest and allow them  to voice our positions far beyond our counties or cities where we live.  There was a time in my young life where I had troube with flag waving folks, and sometimes still do. I had trouble saying the pledge at school each day, as I felt there were too many examples of injustice in America.   But I was wrong.   Yes there was injustice, and yes I was right to be concerned, but that was just another snap shot in a much larger picture.   Now as a more reasonable person, (I think that comes with age for all of us)  I can not hear Ray Charles sing America the Beautiful, and not get tears in my eyes.  (if you have not heard him sing that one, you gotta do it)  I just do not get excited about the doom stuff.  I sometimes send off a blasting note to a congressman or the like from time to time, but that is about it.   I sort of feel like the little mute boy at the breakfast table.  There was one such boy who was about 6 years old. He was a perfect little one. Except one thing, he could not speak.   He went to school, and got good grades.   He played with other kid and was just fine.  He even played with his sisters and brothers.  Well one day at breakfast as he got ready for school, he was at the breakfast table, with his Mom Dad, and sisters and brothers.  Dad read the paper and Mom got breakfast ready.  The kids made noise, as kids do.  The little on sat down as he did always and had his bowl of oatmeal as he did most mornings.  All of a sudden, the boy spoke for the first time.  "oatmeal cold".  Everyone stopped.  Mom let go of a pot and it hit the floor, the kids froze and did not speak, Dad laid down his paper and said, "son.  What did you say?"  And the boy said  "oatmeal cold".  Well Mom fainted, Dad began to cry and say. "My son my son he can speak.  This is a miracle. This is terrific.  Son I did not know you could speak. But  . . .  after 6 years of living here and going to school, playing with your friends and family, why now?   Why now do you speak and tell  us that of all things your oat meal is cold?"  And the little boy said,. . .  "Well up to now everything has been just fine!"  

    And that I think sort of says it all about us Americans.  We will speak up when we have had enough

Sorry this is so long. If I could only figure out how to work spell check with this darn thing
     Robert D.
Robert D.

... in response to Re: late reply, been way too busy......, posted by Robert D on May 18, 2003

[This message has been edited by Lynn]

I'll bet you did really well in law school, you have quite a way of circumventing almost any question.

Regarding the gold standard, all I need to know about that issue is found in these passages: Leviticus 19:35-36, Deuteronomy 25:13 -16, Proverbs 16:11, Proverbs 20:23. Where or when in written history has gold or precious metal not been of value?

Now, I knew you would not answer the question that I just posed in the previous post. We both know why.

... in response to Re: Re: late reply, been way too busy......, posted by Lynn on May 18, 2003

Well it's been two days and no comment. I guess I have to answer for you -- again.

Regarding wheater or not someone who has been found to be at fault and a fine has been set by the court: No, he cannot be compelled to pay in federal reserve notes or "paper money" as we know it, unless of course the judge wants to commit a felony. And, by the way, that has nothing to do with a argument over the gold standard----it is the law, plain and simple.

... in response to At least...., posted by LP on May 16, 2003

[This message has been edited by Lynn]

Oh yes, agreed 100%.

Dogma is hard to shake. We all want to have faith.

Winston Churchill once said that; "Most men come face to face with Truth and they just brush them-selves off and hurry on their way."

Anonymous:

"When we awake, the dream is gone, the illusion falls away and the truth shall shine forth"

... in response to Re: In rebuttal, posted by Lynn on May 14, 2003

...your breath Lynn, you'll never reach the masses. Most are too ignorant of the country's history to make any informed statement. Good old Thomas J...he must be spinning in his grave. As for the Patriot Act, right on. Sadly, it's just another in a long line of documents the public is too lazy to read.

"The whole aim of practical politics is to keep the populace alarmed - and thus clamorous to be led to safety - by menacing it with an endless series of hobgoblins - most of them imaginary." - H. L. Mencken

... in response to You're wasting...., posted by LP on May 14, 2003

if Mencken flows from your gullet, I can't hate you.

Now, shall we hear: Belloc, Pound & Chesterton, as well?

Do tell

... in response to L.P., posted by BURKE89 on May 15, 2003

...surprised what flows from my gullet. We're all a lot more complex than we appear on here. (well, some of us) Trust me, I'm a decent enough guy outside this sewer.

I need to stay outta these debates however, because it's somewhat risky. My opinions could be damaging to me in light of recent changes in my  work. (Think about it.)

But hey, feel free to hate away if it makes you feel better...just look how well it works for others. ;)

... in response to You'd be......, posted by LP on May 16, 2003

I tend to agree with the results of 'your' stated opinions: I, rather, enjoy my occupation, as well; so, I under...

Yet, stop insulting Russians, with men in ""tow,"" for you just might find logic... slithering amongest the Right.

Speak: Mr Shaw/Orwell,or 'F'abian with, well, sense.

V.

... in response to You're wasting...., posted by LP on May 14, 2003

I am afraid you are right, still I am a optimist. Mencken hit it right on.

As a friend of mine often quotes-----

"There is tranquility in ignorance,
  but servitude is its partner."

... in response to In rebuttal, posted by John K on May 14, 2003

Noone here has to have a propeska to live where they choose either!!!

... in response to Re: I think we are nominally free, posted by Lynn on May 14, 2003

Even though, there are things I don’t like about this country, I prefer to live in a country that enforces the law rather than in one that doesn’t. I think it was Benito Juarez (former Mexican president) who said something like “My rights end where your rights start” (literal translation?)  “Mis derechos terminan, donde comienzan los tuyos” I think this is enforced and recognized here in the United States better than in any other country in the world.

... in response to Re: Re: I think we are nominally free, posted by Georgina on May 14, 2003

and frankly this expains why just about everone from almost any country tries his or her best to move here.

The lack of freedom issue is bogus. If we lived in a country the size of Iceland, with no diverity of population, language, culture, well that would be simple.  But we do not.  We have a large population many of them immogrants and decendants of immogrants, and frankly I think our constitution has worked very well for all, even though we had some very bad old days in the past, it survived and because of it, so have we as a proud and strong nation.

Robert D.

... in response to Re: Re: Re: I think we are nominally fre..., posted by Robert D on May 14, 2003

...First off, most "immogrants" want entry not for the freedoms but for the economic oppurtunities and a chance to suck off the system when they fail at achieving them. (Our friends from south of the border seem to be especially good at this.) In fact, I know scores who have returned home after milking us for all we're worth, mainly in the Asian community.

Second, the current crop of immigrants from many nations have little or no interest in assimilating, wishing instead to establish a small piece of their own country right here. Come to California and you'll see entire city blocks and shopping malls, as well as city halls, where no English is evident. My city alone has newspapers in 30 languages and by law the state must provide voting ballots in over 75 more.

Third, it's not the enforcement of US laws thats the problem. It's their nature, their effectivness and the process of how they're made that is killing your "proud and strong nation"

Fourth, anyone who thinks the lack of freedom in America is "bogus" (especially since 9-11) is in need of some serious education. Usually it's ill informed hayseeds from the heartland who limit their views to such a narrow perspective. Try a thourogh perusal of the Patriot Act for starters.

... in response to Yikes....., posted by LP on May 14, 2003

Well I have done it again.  Made a typo and started a political discussion.  Well I did not just fall off a turnip truck, but frankly do not feel any less free now than I did in the 60's in fact I feel more free now.  The swing to the far right is as much of a scare to me as the swing to the far left after the 60's.  In the end being "far out"   sorry I could not resist, on either side just means you are dead wrong about most things and are normally agenda driven in your opinions and motives.  

I must admit that immigration in California, is a large problem, ignorned by many liberal minded people that prefer to look at the world as it should be and having no coping skills to handle it as it is, (it seems even Senator Fienstein sp, now thinks it is time to do something about illegals in the country as well as immigration- go figure, the same woman that is critical of SUV's but who drives one almost daily)  
   As for 9-11  I have know the argument, and also know the difficult times we are in and further I am less critical of the efforts of those trying to find solutions than I am of those who are critical but offer no solutions to the problem.  The latter is easy, the former if you are a fair minded policy maker, can weigh very heavily on your mind and heart.  But I travel coast to coast at will and the only military type check point I ever experience is when I enter California.   (even I can over look that)  I have the opportunity to work and have my work pay off, and no one tells me what to do.   I can burn or pee on the american flag, as it is my right (but it still upset me almost to tears when I see anyone do that- and I am no right wing idiot.)  I see all over our country decent people making a living raising their kids, a living a comparatively good life.  
   So as for me any anyone I know, I feel nothing has changed for the worse since the 60's  I feel safe at home work and do not feel I have lost a thing.

Robert D.

... in response to Re: Yikes....., posted by Robert D on May 14, 2003

Yeah, them political things can get messy. I try to stay outta them, a weak moment on my part. Lets just agree to disagree and see who's right in the future. Trust me, I hope it's you.

Btw, we agree on one thing: The illustrious senator from California is a quite a piece of work.

... in response to She's primarily from Sevastopol, posted by John K on May 13, 2003

Thanks. I haven't had the fortune of visiting Ukraine. Hopefully I will someday.

I will agree to some extent that some things are more restrictive here such as the cases you pointed out, but by and large they are more beneficial than harmful. Many of the FSU countries are passing simular laws as time passes. Just as they are restructuring the laws goverening business, they are restructuring social law. They do have a lot of catching up to do in a lot of areas.

I'll make you a promise. When everything with me and the soon to be ex is said and done, I'll give a full account of what all happened. I know that sounds very vague on my part but because my situation is not complete, I cannot elaborate. Legal BS :-) And again, I am sincerily grateful to read good stories such as yours. Stories such as yours give hope!

I should have become a plumber!!!

... in response to She's primarily from Sevastopol, posted by John K on May 13, 2003

Ok, I have never been to UKrine, but frankly, here is my experience.  I met some nice people during my week in St. Pete.   The girl I went to meet was very nice.  But frankly I felt as if I should stand on the corner and pass out prozac during my trip, as no one smiled, and all but except the youngest of women, early 20's, seemed rather serious or even beaten down by life.  After you talked to them they warmed up.   Now freedom, and restrictions, frankly I feel much freer here, and safe in many ways.   Crime is a problem in most major cities, but not so much in the burbs, where I live and most of us live.  But frankly, the mafia presence in St. Pete, and my concern even when taking taxis there was very real, and I am a very tough guy not some pencil neck geek.  It was strange to go to coctail lounges in the city, and see no one there at all but out of town business people and no women, not to mention single ones.  People seemed to work and go home carring their quart of beer with them as they walked to the subway.  So this is very odd to me.  Because of this, although I think the city was beautiful, there was a lack of energy there that was very telling.  The kind of energy you find in most major cities in the US, and even places like Cleveland or Kansas City, two cities that are not on my list of hot places to visit.  So this discussion is rather odd for me.  

Robert D.

... in response to Re: She's primarily from Sevastopol, posted by Robert D on May 13, 2003

[This message has been edited by BURKE89]

however, L.P.'s cynicism is more apt. Our metropolitan centers are  sh..-holes for one reason: the 1965 Immigration Act.

I have a more favorable view on Asian immigration than L.P., because, I've Darwinian/Rushtonian thoughts.

Stop the 'candy-coating.'

'Energy' = 'White/Asian-flight.'

Truth is truth, & logic, even in an un-varnished state, still holds its polish, eh?

Vaughn

... in response to Robert, your a nice fellow..., posted by BURKE89 on May 15, 2003

Well, I wish it were that simple.  Frankly but for California, I can not see how Asian flight has any impact on the rest of america's urban environment.  Frankly in most areas of the country there are not enough Asians to "fly"  I also do not think of Houston as a S hole by any standard, and frankly can think of  a few urban centers that are, but they are not the majority by any means. San Fransisco a S hole,  don't think so.  tooo liberal yes, but hardly that bad.  Atlanta, nope still has energy there, and a good economy.  Denver, nope,  doing just fine I think.  

So I can not buy into that one.   In my city there is revers flight of sort.  The downtown near the quarter has seen a dramatic increase of those folks who otherwise would move to the burbs, but now live where they work. (downtown)  That has been very positive for the tax base.  But now the issue is that most of our businesses (oil and gas and shipping) during the 90's did what most large business did,  merged and consolidated.   Houston got most of it, and it became part of their boom.  WE lost, and it is almost impossible to replace those jobs. That had nothing to do with flight buddy.  Just economics. The truth about oil for example, is that you can run much of the company from a lap top on some deserted island, and subcontract out much of what you needed to have employees do.   As for shipping, increase fuel costs have made ports that are closer to the ocean, gulf of Mexico in this case, more attractive.   Here again Houston, and sadly for my city, even Mobile are more attractive.  
    This change has had a direct effect on my business here, but I am doing well, and frankly will likely retire early anyway.   But this is why no simple answer works in my example, and I suspect others.

Robert D.

... in response to Re: Robert, your a nice fellow..., posted by Robert D on May 16, 2003

You're correct, I think, in your regional thoughts upon Asian immigration & my interpretation of their suburban-flight, as well.

Their sheer numbers, in real terms, are very limited; yet, what I was trying to convey: was their inevitable retreat, much like the former European-American retreat for 'our cities,' that started in the mid-sixties.

A new book of interest, would be: World on Fire: How Exporting Free Market Democracy Breeds Ethnic Violence and Global Instability, Amy Chua, Doubleday.

She's a 'lefty,' who saw her Chinese family killed in the Philippines (the Chinese minority (let alone, being Japanesse) is murdered/hated in: Burma, Indonesia, Thailand, Malaysia etc.

It's analagous to the pale-skinned elites (code-word  Europeans) of Latin America; Jews of Eastern Europe; Dutch (hard-core fighters from Hell - commentary excluded)  of Southern Africa; Indians of East Africa et al.

I guess, my thoughts are: why do I wish to make my nation look like every other 'lovely' nation?

For talent-

Vaughn

PS. I wish you the best in this business climate; for I feel your thoughts, because I've now lost 60% of my base in manufacturing.

... in response to Yes, my thoughts were a tad, well, over-..., posted by BURKE89 on May 17, 2003

thanks for your insight.   not to worry.   I diversified and have not felt the burn of loss of economic base of others.  Plus I have transportable talents, and I feel blessed.  I must admit though, that my energy is not what it was 20 years ago.  I still think if one is creative one will survive almost anything.

Robert D

... in response to Re: She's primarily from Sevastopol, posted by Robert D on May 13, 2003

have you ever been to the flats?

... in response to hey quit slammin cleveland!, posted by cherokee on May 14, 2003

Not slaming Cleveland, but I do think it represents more of what America is like than say New York or LA if you get my drift.  The point was I would take middle America any day over most of what I have seen elsewhere.  

I have enjoyed my visits to other countries and still plan more vists.  But each and every time I enjoy coming home.  When I see how poorly other governments work, those with smaller populations and fewer problems to tackle than we have, I feel comfortable with home more and more.  I just had a terrible experience in Mexico I can explain by e-mail if you want to hear details that makes my point even more.

Robert d.

... in response to Re: hey quit slammin cleveland!, posted by Robert D on May 14, 2003

Robert, you've got me curious and I'm sure most readers of this board would like to know your story in Mexico. Any chance we'll get to see it?

... in response to Enquiring minds, posted by surfscum on May 14, 2003

nothing of real interest to the board.  More politics than anything.  Rather dull stuff really, nothing interesting or exciting.   Never seen your posts here before.  In short I find their economic/political policies as compared to ours, way off the mark.  

Robert d.

... in response to Enquiring minds, posted by surfscum on May 14, 2003

nothing of real interest to the board.  More politics than anything.  Rather dull stuff really, nothing interesting or exciting.   Never seen your posts here before.  In short I find their economic/political policies as compared to ours, way off the mark.  

Robert d.

... in response to Re: She's primarily from Sevastopol, posted by Robert D on May 13, 2003

Smiling at someone in street was considered rude, they would want to know if something was wrong with them. But times are changing, maybe due to Western influence.

... in response to Re: She's primarily from Sevastopol, posted by Robert D on May 13, 2003

I don't know why, but Russians consider smileing at someone you don't know to be rude. It's just a cultural difference.