Foreign, it's all so foreign...

6 views
Skip to first unread message

Leonid V. Belyaev

unread,
Apr 4, 1991, 5:11:31 PM4/4/91
to
In article <1991Apr04.0...@Veritas.COM>, ol...@Veritas.COM (Oleg
Kiselev) writes:
> How Americanized are *any* of us? Could we blend in back into the Soviet
> culture? I can't even speak Russian without an accent any more and I am
> far from being able to speak un-accented English...

I dunno... I was able to blend in pretty well, to be perfectly honest.
When I wanted to appear completely American, Soviets (not immigrants, but
actual Soviets) weren't able to detect that I was born and partially raised
in the Soviet Union. I do speak unaccented English of California. Even
linguists have difficulty determining where I was born. However, I suspect
that I wouldn't be able to blend back into Soviet society at this point.
The last twelve years brought about too many changes, including the culture
and language.

> >but yet, I hardly can feel all-American when
> >hearing a word that reminds me of a Vyssotskii song tugs at my heart-
> >strings.
>
> We grew up on that stuff, Asya. That was our rebellion and our
> counter-culture. How can we throw away something that shaped us?

Again, I'll have to disagree. I was able to throw it away very easily,
despite having been raised there for 14 years. I'm afraid I'm not *that*
fond of it. I must say, though, I also have difficulty thinking of myself
as an American. At this point I classify myself as a European, if I do at
all.

Leo.

Asya Kamsky

unread,
Apr 5, 1991, 1:03:35 PM4/5/91
to
In article <1991Apr05.1...@Veritas.COM> ol...@Veritas.COM (Oleg Kiselev) writes:

>In article <1991Apr4.2...@cs.ucla.edu> l...@AI-Cyclops.JPL.NASA.GOV writes:
>>However, I suspect
>>that I wouldn't be able to blend back into Soviet society at this point.
>>The last twelve years brought about too many changes, including the culture
>>and language.
>
>Exactly. It's more than just language alone. It's tastes, societal
>conventions, needs, cultural indoctrination, etc. I had stopped reading
>books in Russian within 6 months of coming to US and I read quite a lot.
>Most of my technical and scientific lexicon were learned in English.

Yes, and add to that that my Russian now has traces of an American accent!
I never would have believed it myself, but that's what they all tell me.
(I lived there 12 years, here 13) In addition to technical and scientific
vocabulary (which in my Russian is next to non-existant) there's another
one I found myself lacking -- the "dating" vocabulary. Never having
"dated" anyone Russian all the associated phrases seem "made up" and
weird sounding. I would guess that anyone else who came over before
dating age might feel the same way. Or is that just that American English
is more expressive on the subject?


>
>>>How can we throw away something that shaped us?
>>Again, I'll have to disagree. I was able to throw it away very easily,
>>despite having been raised there for 14 years.

I have a friend who came over here at 16 and she claims that she threw it
all away. She's a money grubbing yuppie with an MBA who works on Wall Street.
On the inside though she's just like the rest of us -- torn, if not lost.

>This is ineteresting, because I, too, feel that whatever I have become, the
>major component of what I am is "continental European".
>
>Are we being just a bunch of cultural snobs?

Yes! And like good snobs we should be proud of that!

--
"She's making movies on location she don't know what it means"

Asya Kamsky e-mail: as...@ux5.lbl.gov Go Red Sox
(415)486-7428 other: Lawrence Berkeley Labs, 50/232 Die Yuppie Scum

Oleg Kiselev

unread,
Apr 5, 1991, 7:00:38 AM4/5/91
to
>However, I suspect
>that I wouldn't be able to blend back into Soviet society at this point.
>The last twelve years brought about too many changes, including the culture
>and language.

Exactly. It's more than just language alone. It's tastes, societal


conventions, needs, cultural indoctrination, etc. I had stopped reading
books in Russian within 6 months of coming to US and I read quite a lot.
Most of my technical and scientific lexicon were learned in English.

>>How can we throw away something that shaped us?


>Again, I'll have to disagree. I was able to throw it away very easily,
>despite having been raised there for 14 years.

Strange. I very rarely hear that stuff, may be once a year or so at a
family gathering. Yet I did not either make an attempt to "throw it away,"
or consciously keep it in my mind. Nor did it go away by itself. Like
auditory memory of the voices of my classmates and friends in USSR, that
I can still call up and hear in my head...

>I must say, though, I also have difficulty thinking of myself
>as an American. At this point I classify myself as a European, if I do at
>all.

This is ineteresting, because I, too, feel that whatever I have become, the


major component of what I am is "continental European".

Are we being just a bunch of cultural snobs?

--
DISCLAMMER: I speak for myself only, unless explicitly indicated otherwise.
Oleg Kiselev ol...@veritas.com
VERITAS Software ...!{apple|uunet}!veritas!oleg
(408)727-1222x586

larissa kun

unread,
Apr 5, 1991, 6:06:50 PM4/5/91
to
In article <11...@dog.ee.lbl.gov> as...@ux5.lbl.gov (Asya Kamsky) writes:

>(I lived there 12 years, here 13) In addition to technical and scientific
>vocabulary (which in my Russian is next to non-existant) there's another
>one I found myself lacking -- the "dating" vocabulary. Never having
>"dated" anyone Russian all the associated phrases seem "made up" and
>weird sounding. I would guess that anyone else who came over before
>dating age might feel the same way. Or is that just that American English
>is more expressive on the subject?


I wouldn't say that English is in anyway more expressive on that subject
or for that matter swearing. When I'm angry and I swear, I do it in
Russian, even though I was only 8 and a half when I left and learned it
all here. Still it sounds so much more emphatic in Russian!!!!!!


As for dating Russian men, don't think you're missing that much........
(NO FLAMES GUYS, I have valid complaints ;-) )
Not to group them or anything, and god knows that ones that have been here
for a while are much better, but they do tend to be a bit chauvanistic.

The one good thing about them is that they are almost guaranteed to be
above 68 IQ (the general IQ in Columbus-OSU). I mean most are quite
intelligent and it's nice not to have a guy look at you like you're
a nerd if you say you like to read a lot.

>
>>This is ineteresting, because I, too, feel that whatever I have become, the
>>major component of what I am is "continental European".
>>
>>Are we being just a bunch of cultural snobs?
>
>Yes! And like good snobs we should be proud of that!
>
>--


Ever talk to the French? No we can never even aspire to their levels of
snobbism.........:->

Leonid V. Belyaev

unread,
Apr 5, 1991, 7:36:25 PM4/5/91
to
In article <11...@dog.ee.lbl.gov>, as...@ux5.lbl.gov (Asya Kamsky) writes:
> [...] In addition to technical and scientific

> vocabulary (which in my Russian is next to non-existant) there's another
> one I found myself lacking -- the "dating" vocabulary. Never having
> "dated" anyone Russian all the associated phrases seem "made up" and
> weird sounding. I would guess that anyone else who came over before
> dating age might feel the same way. Or is that just that American English
> is more expressive on the subject?

No, I think it has something to do with the fact that there IS real dating in
the States... :^)

> I have a friend who came over here at 16 and she claims that she threw it
> all away. She's a money grubbing yuppie with an MBA who works on Wall Street.
> On the inside though she's just like the rest of us -- torn, if not lost.

Hmm... I would have to say I do not consider myself a money-grubbing yuppie.
But I also do not consider myself to be torn. It *is* difficult to pinpoint
a place to which I feel associations of "homeland", but speaking in general
terms,


> >This is ineteresting, because I, too, feel that whatever I have become, the
> >major component of what I am is "continental European".

^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
will do JUST fine.

> >
> >Are we being just a bunch of cultural snobs?
>
> Yes! And like good snobs we should be proud of that!

Why, soitainly! Proud cultural snobs of the world, unite!

:^)

Leo.

Oleg Kiselev

unread,
Apr 6, 1991, 4:09:30 AM4/6/91
to
In article <11...@dog.ee.lbl.gov> as...@ux5.lbl.gov (Asya Kamsky) writes:
>Or is that just that American English is more expressive on the subject?

Perhaps we are just better acculturated to using it, both because it's
something we all do now and because in US, unlike USSR, you can easily
get indoctrinated into "Flirting, American Style" simply by watching TV.

But the most erotic and intense expressions in English sound incredibly
clumsy, bizarre and stupid in Russian. Huh... Maybe they are incredibly
clumsy, bizarre and stupid in English, too, but we simply don't notice
it in the flood of pheromones?

>On the inside though she's just like the rest of us -- torn, if not lost.

Torn? Or torn out of the immigrant community's "mainstream" and thrust
into a life style that suits her better?

Viktor Dukhovni

unread,
Apr 8, 1991, 12:07:44 AM4/8/91
to
>
>Ahem, ahem!!! No, I don't think I will accept it :-)
>Shall we see a show of hands please?
>I think Larissa and I cast our votes, and Oleg his... anyone else?
>

Generalizing personal preference can be futile. There are basically
two issues here.

1) Common cultural roots. It is easier to enjoy the company
of people to whom one can communicate humor and inuendo efficiently
without misunderstaning or lengthy explanations. It also matters
to what extent one is comfortable with (nostalgic about) one's roots.

2) Cultural male/female roles. These are different there and
here (wherever here is? don't ask me! :-), so friction
can arise when an interesting partner is uncomfortable with
the rules, or simply ambivalent. Natives are probably easier
to judge in this regard... immigrants are easier to prejudge,
take your choice.

There is also a question of millieu, one rarely meets people out
of context and we all are likely to be slightly different people
in Russian company than in American or Australian or ...

There is a Vyssotski song for every occasion:
(From memory, may not be entirely accurate).

Naverno ya pogib glaza zakroyu, vizhu,
Naverno ya pogib robeyu, a potom,
Kuda mne do neyo ona byla v Parizhe,
I ya vchera uznal, ne tol'ko v nem odnom.

Kakye Pesni pel, ya yei pro sever dal'niy
Pro shchetchik, pro tovo kto ran'she s neyu byl
No chto yey do menya, ona byla v Parizhe,
Ey sam Marsel Marso chevoto govoril.

Ya spel togda yeshche, ya dumal eto blizhe
Ya dumal vot chut' chut' i budem my na ty.
No ya naprasno pel o polose neytral'noi
Ey gluboko plevat' kakiye tam tsvety.

Ya brosil svoi zavod, khot' v`obshchem byl ne vprave
Zasel za slovari na sovest' i na strakh
Kuda mne do neyo, ona uzhe v Varshave
My snova govorim na raznykh yazykakh

Priedet ya skashu po Pols'ki proshu pani,
Voz'mi takim kak yest' ne budu bolshe pet'
No chto ey do menya, ona uzhe(?) v Irane.
Ya ponyal mne za ney konechno ne uspet'

Ved' one sevodnya zdes' a zavtra budet v Oslo
Da ya popal v prosak, da ya popal v bedu.
Kto byli do menya, i te kot budut posle
pust' dumayut oni, ya luchshe perezhdu.


Anyone care to translate?

>Asya Kamsky e-mail: as...@ux5.lbl.gov Go Red Sox
>(415)486-7428 other: Lawrence Berkeley Labs, 50/232 Die Yuppie Scum

^^^^^^^^^^^^^
While we are generalizing,
Yuppies are people who are 40 at age 20, hippies are 20 at age 40.
There is room for normalcy in between. Perhaps "act your age or die" is the
precept you have in mind, but it begins to sound harsh :-) :-) :-)

[ I just wanted to take a dig, let's not make a mountain
out of a mole hill ]

P.S. This article may be construed as an excuse for posting one of my
favourite Vyssotski songs, and as attempt to exorcize the "All yuppies work
on Wall St., Socrates(or Viktor) works on Wall St., hence Socrates(or Viktor)
is a yuppie" syllogism.
--
Viktor Dukhovni <vik...@shearson.com> : ARPA
<...!uunet!shearson.com!viktor> : UUCP
388 Greenwich St., 11th floor, NY, NY 10013 : US-Post
+1-(212)-464-3793 : VOICE

Asya Kamsky

unread,
Apr 7, 1991, 5:55:00 AM4/7/91
to
In article <1991Apr06.0...@Veritas.COM> ol...@Veritas.COM (Oleg Kiselev) writes:
>>As for dating Russian men, don't think you're missing that much........
>>(NO FLAMES GUYS, I have valid complaints ;-) )
>Ahem! No flames, but will you accept it that I have the same comment to make
>about ex-Soviet women?

Ahem, ahem!!! No, I don't think I will accept it :-)
Shall we see a show of hands please?
I think Larissa and I cast our votes, and Oleg his... anyone else?

--

John Hyde

unread,
Apr 7, 1991, 12:25:25 PM4/7/91
to
In article <11...@dog.ee.lbl.gov> as...@ux5.lbl.gov (Asya Kamsky) writes:
>In article <1991Apr06.0...@Veritas.COM> ol...@Veritas.COM
>(Oleg Kiselev) writes:
>>>As for dating Russian men, don't think you're missing that much....
>>>(NO FLAMES GUYS, I have valid complaints ;-) )
>>Ahem! No flames, but will you accept it that I have the same comment
>>to make about ex-Soviet women?
>
>Ahem, ahem!!! No, I don't think I will accept it :-)
>Shall we see a show of hands please?

Hopefully, I will have something to say about this in about about 5
months, when my Soviet pen-pal comes to visit. :-)

--
-John C. Hyde |"Only a brave person is willing honestly to admit,
|and fearlessly to face, what a sincere and logical
|mind discovers." -Rodan of Alexandria

Michael Rabinovich

unread,
Apr 8, 1991, 1:56:06 AM4/8/91
to
In article <11...@dog.ee.lbl.gov> as...@ux5.lbl.gov (Asya Kamsky) writes:
>Ahem, ahem!!! No, I don't think I will accept it :-)
>Shall we see a show of hands please?
>I think Larissa and I cast our votes, and Oleg his... anyone else?
>
C'mon, folks, let's not stereotype ourselves (Have not we been stereotyped
enough in the USSR?). If you met some lousy guy or woman it was just your
bad luck. Be more selective next time!

Misha.

larissa kun

unread,
Apr 8, 1991, 2:20:11 PM4/8/91
to
In article <11...@dog.ee.lbl.gov> as...@ux5.lbl.gov (Asya Kamsky) writes:
>In article <1991Apr06.0...@Veritas.COM> ol...@Veritas.COM (Oleg Kiselev) writes:
>>>As for dating Russian men, don't think you're missing that much........
>>>(NO FLAMES GUYS, I have valid complaints ;-) )
>>Ahem! No flames, but will you accept it that I have the same comment to make
>>about ex-Soviet women?
>
>Ahem, ahem!!! No, I don't think I will accept it :-)
>Shall we see a show of hands please?
>I think Larissa and I cast our votes, and Oleg his... anyone else?

Here's an old favorite example. This 23 yr old Odessit I was dating (I was 18)
actually called his mother to complain that I didn't make his kotlyeti
exactly to his liking. The problem was I mixed green peppers in with them,
and they didn't taste exactly like Mommy made them. Or the one time that
the boyfriend (is Kieva) of a friend of mine told me how LUCKY we were(me
and his girlfriend) to get such great catches as Russian men, oh and
professional ones too. And boy was he serious too. I could go on and on
and on.....

Pust' vsegda budyet solntse
Pust' vsegda budyet nyebo.......


About Vissotskiy: My American roommate when hearing him, commented that he
sounds a lot like the music my roommate listens to (screaming punk).
;->

Na bratskix mogilax ne stavyat kryesti ..........


Larissa

Dmitry Cherkassky

unread,
Apr 8, 1991, 2:45:56 PM4/8/91
to
> This 23 yr old Odessit I was dating
^^^^^^^

> Or the one time that the boyfriend (is Kieva)
> Larissa ^^^^^^^

Hmm, they are both from Ukraine... Could that have something to do with it? :)

Dima
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
since posting Russian songs in Roman alphabet seems to be in:

Durakom byt' vygodno, da ochen' uz ne khochetsa
Umnym khochetsa, da konchetsa bit'yom


A na kladbische vsyo spokoynenko...



Asya Kamsky

unread,
Apr 8, 1991, 5:07:45 PM4/8/91
to
In article <104...@tut.cis.ohio-state.edu> k...@bass.cis.ohio-state.edu (larissa kun) writes:
>and they didn't taste exactly like Mommy made them. Or the one time that

Oh, boy, does that ever beg for a follow-up... can I hold myself back?

>the boyfriend (is Kieva) of a friend of mine told me how LUCKY we were(me
>and his girlfriend) to get such great catches as Russian men, oh and
>professional ones too. And boy was he serious too. I could go on and on

Yes, unfortunately that sort of is the attitude of a lot of Russians in
my experience as well.

>About Vissotskiy: My American roommate when hearing him, commented that he
>sounds a lot like the music my roommate listens to (screaming punk).

When my (XSoviet) friend heard Tom Waits she thought he sounded like
Vyssotskii. I mentioned that to my parents, and they thought it was
blastphemy. :-)

>Na bratskix mogilax ne stavyat kryesti ..........

No razve ot 'etogo lehche?

Kenneth Kron

unread,
Apr 8, 1991, 6:05:09 PM4/8/91
to
From article <11...@dog.ee.lbl.gov>, by as...@ux5.lbl.gov (Asya Kamsky):

> In article <1991Apr06.0...@Veritas.COM> ol...@Veritas.COM (Oleg Kiselev) writes:
>>>As for dating Russian men, don't think you're missing that much........
>>>(NO FLAMES GUYS, I have valid complaints ;-) )
>>Ahem! No flames, but will you accept it that I have the same comment to make
>>about ex-Soviet women?
>
> Ahem, ahem!!! No, I don't think I will accept it :-)
> Shall we see a show of hands please?
> I think Larissa and I cast our votes, and Oleg his... anyone else?
>
> --
> "She's making movies on location she don't know what it means"
>
> Asya Kamsky e-mail: as...@ux5.lbl.gov Go Red Sox
Well I didn't catch the beginning of this but I have had exactly 2
experiences dating Russian women (one here in the states and one in
Russia) and I found both to be enjoyable. Not any better or worse than
other foriegn women I've dated but in general better than dating locals
(maybe it's just 'cause people who travel have a different perspective).
--
Kenneth Kron -- Bit Whys Software & Technology Consulting
293 Sleeper Ave
Mountain View, CA 94040-3818
email: (usenet) kr...@netcom.COM (compuserve) 76040,1756

larissa kun

unread,
Apr 9, 1991, 1:52:39 PM4/9/91
to
In article <40...@netnews.upenn.edu> ch...@narwhal.cis.upenn.edu (Dmitry Cherkassky) writes:
>> This 23 yr old Odessit I was dating
> ^^^^^^^
>> Or the one time that the boyfriend (is Kieva)
>> Larissa ^^^^^^^
>
>Hmm, they are both from Ukraine... Could that have something to do with it? :)
>
>Dima

It could be since Odessiti are supposed to be the most nagliye lyudi in CCCP
but at least they have a sense of humor!!!


I've talked to some Moskvichi i Leningradtsi and been my usual sarcastic self,
and after about 15 minutes, they asked me "oh are you being sarcastic?"


Until this recent wave of immigration, Cleveland had mostly Ukrainian
immigrants, the one man I knew from Moscow that was close to my age
ended up in jail. He brought his dog (!) with him from CCCP and
they were pretty close in everything (thought,.....).


I guess my biggest complaint about Soviet (or ex) men is that they
expect the women to do everything. When I asked a friend of mine why
his apt was so messy, he replied by saying he needed to find a Soviet
girlfriend and then it wouldn't be.


;) ;)

. .
\______/


/\APUCA

Mikhail Zeleny

unread,
Apr 9, 1991, 4:29:24 PM4/9/91
to
In article <11...@dog.ee.lbl.gov> as...@ux5.lbl.gov (Asya Kamsky) writes:
>In article <1991Apr06.0...@Veritas.COM> ol...@Veritas.COM (Oleg Kiselev) writes:
>>>As for dating Russian men, don't think you're missing that much........
>>>(NO FLAMES GUYS, I have valid complaints ;-) )
>>Ahem! No flames, but will you accept it that I have the same comment to make
>>about ex-Soviet women?
>
>Ahem, ahem!!! No, I don't think I will accept it :-)
>Shall we see a show of hands please?
>I think Larissa and I cast our votes, and Oleg his... anyone else?

While mostly exogamous, I try to approach each woman on her individual merits.

Part of the trouble involved in erotic dallying with my esteemed female
compatriots seems to arise from the fact that Russian language is
ill-suited for any form of romantic repartee falling between the
exceedingly sublime and the extremely vulgar. Since my own proclivities
tend to occur between these extremes, all communication becomes awkward at
best.

Furthermore, many women of my own ethnic background (Russian Jew) tend to
assume that our shared origins give them a special, privileged insight into
my person. Regrettably, they are wrong.

Still, it's the exceptions that never fail to delight...

/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\
| ``If there are no Platonic ideals, then what did we fight for?'' |
| (A Spanish Republican) |
| Mikhail Zeleny Harvard |
| 872 Massachusetts Ave., Apt. 707 doesn't |
| Cambridge, Massachusetts 02139 think |
| (617) 661-81-51 so |
| email zel...@math.harvard.edu or zel...@zariski.harvard.edu |
\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/

Oleg Kiselev

unread,
Apr 9, 1991, 6:50:43 PM4/9/91
to
In article <1991Apr8.0...@shearson.com> vik...@shearson.com (Viktor Dukhovni) writes:
> 1) Common cultural roots. It is easier to enjoy the company
> of people to whom one can communicate humor and inuendo efficiently
> without misunderstaning or lengthy explanations.

Which is why I found it much easier to date Jews, but not *Russian* Jews.

Just how important are the specific cultural roots vs. the common ethnic
culture? It seems to me that too much similarity fosters expectations
that may not necessarily get met, where as the more diverse backgrounds
promote recognition and appreciation of the common cultural elements.

> 2) Cultural male/female roles.

This is quite jarring when I come in contact with the less assimilated
or newly arrived ex-Soviets. Racism, sexism, homophobia and cultural
elitism which are mainstays of the Soviet culture make me cringe...

> Anyone care to translate?

I am tempted to, but there are others here who do a less literal and more
literate job of it.

Oleg Kiselev

unread,
Apr 9, 1991, 6:53:03 PM4/9/91
to
>actually called his mother to complain that I didn't make his kotlyeti
>exactly to his liking. The problem was I mixed green peppers in with them,

Ugh! No WONDER he was complaining! People have been hanged for lesser
offences.

Doug Berkland

unread,
Apr 10, 1991, 1:29:14 AM4/10/91
to
With all this discussion about dating, the richnest of Russian comes to mind.
I know that Russian is a very rich language, but what is some of the vocabulary
used in dating. (i.e. in america, one can be seeing some one, one can like
someone, also are there different verbs for different types of love?, the list
goes on)
Any help is appreciated to help a curious student of Russian.
--
Doug Berkland Internet: gt5...@hydra.gatech.edu Phone: (404)676-9068
uucp: ...!{decvax,hplabs,ncar,purdue,rutgers}!gatech!prism!gt5223b
Georgia Institute of Technology, Atlanta GA 30332 <<Electrical Engineer>>
"If I don't have it, how do I know I don't want it?" --me

larissa kun

unread,
Apr 10, 1991, 12:07:18 PM4/10/91
to
In article <1991Apr09.2...@Veritas.COM> ol...@Veritas.COM (Oleg Kiselev) writes:
>In article <1991Apr8.0...@shearson.com> vik...@shearson.com (Viktor Dukhovni) writes:
>> 1) Common cultural roots. It is easier to enjoy the company
>> of people to whom one can communicate humor and inuendo efficiently
>> without misunderstaning or lengthy explanations.
>
>Which is why I found it much easier to date Jews, but not *Russian* Jews.


I've found it just the opposite. What does the jewish 'blood' though
have in common with your cultural roots? Really russian, ukrainian,
or whatever is more or less the culture we grew up with. Jewish was the
distinction we made when talking about being Soviet. But here, I find
I'm more ex-soviet than jewish. Actually, I have more in common with
gentile Americans than jewish Americans.

>
>Just how important are the specific cultural roots vs. the common ethnic
>culture? It seems to me that too much similarity fosters expectations
>that may not necessarily get met, where as the more diverse backgrounds
>promote recognition and appreciation of the common cultural elements.
>
>> 2) Cultural male/female roles.
>
>This is quite jarring when I come in contact with the less assimilated
>or newly arrived ex-Soviets. Racism, sexism, homophobia and cultural
>elitism which are mainstays of the Soviet culture make me cringe...


I agree with this. And what do you mean by "less assimilated or newly
arrived ex-Soviets."

Just about every ex-Soviet I know still judges a neighborhood by skolko
cheyornix tam est'. Maybe I've just had luck with ex-Soviets I've
met but here's another story: this guy was telling me something about
this Russian girl and he (also russian) said that she slept around a
lot but that she could STILL maybe get a Russian husband except for the
fact that she had slept s chyornim. Talking about sexism and racism.

Oleg Kiselev

unread,
Apr 11, 1991, 2:35:02 AM4/11/91
to
In article <63...@husc6.harvard.edu> zel...@walsh.harvard.edu (Mikhail Zeleny) writes:
>Part of the trouble involved in erotic dallying with my esteemed female
>compatriots seems to arise from the fact that Russian language is
>ill-suited for any form of romantic repartee falling between the
>exceedingly sublime and the extremely vulgar.

Further more, from my (admittedly limited) exposure to ex-Soviet women, their
ethics, behaviour, sensuality and sexualty are usually best classified as
"traditional." This is very much in dischord with my needs and expectations.
I am used to women who are independent, aggressive, open, do not hesitate to
communicate their needs and dislikes and are willing to be an equal partner
in the relationship. This, unfortunately, does not describe any of the
ex-Soviet women I have ever tried going out with or encountered.

Not all of them, of course, were wildly incompatible with me on all of these
traits, but enough differences existed to make any sort of meaningful
relationship impossible.

Oleg Kiselev

unread,
Apr 11, 1991, 8:12:17 PM4/11/91
to
In article <105...@tut.cis.ohio-state.edu> k...@carp.cis.ohio-state.edu (larissa kun) writes:
>What does the jewish 'blood' though
>have in common with your cultural roots? Really russian, ukrainian,
>or whatever is more or less the culture we grew up with.

That's an interesting question. It is possible that where you grow up
in USSR makes a great amnmount of difference. I grew up in Kishinev, where
the Jewish community was quite substantial and culturally distinct from
the Moldavian and "imported" Russian communities. This probably enhanced
the feeling of Jewish identity. I suppose other large Jewish enclaves
would be similar.

It is also possible that the age at which one left USSR determines the degree
of conscious belonging to the culture. It's all too easy to become "Russian"
in US, especially if you never had a chance to feel "Jewish" back in the SU.

>But here, I find I'm more ex-soviet than jewish.

As somone else has already said, some of us feel more "European" than
"ex-Soviet."

>Actually, I have more in common with gentile Americans than jewish Americans.

Having had close relationships with both groups, I can state with confidence
that my experiences are the exact opposite of yours.

>And what do you mean by "less assimilated or newly arrived ex-Soviets."

Is that a question? If so, I am not sure I have a good answer. Come to
think of it, the unsavory "reactionary" views espoused by so many of our
are often very much in-line with the mainstream American racism, sexism,
homophobia and so on.

Leonid V. Belyaev

unread,
Apr 12, 1991, 4:02:53 PM4/12/91
to
In article <1991Apr12....@Veritas.COM>, ol...@Veritas.COM (Oleg Kiselev) writes:
> >And what do you mean by "less assimilated or newly arrived ex-Soviets."
>
> Is that a question? If so, I am not sure I have a good answer. Come to
> think of it, the unsavory "reactionary" views espoused by so many of our
> are often very much in-line with the mainstream American racism, sexism,
> homophobia and so on.

Hmm... Couldn't sit by this one. My observation is that the "typical"
ex-Soviet tends to lean futher right than mainstream America (even after
the reagan revolution). I won't claim that in the case of sexism (too
many Russian-Jewish families are run by the wife), but it is certainly the
case in racism and homophobia. Ex-Soviets seem to go out of their way to
indicate just how disgusted they are with non-whites and gay people,
stereotyping shamelessly and baselessly, and going out of their way to
claim how none of *them* are anything like that. To be perfectly honest,
that really disgusts me. Seems like living in the opression and hatered
of the Soviet Union didn't teach them a damned thing. It's a shame.

Leo.

Dan Boyd

unread,
Apr 12, 1991, 8:04:38 PM4/12/91
to

In article <1991Apr12....@jpl-devvax.jpl.nasa.gov>,

l...@ai-cyclops.jpl.nasa.gov (Leonid V. Belyaev) writes:
|> Ex-Soviets seem to go out of their way to indicate just how
|> disgusted they are with non-whites and gay people [...]
|> Seems like living in the opression and hatred of the Soviet Union

|> didn't teach them a damned thing. It's a shame.

On the contrary -- they learned very well. Hate someone, and they'll
learn to hate. The Germans were hated after World War I; they took
their anger out by hating the Jews, once the British and the French
didn't make good hate-targets any more. (Though anti-semitism had
been common beforehand, it hadn't ever been so big.)
The Jews, being hated by the Nazis, went on to hate the
Palestinians, once the Germans weren't available to be hated (since
the Germans had been beaten). The Palestinians hate the Israelis
really bad right now, but once something happens and the Israelis
aren't there to be hated (like if the Palestinians get a state, I
guess), the Palestinians will probably pick someone else, maybe the
West, to hate.
And the European Protestants, hated in Europe, moved to
America and went around hating the blacks. The blacks, having been
hated in America, have learned to hate -- cf. Farrakhan. It's an
unending cycle, and it's pointless to think anything global can be
done about it. You might as well try to end war (which can't be done
either).
People can be pretty depressing sometimes. Try to find a part
of the world that isn't presently mired in some meaningless hatred or
warfare to live in for your children -- that's about all you can do.
A lot of Soviet emigres are coming out of the SU with
preconceived notions and axes to grind. The Soviet Union is primitive
in more ways than just lack of VCRs and Chobham armor. If you can,
try to help them -- give them an example to follow, and if something
someone does makes you mad, let them know!


Daniel F. Boyd
con...@bingvaxu.cc.binghamton.edu
CONTACT ALIENS BOTH BENEVOLENT AND EVIL!
DON'T STIR OR DISTURB THE RICE!
210526315789473684

Asya Kamsky

unread,
Apr 12, 1991, 2:08:19 PM4/12/91
to
In article <1991Apr12....@Veritas.COM> ol...@Veritas.COM (Oleg Kiselev) writes:
>In article <105...@tut.cis.ohio-state.edu> k...@carp.cis.ohio-state.edu (larissa kun) writes:
>>Actually, I have more in common with gentile Americans than jewish Americans.
>Having had close relationships with both groups, I can state with confidence
>that my experiences are the exact opposite of yours.

My experiences are more in line with Oleg's, rather than Larissa's, however,
having lived on the East and the West coasts, my experience is that the
Jewish community is a lot more Jewish on the East coast than here. I have
actually known people on the West coast for months and never had any idea
that they were Jewish (unles they were originally from the East Coast),
and that was never the case back East. I don't know why that is so...

--
"She's making movies on location she don't know what it means"

Asya Kamsky e-mail: as...@ux5.lbl.gov Go Red Sox

Dimitri Vulis, CUNY GC Math

unread,
Apr 14, 1991, 12:42:05 PM4/14/91
to

I too am an emigre from the USSR. I had a mostly Jewish mother and a
mostly non-Jewish father. I've heard a lot of insults from Soviet emigres
that call themselves "purebred Jews" and express hatred for Russians
and 1/2 Russians.
Dimitri Vulis
CUNY GC Math
D...@CUNYVMS1.BITNET D...@CUNYVMS1.GC.CUNY.EDU

Roadster Racewerks

unread,
Apr 14, 1991, 8:11:17 PM4/14/91
to

I'm not sure this is an accurate analysis of what happens. My late father-in-law
was a German Russian, and when he grew up he embraced the US by avoiding
everything his family (most of whom came here) stood for, even the GOOD parts.
He dropped the family name during WWII (Hamburg was changed to Hammond) and when
the rest of the family refused, he dropped THEM! (Not an uncommon story, I think
it's a symptom of personal insecurity.) He picked up a lot of traits HE
associated with being a "real American", which he got from his fellow blue-
collar workers, namely racism, anti-semitism, rough language, etc. He died a
real pain in the ass who thought he was a real American.

The husband of a Hungarian friend among a bunch who fled the Hungarian Revolt
became a "real American" by becoming the most right-wing sort of nutty
Republican you could imagine, because he thought that was as far from Communism
as he could get. (I'm a Republican myself, so I mean NUTTY!) His wife (a more
intelligent person) simply could not explain to him that Democrats were NOT "the
enemy", nor could any of the local Republicans. He embarrassed anyone who
brought up the subject of politics in his zeal to be American, and thus anti-
Communist...insulting Democrats to their faces in the most disgusting terms,
calling them "traitors" and "leftists" until his poor wife wanted to sink into
the ground...

There are myriad storys of poor souls who forbade their children to learn their
"old" language, or show any interest in their former customs, not only Jews, but
Irish, Poles, Germans, Russians...you name it. My daughter's old boyfriend
(English) has an aunt in Texas who has gone to great lengths to cultivate a
Texas accent and wear Texan clothing, despite having an upper-class English
upbringing back in Sussex...

Some of my own ancestors worked on it so hard we don't know what they once were.

Suze Hammond
tri...@agora.rain.com

John C. Hyde

unread,
Apr 16, 1991, 3:11:22 PM4/16/91
to
In article <1991Apr15.0...@agora.rain.com> tri...@agora.rain.com
(Roadster Racewerks) writes:
>
>My daughter's old boyfriend (English) has an aunt in Texas who has
>gone to great lengths to cultivate a Texas accent and wear Texan
>clothing, despite having an upper-class English upbringing back in
>Sussex...

Mmmm. Maybe she's a tad bit smarter than you think! (You'd have to
_live_ here to understand). (BTW, one of Maggie Thatcher's kids is
married to a Texan).

Bumper sticker on my car used to read:

"Yankee by birth, TEXAN by choice!"

:-) :-) :-) :-)

--
-John C. Hyde jh...@convex.com

Ivan Derzhanski

unread,
Apr 15, 1991, 8:33:55 PM4/15/91
to
>About Vissotskiy: My American roommate when hearing him, commented that he
>sounds a lot like the music my roommate listens to (screaming punk).

Was this a favourable evaluation or otherwise? :-)

It is already an error to say that _oxripshij ego bariton_ (B. Okudzhava)
sounds like any _music_; it is the text that matters (together with his
manner of performance, of course), so non-Russian speaking people should
be excused from accepting his art.

BTW, a lecturer in Russian here used _On ne vernulsja iz boja_ in her
class last year. I went through the song together with a student whom
I tutored. It was a pleasant experience, of course, but, boy, was my
task difficult. Still, it is one of the (relatively) easier songs...

>Na bratskix mogilax ne stavyat kryesti ..........

_Krestov_, Larissa. Rhymed with _[bukety] cvetov_ and _[plachuschix] vdov_.

>Larissa


--
Ivan A. Derzhanski i...@chaos.cs.brandeis.edu
MB 1766 / Brandeis University How do you know that this life
P.O.Box 9110 / Waltham, MA 02254-9110 / USA isn't another world's hell?

Mikhail Zeleny

unread,
Apr 18, 1991, 8:10:51 AM4/18/91
to
In article <1991Apr17....@jarvis.csri.toronto.edu> gfe...@eecg.toronto.edu (Gennady Feygin) writes:
>First a point of information: there is no such thing as mostly Jewish or
>mostly non-Jewish (just like little-bit pregnant). If your maternal grandmother
>is Jewish than your mother and yourselves are also Jewish (as far as Jews are
>concerned). For more information on this subject --- soc.culture.jewish where
>the subject of "Who is a Jew" has been debated ad nauseum.
>

This is a more complicated question than you seem to think.
It also matters what the antisemites think;
for Jewishness is not only decided by Jews:
remember the Nuremberg Laws?)
For intelligent and compassionate
discussion, read Sartre's book on this subject.

As far as I am concerned,
whoever wants to be a Jew,
is one.

Quite a few of my ``shiksa'' girlfriends
came to consider themselves
as Jewish by injection...


> I've heard a lot of insults from Soviet emigres
>>that call themselves "purebred Jews" and express hatred for Russians
>>and 1/2 Russians.
>

Assholes exist everywhere.

Only animals are bred.

>First some background info: in USSR there was considerable amount of
>resentment by Jews of "1/2 Russians",
>who, almost without exception took the surnames and the nationality of their
>non-Jewish parents and were frequently more virulent anti-Semites than
>Russians (this phenomenon is quite frequent in Jewish history -- there is
> a large number of cases recorded in Middle Ages and before of Jewish
>converts to Cristianity and or Greek/Roman paganism who led the persecutions
>of Jews who chose to remain Jews).
>

Hitler is very likely to have had a Jewish grandfather...

Indeed, it seems far more difficult
to cease being a Jew
than to become one.

Groucho liked to tell a story of a congenitally deformed friend of his,
who was walking past a synagogue with another fellow.

The latter looked at the building,
and muttered:
``You know... I used to be a Jew.''

To which the first replied:
``I know; I used to be a hunchback!''

>Of course this in no way justifies hatred or insults. The people who in their
>ignorance make a big deal out of their "pure" breeding are to be pitied... and
>avoided.
>

Put them to stud.

Preferably on a desert island,
so that their blood cannot get contaminated.


>>Dimitri Vulis
>>CUNY GC Math
>>D...@CUNYVMS1.BITNET D...@CUNYVMS1.GC.CUNY.EDU
>

>G.Feygin
>[Standard Disclaimer]


/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\
| ``If there are no Platonic ideals, then what did we fight for?'' |
| (A Spanish Republican) |
| Mikhail Zeleny |

| whose children will be Jews, |
| no matter what else they might be... Harvard |

Oleg Kiselev

unread,
Apr 18, 1991, 11:45:42 PM4/18/91
to
>Is it possible that ex-Soviets, having had to deal with Soviet Propaganda,
>have learned to read between the lines of the well-meaning liberal slogans
>too well, and so they do not believe in discrimination (aka affirmative
>action programs), paying people not to work (aka welfare) etc.

Then the same jaded sensibilities would cause the ex-Soviets to doubt anything
said by the State Dept, see the thinly veiled cheap propaganda in the
pronouncement of the President and laugh at the patent absurdity of any
extrimist slogans. Yet, the immediate willingness to adop the extreme-right
wing views is frighteningly prevalent among the ex-Soviets. They really go
for the "law-and-order" rhetoric, the "war on drugs" mentality, the
fag-bashing of the "traditional values" groups, etc.

If anything, the Soviet indoctrination has deeply affected them: "traditional"
family values, unacceptability of being a "parasite" and not working, the
equality enforced through equal chance rather than preferential treatment,
denouncement of sexual "deviations" of any sort, etc.

Oleg Kiselev

unread,
Apr 18, 1991, 11:51:08 PM4/18/91
to
In article <1991Apr16.0...@news.cs.brandeis.edu> i...@chaos.cs.brandeis.edu (Ivan Derzhanski) writes:
>It is already an error to say that _oxripshij ego bariton_ (B. Okudzhava)
>sounds like any _music_

I suppose you will also dismiss Tom Waits as not "music" as well?

Probably 1/3 of the thrash punk and speed metal bands have singers who
sound just as hoarse and raw as Vysotski. Of course, most of ex-Soviets
I know will not grant then the status of "music" either.

Gennady Feygin

unread,
Apr 19, 1991, 1:15:17 PM4/19/91
to
In article <1991Apr19.0...@Veritas.COM> ol...@Veritas.COM (Oleg Kiselev) writes:
>In article <1991Apr17....@jarvis.csri.toronto.edu> gfe...@eecg.toronto.edu (Gennady Feygin) writes:
>>Is it possible that ex-Soviets, having had to deal with Soviet Propaganda,
>>have learned to read between the lines of the well-meaning liberal slogans
>>too well, and so they do not believe in discrimination (aka affirmative
>>action programs), paying people not to work (aka welfare) etc.
>
>Then the same jaded sensibilities would cause the ex-Soviets to doubt anything
>said by the State Dept, see the thinly veiled cheap propaganda in the
>pronouncement of the President and laugh at the patent absurdity of any

Of course propaganda in the Soviet/Goebels tradition could not possibly exist
in US where anyone and everyone can chose alternative sources of information:
if you find Village Voice or the Communist Party of the USA newspaper (sorry --
don't know its name) to be more informative, by all means buy it instead of New York Times or Washington Post.

>extrimist slogans. Yet, the immediate willingness to adop the extreme-right
>wing views is frighteningly prevalent among the ex-Soviets. They really go

Oleg conviniently ignores the second half of my posting in which I have asked
why racism and homo-phobia are right wing phenomena, when USSR (few would call
that country right wing) is second to none in both racism and fag-bashing.

>for the "law-and-order" rhetoric, the "war on drugs" mentality, the
>fag-bashing of the "traditional values" groups, etc.

The above two lines deserve (IMHO) an honourable citation in Guiness Book of
Woorld Records for the largest number of liberal cliches in smallest amount of
space. Perhaps Oleg could enlighten us how an average ex-Soviet who have
seen first-hand how drugs damage society (although different drugs are abused
in the USSR) could not support war on drugs.

>
>If anything, the Soviet indoctrination has deeply affected them: "traditional"
>family values,

What "traditional" family values? You mean like rampant abortion, wife beating,
child abuse, alcohol abuse, extremely high divorce rate? These are the
characteristics of family life in the USSR, and I would hardly call
them traditional. I also think that a great majority of ex-Soviets have a
family life that is significantly different from that of an average Soviet
family.

> unacceptability of being a "parasite" and not working, the
>equality enforced through equal chance rather than preferential treatment,

Hmm.. EQUALITY enforced through EQUAL chance rather than PREFERENTIAL TREATMENT,

poor stupid me, I always thought that EQUAL chance was closer to EQUALITY than
PREFERENTIAL TREATMENT. But it is not... I thank Oleg for enlightening me.

Furthermore, I fail to see how life in the USSR was anything even
remotely approaching equal chance or equal opportunity.

>--
>DISCLAMMER: I speak for myself only, unless explicitly indicated otherwise.
>Oleg Kiselev ol...@veritas.com
>VERITAS Software ...!{apple|uunet}!veritas!oleg
>(408)727-1222x586

G.Feygin
[standard disclaimer]

Alla Gordon

unread,
Apr 19, 1991, 2:57:07 PM4/19/91
to
In article <1991Apr14....@timessqr.gc.cuny.edu> d...@cunyvms1.gc.cuny.edu (Dimitri Vulis, CUNY GC Math) writes:

>I too am an emigre from the USSR. I had a mostly Jewish mother and a
>mostly non-Jewish father. I've heard a lot of insults from Soviet emigres
>that call themselves "purebred Jews" and express hatred for Russians
>and 1/2 Russians.
>Dimitri Vulis

Please hold those tears of compassion and put away your handkerchiefs.
Dimitri Vulis is not a victim of Jewish bigotry, but a network vandal who
for two months bombarded talk.politics.soviet with slanderous, abusive,
anti-semitic, anti-Soviet emigre articles, sometimes, as he admitted, purely
out of shear sadism. Check out his February/March talk.politics.soviet postings
for examples.

From my personal experience, the attitude Mr Vulis is complaining about
is an exception, not a rule. Neither I nor my ex-Soviet Jewish friends
think any less of ex-Soviet half-, quarter-, or, indeed, non-Jews because
of their genealogy. When you are ten thousand miles away from your
birthplace, common childhood experiences, mother tongue, emigration
process, mindset, and adjustment to another culture matter a whole lot
more than family trees.

If the February/March of Mr Vulis' net production are a fair representation
of his views, there is little wonder ex-Soviet Jews treat him like a leper.

Alla Gordon
al...@bbn.com

Oleg Kiselev

unread,
Apr 20, 1991, 7:06:19 AM4/20/91
to
In article <1991Apr19....@jarvis.csri.toronto.edu> gfe...@eecg.toronto.edu (Gennady Feygin) writes:
>Of course propaganda in the Soviet/Goebels tradition could not possibly exist
>in US where anyone and everyone can chose alternative sources of information:

Really? Were you in this country during the last 2 elections? It was amazing
how many damning facts about Reagan and Bush were revealed in the "alternative"
press, yet not very many people knew about it. But the main-stream press and
TV ignored them and only now are some of these 10 year old stories surfacing
again. Alternative press is very vocal in US, but very few people bother to
read it. Most people get their news from the Network news and their local
sindicated papers that meekly mouth what the State Department tells them and
do a great job of emsaculating the news-wire stories.

(The lastest examples are the Desert Shield/Storm affair, but this is a wrong
forum to discuss them, nor am I interested in that particular discussion.)

Freedom of information does not mean that it will be delivered to everyone's
door and explained to them.

>Oleg conviniently ignores the second half of my posting in which I have asked

Sorry, it was probably because the conclusion I was leading to seemed so
obvious.

>why racism and homo-phobia are right wing phenomena, when USSR (few would call
>that country right wing) is second to none in both racism and fag-bashing.

There is very little incommon bewteen the stodgy Soviet KPSU functionaries and
the American Left. There is a lot more similarities between them and the
US right wing republican extrimists. Some people might say even that there is
very little difference bewteen the right and the left if you push either to
the extreme. I see "right wing" and "left wing" as nearly meaningless
labels that get attached to incongruent forces in different political systems
and leading the would-be analysts into a morass of misconceptions.

>>for the "law-and-order" rhetoric, the "war on drugs" mentality, the
>>fag-bashing of the "traditional values" groups, etc.

>the largest number of liberal cliches in smallest amount of

You are mistaking me for a liberal? See? Your labels have betrayed you.
Just becase I find the "Christian right wing extrimist" and the "National
Security" agendas distasteful, you brand me a "liberal."

>Perhaps Oleg could enlighten us how an average ex-Soviet who have
>seen first-hand how drugs damage society (although different drugs are abused
>in the USSR) could not support war on drugs.

Simple. A "war on drugs" is a war on civil liberties and people's right to
choose their own life style without interference from the State. There is
nothing inherently bad about any of the "soft" drugs that are now illegal in
this country and much less damage comes from the hard drugs than is caused
by the hysterical campaign of combating them.

Regardless of the complete dissimilarities between the rampant alcoholism
in USSR and the drug culture of US, I do not see it as Government's business
to dictate how people should or should not kill themselves. It's not the
Government's function as defined by the Constitution of this country. And
since the "war on drugs" has turned into a "war on the Constitution," I see
no reason to laud it. I have lived in one police state, thank you, and I
am not at all interested in this country turning into a police state using
this ridiculous charade as a cover!

>>If anything, the Soviet indoctrination has deeply affected them: "traditional"
>>family values,
>What "traditional" family values? You mean like rampant abortion, wife beating,
>child abuse, alcohol abuse, extremely high divorce rate?

Are those the values that the Soviet propaganda taught you in school? I don't
recall any condoning of abortion, or child abuse, or divorses, or alcoholism
when I was a teen in USSR. Don't confuse the behaviour of the people with
the conditioning the State tries to impose.

>I also think that a great majority of ex-Soviets have a
>family life that is significantly different from that of an average Soviet
>family.

Is this not because their economic status allows them to? Would not most
Soviet families prefer the more American life style if they had the means
to achieve it?

>Hmm.. EQUALITY enforced through EQUAL chance rather than PREFERENTIAL TREATMENT,
>poor stupid me, I always thought that EQUAL chance was closer to EQUALITY than
>PREFERENTIAL TREATMENT. But it is not... I thank Oleg for enlightening me.

You are indulging in demagoguery, please knock it off.

"Preferntial treatment" is the Liberal idea of assuring equality, but I did
not state whether or not I find this to be a proper mechanism of social
engineering.

In the future, please refrain from ascribing to me the views I do not hold.
Your williness to think that anyone who does not march under the Conservative
Republican banner is a Rabid Liberal Democrat does not help your cause,
whatever that cause may be, unless you are just trying to smear me and force
me into defending statements I did not make and views I do not hold. It is
an old device and we all it on occasion, but please try to limit its use
since it does not contribute to a productive exchange and just leads to
a flame war. These days I have no time or patience for flame wars.

>Furthermore, I fail to see how life in the USSR was anything even
>remotely approaching equal chance or equal opportunity.

Again, why are you confusing the reality of the Soviet life with the
propaganda? If USSR was as wonderful and fair as the soviet propaganda
wanted to make it look, we all would still be there, isn't that so?

A lot of things are much different in real life than the propaganda would
have you believe. But in the specific case of the ex-Soviets, it would appear
that they did not escape the conditioning imposed by the Soviet education
and culture -- blind faith in the authority, willingness to give up the
rights and freedoms in the name of a "war," affinity for the most "traditional"
views, polarized view of the World in terms of "us" and "them, who are against
us" without ever wondering if there may be more than 2 sides to any issue.

I am cross-posting this to talk.politics.soviet, because things have been
slow there and this particular subject hasn't been discussed in a while.
While the discussion may get a bit noisier and a tad nastier, it should
also be a lot of fun.

Dmitry Cherkassky

unread,
Apr 21, 1991, 11:32:43 AM4/21/91
to
> But the main-stream press and
> TV ignored them and only now are some of these 10 year old stories surfacing
> again.

Some references please?

> (The lastest examples are the Desert Shield/Storm affair, but this is a wrong
> forum to discuss them, nor am I interested in that particular discussion.)

I don't know where you were, but I believe US press gave coverage of speeches by
Iraqi president, showed footage from Baghdad, and anti-war demonstrations.
I have seen interviews with people who were against DS and who were
against it.

> Alternative press is very vocal in US, but very few people bother to
> read it. Most people get their news from the Network news and their local

> sindicated papers that...

Well, that's freedom of choice. Everyone reads what they want to read.
You wouldn't want everybody to read your favorite newspapers only, would you?
And if some one doesn't like those particular newspapers? Are you going to make
him/her read them?

By the way, did you notice how both right and left always complain about the
press?

> Sorry, it was probably because the conclusion I was leading to seemed so
> obvious.

Your conclusions might seem obvious to you, but in the real world you have to
back them up with facts, not words and hand waving.

> Simple. A "war on drugs" is a war on civil liberties and people's right to
> choose their own life style without interference from the State. There is
> nothing inherently bad about any of the "soft" drugs that are now illegal in
> this country and much less damage comes from the hard drugs than is caused
> by the hysterical campaign of combating them.

Did you ever see children born to mothers who do drugs? You should. What about
9-12 year olds who don't really know the effects of drugs and for whom it is
too late to stop when they find out? Do you know what crack does to you?
I do not say that war on drugs is a good thing, but something definitely needs to be done. Did you go to high-school here? If you did, and it wasn't one of the "nicer" ones you would understand. Now, if you want to come up with some constructive ideas, go ahead, but stop criticizing something that at least attempts to solve the problem if your best solution is to let "people kill themselves".

> and I
> am not at all interested in this country turning into a police state using
> this ridiculous charade as a cover!

Are you acusing the government of US in conspiring against your liberties and
using the war on drugs as a pretext to take away your rights?

> it would appear
> that they did not escape the conditioning imposed by the Soviet education
> and culture -- blind faith in the authority, willingness to give up the
> rights and freedoms in the name of a "war," affinity for the most "traditional"
> views, polarized view of the World in terms of "us" and "them, who are against
> us" without ever wondering if there may be more than 2 sides to any issue.

And to that I will give you your own advice:

> In the future, please refrain from ascribing to me the views I do not hold.

I do not have blind face in the authority. Living in SU taught me how to read between the lines, how to see behind rhetoric. I make my decisions based on my opinions and the facts from many various sources. I do not agree with republicans
on everything, but yes my views are closer to theirs than to democrats, especially on foreign policy. (Democrats don't seem to have one though :))
Besides, I do not agree with Democrats on a lot of domestic issues, but in no way it is because I "did not escape the conditioning imposed by the Soviet education
and culture".

-Dmitry

Lawrence K. Kolodney

unread,
Apr 21, 1991, 8:43:11 PM4/21/91
to
In article <1991Apr19.0...@Veritas.COM> ol...@Veritas.COM (Oleg Kiselev) writes:

In article <1991Apr17....@jarvis.csri.toronto.edu> gfe...@eecg.toronto.edu (Gennady Feygin) writes:
>Is it possible that ex-Soviets, having had to deal with Soviet Propaganda,
>have learned to read between the lines of the well-meaning liberal slogans
>too well, and so they do not believe in discrimination (aka affirmative
>action programs), paying people not to work (aka welfare) etc.

Then the same jaded sensibilities would cause the ex-Soviets to doubt anything
said by the State Dept, see the thinly veiled cheap propaganda in the
pronouncement of the President and laugh at the patent absurdity of any
extrimist slogans.

Besides, there was (is) nothing "liberal" about the Soviet government.
The liberals (under Kerensky) were all killed off after 1917.

Marxists generally hate liberals, always have.


--

larry kolodney The past is not dead. It's not even past.
l...@zurich.ai.mit.edu - William Faulkner

vlad

unread,
Apr 22, 1991, 3:54:39 AM4/22/91
to
In article <1991Apr20.1...@Veritas.COM> ol...@Veritas.COM (Oleg Kiselev) writes:
>In article <1991Apr19....@jarvis.csri.toronto.edu> gfe...@eecg.toronto.edu (Gennady Feygin) writes:
>>Of course propaganda in the Soviet/Goebels tradition could not possibly exist
>>in US where anyone and everyone can chose alternative sources of information:
>
>Really? Were you in this country during the last 2 elections? It was amazing
>how many damning facts about Reagan and Bush were revealed in the
"alternative"
>press, yet not very many people knew about it. But the main-stream press and
>TV ignored them and only now are some of these 10 year old stories surfacing
>again.

Oleg, were you in this country during the 1973-74 period? Wasn't it the US
mainstream press that publicized the Watergate scandal and made Nixon to
step down? How about the press's role in Viet Nam war?

You talk about "damning facts" about Bush and Reagan? Meaning Irangate?
Well, that is debatable. But what else is so "damning"? Especially compared
with the way our Senators and Congressmen (most of them anti-Reagan in
their views) sell out to the highest bidder.

In fact, I personally knew a lot of "damning" fact about Irangate and still
voted for Bush because I thought he would be not as bad for this country as
Dukakis. I bet most of people did the same. So, it is not that the press
failed to inform us about Bush's "faults", but that we were intelligent
enough to understand that Dukakis had even more of them.

>>Perhaps Oleg could enlighten us how an average ex-Soviet who have
>>seen first-hand how drugs damage society (although different drugs are abused
>>in the USSR) could not support war on drugs.
>
>Simple. A "war on drugs" is a war on civil liberties and people's right to
>choose their own life style without interference from the State. There is
>nothing inherently bad about any of the "soft" drugs that are now illegal in
>this country and much less damage comes from the hard drugs than is caused
>by the hysterical campaign of combating them.
>
>Regardless of the complete dissimilarities between the rampant alcoholism
>in USSR and the drug culture of US, I do not see it as Government's business
>to dictate how people should or should not kill themselves. It's not the
>Government's function as defined by the Constitution of this country. And
>since the "war on drugs" has turned into a "war on the Constitution," I see
>no reason to laud it. I have lived in one police state, thank you, and I
>am not at all interested in this country turning into a police state using
>this ridiculous charade as a cover!

I agree. Moreover, not only is the war on drugs an invasion of privacy and an
act of government
terrorism, it accomplishes the opposite of its goals. You see, the main
problem with drugs is the drug-related crime, which probably makes up more
than half of all violent crimes. What is the real cause of such crime? The
high cost of drugs, which makes addicts rob in order to be able to afford
their fixes. Plus the drug dealing business is so risky and profitable that
the dealers kill each other and innocent bystanders.

Now, by fighting the drug supply, the US Government wastes $6 billion and is
driving the drug prices even higher. That means more crime!

If drugs were decriminalized (say, available through prescription), their
price would take a nose-dive. As a result, there would be no junkies
robbing for a fix. And there would be no drug dealers and gangs. I could
live with that. And so could millions of terrorized New Yorkers, Los Angelinos,
Detroiters, etc.

Of course, some people would still be stupid enough to kill themselves
through drug use, just as there are stupid people killing themselves
through alcohol, tobacco, and bad eating habits. How do you deal with them?
I am not sure. But I still maintain that it is more intelligent to let one
idiot kill himself through drug use that have a hundred innocent people get
shot through drug gang violence.

By the way, I used to be almost pro-"drug war", until I heard Milton
Friedman and George Schultz explain its stupidity.


>
>I am cross-posting this to talk.politics.soviet, because things have been
>slow there and this particular subject hasn't been discussed in a while.
>While the discussion may get a bit noisier and a tad nastier, it should
>also be a lot of fun.
>--

>Oleg Kiselev ol...@veritas.com

Vlad

Oleg Kiselev

unread,
Apr 22, 1991, 4:47:42 AM4/22/91
to

In article <41...@netnews.upenn.edu> ch...@halibut.cis.upenn.edu (Dmitry Cherkassky) writes:
>Some references please?

References for what? For the arms-for-hostages deal Reagan made, where
Iranians agreed not to release the American hostages until after the
elections? The story that appeared in the "alternative" press and was
in-depth investigated and discussed over the next few years? The story
that has recently finally made it into Network News circuit?

But this is peripheral to this groups' subjects. I am not interested in a
discussion of US media here. Talk.politics.misc is a better group for that.

>I don't know where you were, but I believe US press gave coverage of speeches by
>Iraqi president, showed footage from Baghdad, and anti-war demonstrations.

Right, there was an interview with Saddam. So what? Did that interview
answer the question raised by the satellite photos obtained by Newsweek
which clearly showed all of the US troops that were in the region but
none of the supposed Iraqi installations, trenches and armour? How about
the lies about mass Iraqi surrenders which Saudis kept announcing for months
before "Desert Shield" became "Desert Storm?" And what about the current
state of affairs, where US troops were reported (by the foreign and alternative
press, of course) to have been involved in violently putting down peaceful
pro-democracy demonstrations in Kuwait? Where are the discussions of it all
in the CNN or NBC news?

>I have seen interviews with people who were against DS and who were
>against it.

So did I. But what value are those interviews? Bush whipped up a "Just War"
hysteria, backing it up by the tales of mass atrocities and the specter of
Hitler -- and the country blindly followed him into the war that was fought
agains this new Hitler, Saddam Hussain, in the name of poor Kuwaitis, but
which left over 100,000 Iraqis dead, Saddam still in power and murdering
Kurds and Shi'ites, and war-battered Kuwaitis waiting in lengthy lines for
food and water while their Emir, who spent the war in deprivations of a
luxury hotel in Saudi Arabia, enjoys his giant palace, promptly restored
with the aid of US Corps of Engineers and the US troops.

So tell me, how many times have you heard any of these stories mentioned on
the Network News? Even NPR and PBS give these subjects very cautious
treatment.

>> Alternative press is very vocal in US, but very few people bother to read it

>Well, that's freedom of choice. Everyone reads what they want to read.

Or do they read what they have been conditioned to read? Wouldn't it
be nice if people were also conditioned to think instead of accepting the
authority on their word and never questioning it?

>By the way, did you notice how both right and left always complain about the
>press?

Yes, isn't that amusing? Personally, I don't see all that much difference
bewteen the "left" and the "right." Most of their complaints are, in reality,
about the blandness and spinelessness of the press. They are right, too.

>Did you ever see children born to mothers who do drugs? You should.

Did you? How *many* did you see? How many is that in comparison with the
fetal damage due to alcohol? And how many of the "drug" babies are suffering
from the severe effects of their mothers' malnutrition, whether or not
drugs were the culprit?

>What about
>9-12 year olds who don't really know the effects of drugs and for whom it is
>too late to stop when they find out?

And why *are* the 9-12 year olds using drugs? Why is that a worse problem
than alcoholism in the same age group? Is it because alcohol is legal and
sold in stores and kids can't buy it, while crack is relatively cheap and
readily available?

>Do you know what crack does to you?

What does it do that "speedball" and free-basing did not already do?

Crack did not exist until it became finacially viable and the market for it was
created by Reagan's War on Drugs. Since marijuana is now more expensive than
powedered cocaine, which in turn is a lot more expensive then much more potent
crack, crack will obviously be the drug of choice. And since crack does not
have the same short-term devastating and visible effects alcohol does, which
one will a kid choose?

And before you bring up the long-term effects, quitting crack is easier
than quitting smoking tobacco (according to the former Surgeon General).
The number of deaths atrributable to crack *USE* (not the violence accompanying
its sale and distribution) is relatively small, hundreds, if not thousands
times lower than deaths from tobacco or alcohol. Deaths from marijuana number
usually below 10/year and are usually circumstantial, despite tens of millions
of people smoking it.


>do not say that war on drugs is a good thing, but something definitely needs
>to be done.

Please look at the lessons learned from Prohobition. The parallels are
uncanny and have not escaped the notice of the intellects on both the "right"
and the "left." If anything, there are a lot more proponents of drug
legalization among the so-called "conservatives" than among the "liberals".

>Did you go to high-school here? If you did, and it wasn't one of the
>"nicer" ones you would understand.

Does barbed wire fence, male and female whores hooking accross the street
and visible from the classrooms, 3 or 4 constantly battling gangs, 2
uniformed and armed police officers and 4 or so plain clothes armed school
security guards count as a "not nice"?

>Now, if you want to come up with some constructive ideas, go ahead

Yes, how about legalizing and regulating them? Same laws can easily be
applied to drugs as are applied to alcohol and tobacco. This thread of
discussion is much better suited for alt.drugs than for this group.

>Are you acusing the government of US in conspiring against your liberties and
>using the war on drugs as a pretext to take away your rights?

That's one way of phrasing it, although it would be most erroneous to treat
the "government" as a single, intelligent entity. There are policies, set
in place by various people deliberately or for the expediency sake, which
have already resulted in a number of encroachments on individual rights and
freedoms. The new crime bill advocated by Bush will remove the restrictions
on inadmissible or illegally obtained evidence. The gun control initiatives
have steadily chipped away at the ability of the people to arm and defend
themselves. The recent implementation of "Zero Tolerance" policy had made
mockery of constitutional guarantees of due process... Those are just the
few that immediately come to mind. I am sure you can find a lot more in
a number of news groups on the NET that deal with these issues.

>I do not have blind face in the authority.

Yet you believe the anti drug propaganda.

>I do not agree with republicans
>on everything, but yes my views are closer to theirs than to democrats,
>especially on foreign policy. (Democrats don't seem to have one though :))

Does it even make any sense to differentiate between Democrats and Republicans?
Most of their platform issues are just campaign posturings and vote-managment.

>but in no way it is because I "did not escape the conditioning imposed by
>the Soviet education and culture".

Sure looks like it from this end, Dmitry. The slogans are different, the
substance is much the same.

Gennady Feygin

unread,
Apr 22, 1991, 3:53:58 PM4/22/91
to
In article <1991Apr20.1...@Veritas.COM> ol...@Veritas.COM (Oleg Kiselev) writes:
>In article <1991Apr19....@jarvis.csri.toronto.edu> gfe...@eecg.toronto.edu (Gennady Feygin) writes:
>>Of course propaganda in the Soviet/Goebels tradition could not possibly exist
>>in US where anyone and everyone can chose alternative sources of information:
>
>Really? Were you in this country during the last 2 elections? It was amazing

No, I live in Toronto, Canada. But we do get plenty of information from across
the border.

>how many damning facts about Reagan and Bush were revealed in the "alternative"
>press, yet not very many people knew about it. But the main-stream press and
>TV ignored them and only now are some of these 10 year old stories surfacing
>again. Alternative press is very vocal in US, but very few people bother to
>read it. Most people get their news from the Network news and their local
>sindicated papers that meekly mouth what the State Department tells them and
>do a great job of emsaculating the news-wire stories.

Well our own Canadian press has a sgnificant left-wing bias, and are unlikely
to meekly mouth what the US State Department tells them. Comparing their
coverage with that on the US Networks I found US networks to be, if anything,
more informative, more professional and less biased one way or the other.

>Freedom of information does not mean that it will be delivered to everyone's
>door and explained to them.

Perhaps Oleg will prefer freedom of information --- Soviet style:
We will have an hour of POLITINFORMATZIA every week. Oleg will
publish an newspaper titled PRAVDA (TRUTH). We will all be
required to read only that newpaper. This way all the information
Oleg considers important will be " delivered to everyone's door
and explained to them". :-(((

>
>>Oleg conviniently ignores the second half of my posting in which I have asked
>
>Sorry, it was probably because the conclusion I was leading to seemed so
>obvious.
>
>>why racism and homo-phobia are right wing phenomena, when USSR (few would call
>>that country right wing) is second to none in both racism and fag-bashing.
>
>There is very little incommon bewteen the stodgy Soviet KPSU functionaries and
>the American Left.

Dear American Left,
please spare us yet another experiment in building a "socialism with
a human face". Didn't work anywhere so far, but if you really insist on
trying --- buy yourselves some laboratory rats and try your experiments on
them first.

There is a lot more similarities between them and the
>US right wing republican extrimists. Some people might say even that there is

Some people still believe that the Earth is flat... does not mean it is true,
though.


>
>>>for the "law-and-order" rhetoric, the "war on drugs" mentality, the
>>>fag-bashing of the "traditional values" groups, etc.
>>the largest number of liberal cliches in smallest amount of
>
>You are mistaking me for a liberal? See? Your labels have betrayed you.

Never said you are a liberal. Just pointed out that you use a LOT of standard
liberal cliches. But if the shoe fits--wear it.

>Just becase I find the "Christian right wing extrimist" and the "National
>Security" agendas distasteful, you brand me a "liberal."

Once again you are using a lot of cliches. You do not want me to use
word "liberal". OK, I will not use it anymore.


>
>>Perhaps Oleg could enlighten us how an average ex-Soviet who have
>>seen first-hand how drugs damage society (although different drugs are abused
>>in the USSR) could not support war on drugs.
>
>Simple. A "war on drugs" is a war on civil liberties and people's right to
>choose their own life style without interference from the State. There is

Does a free choice of livestyle include the right to drive 100mph on a
highway (interstates in USA) stoned out of your mind and killing others??
How many get killed every year by car drivers, train drivers etc. on drugs
or drunk? Answer --- too many.

What about the "lifestyle" decision to take crack while pregnant?? Children
born with gross mantal and physical defects --- what should we do with these??
Just give them to the tender loving care of a mother that took drugs
( and will probably continue to do so).

>Regardless of the complete dissimilarities between the rampant alcoholism
>in USSR and the drug culture of US, I do not see it as Government's business
>to dictate how people should or should not kill themselves. It's not the

See above how your choice to kill yourself may affect my choice to stay
alive. Or how a choice of a female drug addict to continue taking crack
during pregnancy affects my choice not to see my taxes increased to build
more mental institutions, prisons etc.

>Government's function as defined by the Constitution of this country. And
>since the "war on drugs" has turned into a "war on the Constitution," I see
>no reason to laud it. I have lived in one police state, thank you, and I
>am not at all interested in this country turning into a police state using
>this ridiculous charade as a cover!

While some of the rhetoric surrounding the war on drugs may be overblown,
I fail to see how that is going to turn USA, or Canada for that matter, into
a GULAG.

>
>>>If anything, the Soviet indoctrination has deeply affected them: "traditional"
>>>family values,
>>What "traditional" family values? You mean like rampant abortion, wife beating,
>>child abuse, alcohol abuse, extremely high divorce rate?
>
>Are those the values that the Soviet propaganda taught you in school? I don't
>recall any condoning of abortion, or child abuse, or divorses, or alcoholism
>when I was a teen in USSR. Don't confuse the behaviour of the people with
>the conditioning the State tries to impose.

Well, it was Oleg's claim that the ex-Soviets are deeply indoctrinated.
I have demonstrated that majority of citizens of USSR have family life
that is direct opposite of what indoctrinators wanted. WAST majority
of the people did not respond to indoctrination. (Oleg seems to agree so far)

Turning now to the family life of ex-Soviets in North America, Israel etc.:
Oleg feels that they have embraced "traditional" family values because they
have been indoctrinated by the Soviets. Somehow we, who chose not to live
in the USSR (that despite all the indoctrination that told us what a
wonderful place USSR is) are more succeptible to indoctrination than
the others in USSR who show little or no sign of responding to the
official propaganda (at least as far as family values are concerned)!!!!

That devious Soviet indoctrination!! I will show them !! I will beat
my wife and our baby just as soon as I get home tonight !!! That will
show how I resist Soviet propaganda of "traditional" family values!!
I should also maybe get drunk while at it!!
Yah -- that's the ticket !! :-)))

>
>>I also think that a great majority of ex-Soviets have a
>>family life that is significantly different from that of an average Soviet
>>family.
>
>Is this not because their economic status allows them to? Would not most
>Soviet families prefer the more American life style if they had the means
>to achieve it?

What does economic status have to do with it? My family was poor by
the standards of the USSR, yet out of ~100 relatives whom I knew
reasonably well (all in the same city) I could name only one who was
an alcoholic. I knew none that beat their wives or children (children
were spanked, but nowhere near the degree to which an average neighbour
dished out the punishment with fists and belts).

>
>>Hmm.. EQUALITY enforced through EQUAL chance rather than PREFERENTIAL TREATMENT,
>>poor stupid me, I always thought that EQUAL chance was closer to EQUALITY than
>>PREFERENTIAL TREATMENT. But it is not... I thank Oleg for enlightening me.
>
>You are indulging in demagoguery, please knock it off.
>
>"Preferntial treatment" is the Liberal idea of assuring equality, but I did
>not state whether or not I find this to be a proper mechanism of social
>engineering.
>
>In the future, please refrain from ascribing to me the views I do not hold.

All right I apologize.

>Your williness to think that anyone who does not march under the Conservative
>Republican banner is a Rabid Liberal Democrat does not help your cause,

However now you owe me an apology. I live in Canada. We have no Republican pary.Nor do I agree with all (not even most) policies advocated by
Republican party in the USA. Why do you ascribe to me a support for
a particular political party, when I do not support it and would not
support even if I could??

>
>A lot of things are much different in real life than the propaganda would
>have you believe.

How profound. :-)))

> But in the specific case of the ex-Soviets, it would appear
>that they did not escape the conditioning imposed by the Soviet education
>and culture -- blind faith in the authority,

A few old man may believe in Communism in USSR, but for a vast majority
Communist Party, Army, Media were a butt of endless cruel jokes. Nobody
read the lines in the newspapers, everybody read between the lines.
Those who left USSR for good are, of course, different. They were more
succeptible to indoctrination as far as " blind faith in authority" is
concerned. Somehow they were not so succeptible to indoctrination as
far as "what a wonderful place USSR is and why would anyone wish to live
elsewhere" is concerned?? Must be some kind of disease.

> willingness to give up the
>rights and freedoms in the name of a "war," affinity for the most "traditional"

With apology to all who have to read my poetry:

"Appology to Oleg"

by G.Feygin (all other ex-Soviets who have seen the error of their ways ---
feel free to join me in apology and add lines to the poem)

For the views we held in error now we apologize
Insufficient are beating we inflict on our wives
Very low is consumption of hashish and crack
Vodka bottle getting lonely -- noone's drunk


We regret our reading choices
very deeply, and repent
We shall stick to "Village Voice"s
And forswear the CNN

>views, polarized view of the World in terms of "us" and "them, who are against
>us" without ever wondering if there may be more than 2 sides to any issue.
>
>I am cross-posting this to talk.politics.soviet, because things have been
>slow there and this particular subject hasn't been discussed in a while.
>While the discussion may get a bit noisier and a tad nastier, it should
>also be a lot of fun.
>--
>DISCLAMMER: I speak for myself only, unless explicitly indicated otherwise.
>Oleg Kiselev ol...@veritas.com
>VERITAS Software ...!{apple|uunet}!veritas!oleg
>(408)727-1222x586


Nuff said

G.Feygin
[Standard Disclaimer]

Oleg Kiselev

unread,
Apr 23, 1991, 2:11:05 AM4/23/91
to
In article <1991Apr22.0...@erg.sri.com> vl...@erg.sri.com (vlad) writes:
>Oleg, were you in this country during the 1973-74 period?

Nope. I am much more recent arrival than that.

>Wasn't it the US mainstream press that publicized the Watergate scandal

The press was a lot more daring then, for whatever reason. They were happy
to bash Ford and Carter, too, but it all changed when Reagan took office.

However, since I haven't read much about Watergate, I can't comment on the
sequence of events.

>How about the press's role in Viet Nam war?

It took some 6-7 years for the press to start screaming about that and
Walter Cronkite (sp?) was probably responsible for mainstream press
turning around from dismissing the war protesters as inconsequential
Commie scum to actually examining the war and the reasons for US to be
in it.

>You talk about "damning facts" about Bush and Reagan? Meaning Irangate?
>Well, that is debatable.

That's a decent example. I am not sure what's so debatable about it...

>But what else is so "damning"?

How about the hostage deal? And about Reagan and Meese giving funding to
Jonestown when Reagan was California's Governor? What about Reagan's close
relations with Mafia, including his hosting of GE Theater and his presidency
of the Actors Union? And what about Bush's stint as the CIA Director, during
which the exiled Chilean ambassador was assassinated by a CIA team? How
about Reagan's endorsement of the World Anti-Communist League (who have
changed their name last year, I don't recall to what), whos major calling
in life is sponsorship of anti-semitic and neo-nazi groups in Europe as
tools to destabilize "Communist" countries?

>...the way our Senators and Congressmen (most of them anti-Reagan in
>their views)

*MOST*? By how big of a margin does a majority have to exceed the minority
to qualify for the "most" category?

>In fact, I personally knew a lot of "damning" fact about Irangate and still
>voted for Bush because I thought he would be not as bad for this country as
>Dukakis. I bet most of people did the same.

Sort of defeats the purpose of a multi-party system, doesn't it? If everyone
who did not like neither Bush nor Dukakis bothered to vote for someone else
all together, then may be if not this election then the next a
non-Demopublican candidate would have a good shot at the office? Or may
be major parties would change their policies if they noticed a massive shift
away from their camps?

>If drugs were decriminalized (say, available through prescription)

Or, like in Netherlands, were made available and de-glamorized, with the
money spent on "eradication" spend on education and rehabilitation? (FYI:
last year there was $8 billion allocated for then-Bennet's anti-drug
department; that's in addition to about $8 billion already allocated to the
police departments accross the nation specifically for "drug crime"
activity; and add to that some 60% share of the Federal prison system being
taken up with drug-related offenders...)

Or an even more interesting possibility -- complete legalization and
regulation by the same laws as tobacco and alcohol?

>price would take a nose-dive.

Cocaine price would drop by the order of 200 according to some sources.
I do not recall if the economic analysis published in Scientific American
in either '89 or '90 had same value. That would eliminate the financial
basis for the importation of cocaine in any form.

>By the way, I used to be almost pro-"drug war", until I heard Milton
>Friedman and George Schultz explain its stupidity.

Add William F. Buckley, Jr., to that list. He has also came out for
legalization for pragmatic reasons.

Oleg Kiselev

unread,
Apr 23, 1991, 2:42:50 AM4/23/91
to
In article <1991Apr22.1...@jarvis.csri.toronto.edu> gfe...@eecg.toronto.edu (Gennady Feygin) writes:
>No, I live in Toronto, Canada.

Interesting.... I should have looked at the address.

>...Canadian press has a sgnificant left-wing bias...

Not having dealt with it, I wouldn't know.

>Comparing their
>coverage with that on the US Networks I found US networks to be, if anything,
>more informative, more professional and less biased one way or the other.

Or are they just more "professional" and slick?

>Perhaps Oleg will prefer freedom of information --- Soviet style:

Give it a break, will you? Have you ever looked at the US Highschool
textbook of US History and compared it to any REAL history paper or book?
Or ever tried to find the "alternative" source of information? How many
people in US even *READ* newspapers, much less the "alternative" ones?

>>You are mistaking me for a liberal? See? Your labels have betrayed you.
>Never said you are a liberal. Just pointed out that you use a LOT of standard
>liberal cliches. But if the shoe fits--wear it.

Sorry, that will not work. You have attached a label of "liberal" to
everything you disagree with and that's just not good enough, Gena. You
are going to have to do better. At least come up with the correct label.

>Does a free choice of livestyle include the right to drive 100mph on a
>highway (interstates in USA) stoned out of your mind and killing others??

How is that different from the same situation where the drug of choice is
alcohol?

>How many get killed every year by car drivers, train drivers etc. on drugs
>or drunk? Answer --- too many.

Bullshit. There were *5* deaths attributable to marijuana in 1980 in US.
*5*. The most celebrated one is the one that got made into a commercial by
"Partnership for Drug-Free America," the same organization that has been
publicly shown to have used lies and scare tactics in their (now withdrawn)
commercials in the past. In that case, a train crash is blamed on a
machinist who was smoking pot. It is never mentioned whether or not he was
drinking as well. But even if pot *was* at fault in that *one* case, how
many such cases are attributable to alcohol? Why should the same laws and
attitudes not be applied to drugs and alcohol?

>What about the "lifestyle" decision to take crack while pregnant?? Children
>born with gross mantal and physical defects --- what should we do with these??

Bullshit again. You definitely have no idea what you are talking about.

Those "gross defects" are due to malnutrition, physical abuse and lack of
prenatal cares. These are "poverty babies" for the most part. The same
groups of population that had babies with "gross defects" in the past
are now getting these so-called "crack" babies.

Here is why I *know* that you have no idea what you are talking about, Gena.
The *highest* use of cocaine in this country, especially in its freebase
form, was in mid to late 70's, mostly by the upper and upper-middle class
whites in their early and mid-20's. Most of them had their children in
before 1980 or in very early 80's. Where are the crack babies of these
people?! Why are there no reports of well-off *white* people having "crack
babies" even though over 3/4 of drug consumption is among the whites? The
paragraph before this one answers that question.

>Well, it was Oleg's claim that the ex-Soviets are deeply indoctrinated.

And you have just shown how right I am. And how easily you allow yourself to
get indoctrinated again!

I am sorry. I don't think I can answer any more of your posting without
turning it into a very nasty flame. You have managed to get me very pissed
off, Gena, and that's very rare. I might try returning to your article if
I manage to calm down, but keeping my anger under control for the last 50
lines or so took a lot out of me.

Mikhail Zeleny

unread,
Apr 23, 1991, 8:25:38 AM4/23/91
to
>Dear American Left,
>please spare us yet another experiment in building a "socialism with
>a human face". Didn't work anywhere so far,

Sweden? France?

> but if you really insist on
>trying --- buy yourselves some laboratory rats and try your experiments on
>them first.

Some things I wouldn't do even to a rat: like borce it to reason with you.


>Does a free choice of livestyle include the right to drive 100mph on a
>highway (interstates in USA) stoned out of your mind and killing others??
>How many get killed every year by car drivers, train drivers etc. on drugs
>or drunk? Answer --- too many.
>

\Ever hear of the DUI laws?

>What about the "lifestyle" decision to take crack while pregnant?? Children
>born with gross mantal and physical defects --- what should we do with these??
>Just give them to the tender loving care of a mother that took drugs
>( and will probably continue to do so).
>

Ever hear of laws against child abuse?

>See above how your choice to kill yourself may affect my choice to stay
>alive. Or how a choice of a female drug addict to continue taking crack
>during pregnancy affects my choice not to see my taxes increased to build
>more mental institutions, prisons etc.

I must be a real idiot, Mr. Feygin, but I fail to understand how anybody's
choice to take drugs in the privacy of their home could in any way affect
your person. Please explain, keeping the existence of above laws in mind.

>G.Feygin
>[Standard Disclaimer]


/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\
| ``If there are no Platonic ideals, then what did we fight for?'' |
| (A Spanish Republican) |

| Mikhail Zeleny Harvard |

Michael Rabinovich

unread,
Apr 23, 1991, 1:52:44 PM4/23/91
to
In article <1991Apr23.0...@Veritas.COM> ol...@Veritas.COM (Oleg Kiselev) writes:
>
>I am sorry. I don't think I can answer any more of your posting without
>turning it into a very nasty flame. You have managed to get me very pissed
>off, Gena, and that's very rare. I might try returning to your article if
>I manage to calm down, but keeping my anger under control for the last 50
>lines or so took a lot out of me.

Oleg, to my mind, Gena has been much more tactful in this discussion than
you have. He never called your arguments bullshit. He even appologized
for calling you liberal. So, if you find it hard to keep up with the
discussion, just stop.

I think historically very much harm has been made by people who get angry
at anyone with different views. Unfortunately, they sometimes have power
to use their *nasty flames* not to just post to a newsgroup... Please, Oleg,
never get elected to any office! Am I too harsh on you? Probably.
It's just that I am too recent immigrant. I am still too scared... of
people who know what's right and hate everyone who disagree.

Misha.

Dmitry Cherkassky

unread,
Apr 23, 1991, 8:06:11 PM4/23/91
to
>>but in no way it is because I "did not escape the conditioning imposed by
>>the Soviet education and culture".

>Sure looks like it from this end, Dmitry. The slogans are different, the
>substance is much the same.


And from this end, it looks like you have been conditioned to distrust
authority and the press completely.

>You have managed to get me very pissed off, Gena, and that's very rare.

You also seem to have been conditioned very well to get pissed off at people
with views different from yours.

>Here is why I *know* that you have no idea what you are talking about, Gena.
>The *highest* use of cocaine in this country, especially in its freebase
>form, was in mid to late 70's, mostly by the upper and upper-middle class
>whites in their early and mid-20's. Most of them had their children in
>before 1980 or in very early 80's. Where are the crack babies of these
>people?! Why are there no reports of well-off *white* people having "crack
>babies" even though over 3/4 of drug consumption is among the whites? The
>paragraph before this one answers that question.

And here is why I *know* you have no idea what you are talking about. The babies
only get hurt if the pregnant MOTHER uses drugs. Do you know what proportion of
"upper and upper-middle class whites in their early and mid-20's" who used drugs
were FEMALE? (And I am not talking about pot). Now, does it make sense to ask
"Where are the crack babies of these people?!" The answer is quite simple:
MALES DON'T GET PREGNANT!

Besides, I believe there is a big difference between crack and cocaine.

>Those "gross defects" are due to malnutrition, physical abuse and lack of
>prenatal cares. These are "poverty babies" for the most part. The same
>groups of population that had babies with "gross defects" in the past
>are now getting these so-called "crack" babies.

It would be interesting to do a statistical analysis comparing the number of
abnormal children born to mothers not using drugs abd those born to mothers using drugs who are from the same group of population. Until you or someone else does
so and you give me references, all your statements are worthless. On the other
hand, from the studies on legal drugs and pregnancy it is obvious that various
chemicals can have devastating effect on babies, no matter what the social status
of the parents is.

> There were *5* deaths attributable to marijuana in 1980 in US.

I believe we are talking about War on Drugs, not War on Marijuana? Which one
are you against?

>How is that different from the same situation where the drug of choice is
>alcohol?

Alcohol is not as dangerous as other drugs. And don't give me that line: "more
people die from alcohol than drugs". Maybe that's because drugs ARE illegal.
I don't see how "let's legalise drugs and have more people die from drugs than
alcohol" is going to help anything.

>Which clearly showed all of the US troops that were in the region but


>none of the supposed Iraqi installations, trenches and armour?

And where did you see these pictures? You mean a sattelite picture good enough
to see trenches and tanks? You can't shoot those with weather sattelites.
And any military stuff is classified. Also, which region are you talking about?

> which left over 100,000 Iraqis dead

I thought you just claimed there were none of these in the region? Or if they
were, they didn't make any trenches? I don't understand.

>So tell me, how many times have you heard any of these stories mentioned on
>the Network News?

> Bush whipped up a "Just War"


> hysteria, backing it up by the tales of mass atrocities and the specter of
> Hitler

Seen Bush talk and heard "Just War" and "Hitler" stuff straight out of his mouth.

> which left over 100,000 Iraqis dead

Seen it on TV, read in many papers.

> Saddam still in power and murdering Kurds and Shi'ites

All over TV and papers. Pictures too.

> war-battered Kuwaitis waiting in lengthy lines

Saw that too. Tapes straight out of Kuwait-City. On CNN.

> Emir, who spent the war in deprivations of a
> luxury hotel in Saudi Arabia, enjoys his giant palace, promptly restored
> with the aid of US Corps of Engineers and the US troops.

Read this in one major newspaper or other - I don't remember which one.

>So tell me, how many times have you heard any of these stories mentioned on
>the Network News? Even NPR and PBS give these subjects very cautious
>treatment.

Very many times. A lot of different newspapers and CNN covered them.
So what is your point?

-Dmitry

Oleg Kiselev

unread,
Apr 23, 1991, 8:39:26 PM4/23/91
to
In article <1991Apr23....@beaver.cs.washington.edu> mi...@june.cs.washington.edu (Michael Rabinovich) writes:
>Oleg, to my mind, Gena has been much more tactful in this discussion than
>you have.

I never claimed to be a tactful person.

>He never called your arguments bullshit.

I call things as I see them. When something is bullshit, that's what I call
it. I also supply my reasoning for calling it bullshit.

>He even appologized for calling you liberal.

Oooh! What a jesture! Since when is the word "liberal" a mortal insult?
It was an incongruous and inappropriate label, but hardly an insult.

>Please, Oleg, never get elected to any office!

If that ever becomes an issue, I will give your plea a due consideration.

>Am I too harsh on you? Probably.

That's OK. I can take the flames, I just can't stomach dogmatic ignorance.

John C. Hyde

unread,
Apr 23, 1991, 11:14:43 PM4/23/91
to
I've followed this discussion with mild interest, and only now feel
compelled to inject a comment.

In article <1991Apr24.0...@Veritas.COM> ol...@Veritas.COM (Oleg


Kiselev) writes:
>
>I never claimed to be a tactful person.

It seems to me that tact should at least be something worth aspiring
to. But then, perhaps your values are just different.

>>He even appologized for calling you liberal.
>
>Oooh! What a jesture! Since when is the word "liberal" a mortal insult?

Only if you are running for President. :-)

>>Am I too harsh on you? Probably.
>That's OK. I can take the flames, I just can't stomach dogmatic ignorance.

It's this statement that bothers me.

Much of your debate has centered around the media, especially the
media in this country. Associated with that discussion, you now call
your opponent ignorant, which implies being "unaware" and
"uninformed," according to Webster. Now, it is readily obvious that
your opponent _does_ follow the media, so you must be implying that
his "dogmatic ignorance" is due to arriving at poor conclusions based
on faulty, incomplete media information (am I correct so far?).

However, EVERYBODY on this planet is forced to rely on incomplete
information when arriving at opinions and decisions. This is even
true of the heads of the CIA and the KGB, as well as Bush and
Gorbachev. Of course, it is also true for you, your opponent, and me.

You have alluded to the press bias in this country. I have had some
opportunities to evaluate the press in this country, by comparing what
was being reported with actual events. I can say that there are
several inherent biases, some which compete with each other, and some
which compliment (reinforce) each other. I don't have the time to do
a complete analyis of these many factors, so I will mention just two.

Most reporters are not extremely well paid. It is also a very
demanding profession, forcing a person to keep strange hours, live in
some unusual circumstances, and generate information on a regular
basis, even when sometimes nothing is really happening. Now, there
are some extremely intelligent reporters around, but most of the
brightest quickly manage to work their way into more stable,
monetarily rewarding positions, such as newspaper editor, or TV news
anchor. Does this cause a bias in the news we receive? I believe so.

But, probably the biggest single bias in any news in this country is
that of sensationalism. Everyone must have news that sells, whether
that "sale" is newspaper subscriptions, TV advertisements, or Public
Radio donations. This is as true for the mainstream media as it is
for your so-called "alternative press." ALL news outlets, in a lage
measure, produce what their intended audience wants to hear. Thus,
ALL news outlets necessarily have some bias. The alternative press
sources you refer to are thought of highly by you because they appeal
to your pre-conceived notions. TV news appeals to folks because it is
visual and shallow. NPR appeals to folks because it often presents
several sides of various issues (but still framed in a fashion which
the intended audience wants to hear).

You, in your "dogmatic ignorance" accusation, ignore the fact that
your opponent could very easily have given as much thought to the
formation of his opinions as you have to yours. This is grossly
unfair, and shows in itself a form of "dogmatic ignorance."

EVERYONE has some dogmatism, and we are all blissfully ignorant of
most of what is true reality. Therefore, you ought to show your
debate opponents a bit more decent, human respect, IMHO.

--
John C. Hyde | "Only a brave person is willing honestly to admit,


| and fearlessly to face, what a sincere and

jh...@convex.com | logical mind discovers." -Rodan of Alexandria

Roadster Racewerks

unread,
Apr 22, 1991, 6:52:12 PM4/22/91
to

I thought you all might be interested that the War on Drugs has driven the
price of marijuana above the price of gold...

That plus the fact that they are encouraging the schools to outright LIE about
the "weed" makes me wonder what is going on. (The program the government sends
out to local schools as part of the "Just Say No" program states right in the
pre-printed tests that marijuana has NO medicinal value. This despite A: it's
one of the oldest medicinals known to man, and is in most good herbal books for
many things including treatment of appetite loss...and B: the FDA has approved
it to treat some forms of glaucoma and the side-effects of cancer radiation
therapy.) I just keep wondering what sort of people think official lies solve
anything....and I'm afraid I know the answer! :(

Welcome to the USSA...

Suze

Oleg Kiselev

unread,
Apr 24, 1991, 6:00:15 AM4/24/91
to
I still maintain that this discussion does not belong in this group.
Why don't we re-direct it into the appropriate places?

In article <41...@netnews.upenn.edu> ch...@grip.cis.upenn.edu (Dmitry Cherkassky) writes:
>And from this end, it looks like you have been conditioned to distrust
>authority and the press completely.

It's a learned thing. If you get lied to enough times, you learn to go to
the actual sources, seeking out the people who do research and listening
to as wide a variety of sources as possible.

>You also seem to have been conditioned very well to get pissed off at people
>with views different from yours.

Do you treat anti-semites with polite respect? When people bash jews and
parrot patently false anti-jewish stories, do you just stand by calmly and take it? You may think there is a difference in severity of the situations
here, but in both cases human lives and rights are threatened by the ignorance
and blind willingness to believe the words of "authority."

>And here is why I *know* you have no idea what you are talking about. The babies
>only get hurt if the pregnant MOTHER uses drugs.

How does that contradict what I said? Did you actually go out of your
way to look at the symptoms exhibited by these "crack" babies? I did.
The symptoms are mostly reduced birth weight and other problems typical of
malnutrition.

>Do you know what proportion of
>"upper and upper-middle class whites in their early and mid-20's" who used drugs
>were FEMALE?

This is a bogus argument. Unless you have numbers that show that a predominant
number of the freebasers was males, you have no argument at all. Coke was in
very wide use in the '70s and nothing I have read suggests that there was
fewer women using cocaine than men.

>Now, does it make sense to ask
>"Where are the crack babies of these people?!" The answer is quite simple:
>MALES DON'T GET PREGNANT!

Since the argument that led you to this conclusion is false, your conclusion
is equally false.

>Besides, I believe there is a big difference between crack and cocaine.

You do? Why? Do you have any idea what "crack" is?

>It would be interesting to do a statistical analysis comparing the number of
>abnormal children born to mothers not using drugs abd those born to mothers
>using drugs who are from the same group of population.

It's very, very simple. According to the DEA whites consume a proportionally
higher ammount of drugs than blacks. You NEVER see any stories about "crack
babies" born to *white middle-class* women. And if there was a sizable number
of them, you can be sure there would have been SOME stories about them. It
would make a great "case story" and serve the scare campaign as a good "IT
CAN HAPPEN TO YOU, TOO!" hammer to bash people's brains with.

I do not hold the Press in so low a contempt that I would accept a conspiracy
theory that it's all a case of creeping censorship.

>Until you or someone else does
>so and you give me references, all your statements are worthless.

Fine. I will make a point of looking up these satistics, even though I
will have to go out of my way to do this. However, I do not plan to go
very far out of my way. Why don't you help both of us by going to UPenn's
Law School's library and getting the DEA reports for the last few years
and looking at the estimate figures of race and sex break down of drug
consumption. Also, keep in mind that in 1989 DEA thought that they had
captured a 2-3 month supply of cocaine for the whole US in 2 raids in Southern
California. Shortly after that DEA admitted that the gigantic cache they
grabbed was negligible in comparison with the total drug flow, since there
was no significan effect on the drug supply on the streets.

>from the studies on legal drugs and pregnancy it is obvious that various
>chemicals can have devastating effect on babies

Is there a *scientific* study that shows that cocaine has such an effect?
Coca leaves were chewed by the Andean natives for the last couple of thousand
years -- are there significan effects on their childbirths relative to
other peoples in similar economic conditions who dis not chew coca? From
all I have read, there was no difference.

>> There were *5* deaths attributable to marijuana in 1980 in US.
>I believe we are talking about War on Drugs, not War on Marijuana? Which one
>are you against?

Is there a difference? Does DEA make a distinction? Is grass any more legal
than other drugs?

>Alcohol is not as dangerous as other drugs. And don't give me that line: "more
>people die from alcohol than drugs". Maybe that's because drugs ARE illegal.

Really? 300,000+ deaths/year only from alcohol-related illnesses is not
a significant number? I don't recall the numbers for alcohol-related car
accident deaths, but it's also extremely high.

>I don't see how "let's legalise drugs and have more people die from drugs than
>alcohol" is going to help anything.

This is not a relevant statement since you have not shown that drugs *will*
kill large numbers of people. I can point you to the example of Netherlands
as an example of what effect decriminalization of drugs has. You can look
up the relevant issue of Scientific American in your University library's
on-line catalogue.

>>Which clearly showed all of the US troops that were in the region but
>>none of the supposed Iraqi installations, trenches and armour?
>And where did you see these pictures?

Newsweek and in newspapers that printed them.

>You mean a sattelite picture good enough
>to see trenches and tanks? You can't shoot those with weather sattelites.
>And any military stuff is classified. Also, which region are you talking about?

The region that was being shelled and bombed a few days later and where the
Iraqi "offense" troops were supposed to be. To CNN's credit, they actually
mentioned the story one evening. That's where I first heard about it, but
they did not later have any details. Some of the "alternative" press
picked up the story. I have forgotten about that when I posted my previous
article. So CNN is not as bad as the rest of the networks, after all.

>> which left over 100,000 Iraqis dead
>I thought you just claimed there were none of these in the region?

Did you actually pay attention to what went on in "Desert Storm?" US was
bombing Basra, Baghdad and just about all the rest of Iraq except for
Kurdistan. Or did you perhaps think that all on nearly 1 million Iraqi
military were moved to Kuwait?

>A lot of different newspapers and CNN covered them.

The list you replied to with this comment was not the list of the "ignored"
stories. It was the list of consequences of the "just" war.

Oleg Kiselev

unread,
Apr 24, 1991, 6:13:32 AM4/24/91
to
In article <1991Apr24.0...@convex.com> jh...@convex.COM (John Hyde) writes:
>But then, perhaps your values are just different.

They most probably are.

>Much of your debate has centered around the media, especially the
>media in this country.

Not by my choice....

>Now, it is readily obvious that
>your opponent _does_ follow the media, so you must be implying that
>his "dogmatic ignorance" is due to arriving at poor conclusions based
>on faulty, incomplete media information (am I correct so far?).

You are quite correct.

>However, EVERYBODY on this planet is forced to rely on incomplete
>information when arriving at opinions and decisions.

True. But people who really care about quality of their information
try to verify the "facts" they encounter in media. Since the facts
are available, even in sources as necessarily limited as news print,
simply accepting "Partnership for Drug Free America" commercials on
face value and not paying attention to the other sources of less biased
information is unforgivable.

>But, probably the biggest single bias in any news in this country is
>that of sensationalism.

That's why going to the sources is such a rewarding thing to do. Scientific
papers, ignoring abberrations like the recent "cold fusion" controversy,
re usually devoid of sensationalism and receive adequate peer review from
a relatively impartial review body. Congressional hearings are often a very
good source of information as well. I make a point to listen to them.

>ALL news outlets necessarily have some bias.

Which is why it's important to getting news from as many diverse sources
as possible. Also, over time you can determine which sources are most
unreliable and which particular journalists and commentators are less
reliable than others.

>This is grossly
>unfair, and shows in itself a form of "dogmatic ignorance."

Hey, I did not say I was immune to the wonderful conditioning we all
received as children back in the Old Country. If I was perfectly fair,
unbiased and impartial, I'd have attaind Buddhah-hood by now, or at least
had the self-control to stop reading USENET.

I accept what you are saying.

David Graber

unread,
Apr 24, 1991, 12:55:23 PM4/24/91
to
Very little of this has anything to with soviet culture, except that it
is about as chaotic and irrelevant as public debate in the Soviet Union.
Please keep to the topic, keep your obnoxious flames to yourselves or
on _appropriate_ lists.

vlad

unread,
Apr 24, 1991, 1:43:16 PM4/24/91
to
In article <1991Apr24.0...@Veritas.COM> ol...@Veritas.COM (Oleg Kiselev) writes:
>In article <1991Apr23....@beaver.cs.washington.edu> mi...@june.cs.washington.edu (Michael Rabinovich) writes:

>I never claimed to be a tactful person.

>I call things as I see them. When something is bullshit, that's what I call


>it. I also supply my reasoning for calling it bullshit.

You are the only person in the World who knows what "is bullshit" and what
isn't. You never make mistakes. Your opinions are always right.
Congratulations! If somebody else claimed such powers, you would say he is
full of "dogmatic ignorance". But you tolerate this in yourself.

>That's OK. I can take the flames, I just can't stomach dogmatic ignorance.

Exactly! And the people who "can't stomach dogmatic ignorance" are
themselves full of "dogmatic ignorance".

Oleg, please understand that I am on your side in the Drug War argument,
but I do find your style to be too intolerant of the opponents.
A style like yours precludes having a productive discussion.


Vlad

vlad

unread,
Apr 24, 1991, 1:34:11 PM4/24/91