As for whether individuals can change things--yes, I think they can. but they have to not only want to, but set about it in a very systematic way, making it the focus of their life. want to change things? the way to do it is not just to go to the voting booth, but to become a candidate, or perhaps an activist of some sort. If I wanted, badly enough, for MATO to cease to exist, I could perhaps do something about it--by raising public awareness of the situation, by making waves, getting myself on the news, perhaps running for office--I would have to practially devote my life to it, and get others to do the same. I think a human could do that, but they would REALLY have to want to. it would have to be more important than, say, feeding their family...and I think few people would feel THAT strongly about anything.

But I don't think I was saying in my earlier post that people can do anything they set their minds to. there will be cases where someone really does want something THAT badly, and does everytihngn they possibly can, and still doesn't succeed. My initial point was more allong the lines that people who set about making whatever decisions they need to make..whether to watch TV, whther to eat meat, whther to take an umbrella to work on any given day--as well as big decisions (who to vote for, etc.) make those choices based on available information..both factual information as well as more subtle less quantifyable information. ANd often times the information we have is insufficient, or flawed. we make generalizations to fill in some of the gaps--and as we all know, generalizations can help and are absolutely esential, but they can also create problems, because they don't always hold true. So in Kate's example, the Pentacostal Church apparently made the generalization that most TV is bad, then made another generalization that most of it's members were not intelegent enough to distinguish for themselves whether any given show was bad or not. the thing is that while some Pentacostals might indeed not be able to make that choice, I'm sure not all of them are that dumb. HOwever, even a bright Pentacostal (or anyone) can make a bad choice about the suitability of a particular TV show, if they are not provided with information aobut it. How many times have we based a decision to watch a show on the info provided in TV guide, or the previews, only to end up turning it off after about 10 minutes?

Somwhere there is a happy medium--and that will NOT be the same for every country. what works here will not necessarily work in Russia and vica-verca. you know, I just had an intensive session on Myers-Brigs type indicators--you know, that thing managers and "group dynamics" theoriests just love to use, where all the millions of individual personalities are boiled down into 16 diferent "types"? well, while I have some reservations about the utility of this tool in the REAL workplace, I do have to admit that it provides insight into how different people are motivated by different things, and that "others are not simply flawed copies of ourselves". I think some of this could be applied on a much broader leverl--not comparing individual personalities, but comparing NATIONAL personalities--the way a country, ethnicity, or any group sharing a "culture" is likely to behave in a particular set of circumstances. for example, I would say that, using the MBTI, the USA is generaly Extroverted, Russia Introverted, although an argument could be made for the US being introverted as well, if you take it to mean our willingness to interact with other countries (as opposed to just wanting them to follow our lead). the one little phrase that really made me think of the differences here is this" extroverts tend to be "do-think-do" whereas introverts tend to be "tink-do-think". I think in that the US is clearly extroverted, while RUssia more introverted.

On the sensing/intuition scale, I would the US firmly on the sensing (focus on what is real, practical, and in the present). I don't know where Russia fits in on this one. Thinking vs Feeling (oh, and by the way, I think they did a LOUSY job choosing lables--the actual descriptions are NOT what you first think of when you read the label): I think it's clear that the US is on the "thinking" end of the spectrum, while Russia is more on the "feeling" end. this does NOT mean the US doesn't feel, or that Russia doesn't think, but generally the US as a culture seems to value reason and justice (and objectivity), while Russia seems to valuemore subjective qualities. however, the US I would say falls firmly in teh "Percieving" side while Russia is on th4e "judging" (oh, again the labels leav much to be desired). US keywords here: adapt, seek options, open up, flexible. Russia: regulate, controll, set goals... sounds like the platform for the communist party, doesn't it. the only thing I'd have some questions about would be the keyword "organized". I fear we Russians are not, as a general rule, particularly organized, unlike Germanic peoples.

Now, the key here is that NONE of these qualities is good or bad. they just ARE. is fire good or bad? good when it heats our home and cooks our food, bad when it burns out of controll. we need to look at each other (Russians and Americans) and VALUE the differences. and we need to recognise that different things will motivate us. so, when searching for solutions to societal problems, we can't assume that one size fits all. we in the US can't look to what worked for us and just assume that if that doesn't work for Russia that means they are somehow flawed. Similarly, Russia needs to realsie that when America tries to help in a way that is decidedly un-helpfull, it's not that they are stupid, or that they don't understand the situation--they may understand the situation just fine, but nevertheless draw wrong conclusions. And it's not malicious.

OK, OK, so I've gone off on another tangent. well, folks, your tax dollars were spent in training me for two weeks, I figure you might want to see that some of it actually sank in :-)

so, Scott, what is the next step? I don't know. But I think that no simplistic answer will ever solve any problem. and we Americans just LOOOVE simplistic answers. do x y and z and all your problems will be solved. not going to happen. Russia needs to work through it's own problems it's own way, and the best thing we can do is stand aside and let them, offering assitance only on the small (very specific, targetted)scale, when asked to do so. And what can Russia do? well, they can stop pointing fingers at all the things that caused her problems, and start just DEALING with the problem. Stop worrying about what the US did or didn't do, or what the communists did or didn't do, or what the mafia is or is n ot doing, and work on figuring out how to deal with the result. One thing codependants learn (if they are paying attention to their allanon meetings) is that it DOESN'T MATTEr how and why we got to where we are, we need to deal with life as it is, not as we think it should have been. sure, if our spouse, parent, friend, whoever hadn't been drinking, we wouldn't be the screwed up mess we are, but who cares whose fault it is, to fix ourselves we can only count on ourselves.