Russian Constitution is Pretty Good

By the way, I am glad to see that today President Obama is recommending that Russia join the World Trade Organization.  I'm sure Russia will make lasting contributions.

But I want to bring up my travel to the Soviet Union, Moscow, in the late 1980's.  I was privileged to discuss the Soviet's new constitution for several hours over the course of my visit through an interpreter with personages I understood were to be involved in its construction.

It's been a long time since, but I remember making the following critical discussion points:
1.  The old Soviet Union should be divided up into several independent republics. It's good for economic competition and for efficiency in industrial organization.  Altogether, they should form a confederation, working in unity for the good of the whole.  I thought the term suitable to the identity of the whole would be The Confederation of  Independent States; and their term today does not sharply differ.
2.  Since many of these identifiable entities that would form the Confederation have separate languages and cultures, I recommended that the national language of each be reflected in  the textbooks and legal documents of each region (rather than in Russian).  This promotes pride and nationalism per republic.  Of course, each would have its own economy and independent ways, though together they  would be interrelated as was the case already.

I believe that over the many years since its adoption, the Constitution has served the republics well.  I am glad they have retained the sense of a confederation of independent states.

Just recently in Georgia, there has been opportunity to create  yet another republic for  Russians living in an area of the region, enabling them to retain a unique self identity--again, showing the viability of the new Constitution to handle ethnic divisions and cultural diversity yet promoting unity of purpose.

Good luck Russia with the new Constitution!  I was glad to be present during the formation of such an important document!  I try to keep up with what's happening  in that region of the world through the Kennan Institute in Washington, DC, whenever I'm on the East Coast. 

Insincerity: the glue in human relations

The Existemtialists since Rousseau argued that to live in society is to live in "bad faith," to sacrifice your personal feelings and wants for the "good of society."  To live in society is to do what others expect of you, whether or not you want to do as they say!  Well, today, I think we'd say insincerity is the hallmark of living with others; by what you do, you have to make it "seem" you're pleasing them--and that keeps your relationship with them running smoothly.

Now, Dr. Laura, whose talk show program takes up topics revolving around "how to get along with others," reminded  me of the Existentialist point of view in her recent statements--and I trust I've got them right.  She pointed out on one occasion that though she may come home tired and may not want to take out her dog, she does so anyway, because she sees how it pleases him!  Similarly, she argues a grandmother who wants to see her grandchild regularly, needs to comply with the wishes of the child's mother--her daughter--or risk not being able to see her grandchild on a regular basis.  For example, if the child's mother demands that the grandmother babysit the kid at least two nights a week, so the daughter can go out, if the grandmother wants to see the kid,  she should readily comply. 

Dr. Laura, I believe, gave another instance in talking with a caller:  a wife finds the husband wants sex too frequently; wants sex all too often when she doesn't want to participate in the activity.  I think Dr. Laura may have replied, for the sake of the marriage, go through with it!  (You understand, this is how I interpreted the repartee.)

Now, I found in my research into caring for baby, that several authorities on the subject encourage the parent to hide how they feel at the moment in order to attend to the baby's wants and needs.  Suppose, a parent comes home in a foul, angry mood from work.  No, she must not reveal how angry she is but instead put on the mask of a gentle, caring parent, totally involved with baby!

Contrast the notion of play-acting that appears so important to accepting and caring for another person, no matter how one feels at the moment, with "being yourself--laying it all out there!"  "I'm me; take me or leave me."  If you've watched the housewives series, e.g., the housewives of  New Jersey, you know what I mean.  If a housewife feels insulted or ignored by another housewife, she tells her off; she says "You're no longer my friend; I never want to see you again!"  In short, she cuts the relationship off; no more glue to be applied.