I know about the alphabet, but I have also learned tenses and genders are a bit odd... I am also willing to learn Ukrainian, if anyone has experience with either I am interested.

I have thought that about Dickens, but what about Poe? I can't help but see a little Raskolnikov in many of his characters.

Hi everybody. I am about to start to try to realize my dream of reading D in Russian. But first I must learn the language. Now, has anyone learned in? I speak English and French fluently, and I can speak Spanish slightly, so languages can't be a terrible problem, but I have heard that Russian is exceptionally difficult.

Has anyone done this? My university offers Russian courses, so I would do it that way - but is it possible for a non-native to become quite fluent in Russian?

Well, the articles are interesting to me, but its alot of speculation about the stock markets, as well as stories about companies, CEOs, pretty much everything in the business world. Forbes tends to be more political, of course Steve Forbes is a leader in the Conservative movement, and ran as a Republican for President in 2000, so you can guess the bent. Fortune has wordier and more detailed articles, but tends to favor Liberal policies. There are interviews, but they are generally brief, and I think mostly used for stories about various topics as quotes (not shown in their entirety).
There is Forbeslife which I am sure many here would appreciate, about travel, and the high life in general.

The main problem I am having with reading is that I don't find that classics are relevant to what I need to know. I know that they hold lessons for me, it is just difficult to justify spending two hours with Charles Dickens, when I could be reading about finance... it is certainly a struggle...

Hi all (again), after another 6 month hiatus I am back, with many changes. I am neither reading nor writing as much as I wish. Unfortunately, business school does not allow for much of either, except very technical reading. I really am an English major at heart, but a business major in practice. I can't keep from reading though - I subscribe to Forbes and Fortune magazine.

What else? I am working for HSBC now, as well as taking an accounting class (just a six week summer course), which keeps me more than busy.

I have lined up books to read once I have more time, I am looking at Bleak House first, perhaps something by Kafka next. I was reading political books, but they are actually quite boring, and uninformative if you are a news junkie like me they are quite bland compared to the blogs.

I guess thats it in a nutshell. I love this site, but its really tough to discuss Dostoevsky solely, because I just am unable to dedicate my leisure time to one author - and it would not be difficult to dedicate myself wholly to his work, but I want to read far more authors.

I just looked back on this writing from about 3 years ago. It is always interesting to note how far we have come - writing that I found impressive at a time is now embarrassing, I think I know how Gogal felt  

Hmmm I am not really one for poetry, however, Annabelle Lee by Poe is quite good. I bought The Wasteland a few months ago and for whatever reason never read it. I will certainly pick that up tonight.

As for the nuc-u-lar option, I guess the fact that Democrats aren't threatening to subvert the 200 year traditions of the Congress is a reasonably noble thing to do.

What about the fact that the Democrats weren't allowing Republicans to introduce legislation in the House, or Barney Frank throwing a fit when the Republicans wouldn't yield their time and wanted to offer another amendment to a bill.

And I am not sure if you have heard of this website, but it has been accurate in the past in is very well known for its accuracy.

http://www.snopes.com/politics/ballot/stateiq.asp

And I'm not taking it personally, its a good debate, I'm having fun.

Couldn't agree more Scoundrel.

Poor Knight, don't you remember the nuclear option in 2005?

I agree of course that there are intelligent republicans. I know many myself. But here are some facts: Of the 16 states with average population IQ's over 100, all voted for Kerry in 2004. There are only three states with IQ's less than 100 that voted for Kerry (The Economist).

That has been debunked, there has never been a study on which states have the highest IQ scores (at least that is what I have read from a couple of sources).
Besides, you know the critiques of the IQ, my IQ says that I am a genius yet I never announce it because a) I don't want to sound like a braggart b) I don't find IQ tests fair at all.
Did you know that one of the 10 highest known IQs in the world belongs to Republican from New Hampshire? You can look him up if you would like, but like I said, the IQ means nothing, I mean, Jumma had an IQ of something like 180 and he was an idiot  

Three hints for Scoundrel.:And I live in one of the most Conservative districts in the country, but live in one of the bluest states. My state is north of Kansas.
Have fun! You should be able to to do it with everything I have told you.

Well, I won't give his name, but there are a lot of academics on both sides of the aisle. You have just touched on the thing that makes my blood boil. Democrats seem to think that they are the only ones enlightened enough to understand complex philosophy, this is however not true at all.
There are stupid Republicans, there are stupid Democrats, the fact is that if you can justify your philosophical or social position (I mean ideology) through rational argument, the authors that you have read are irrelevant.
Yes more Liberals read fictional books than Conservatives, Conservatives listen to more Classical music that Liberals, does this mean that Conservatives are the sole ones that understand music and Liberals dominate rational thought and common sense? From a centrist point of view the answer is a strong no.

And on oversimplification - I like simplification. I use the theory of Occam's razor as much as I can and it is a great theory that will ensure that you are correct 9 out of 10 times.

I'm sorry, but your reading abilities have to be seriously flawed if you didn't see that I was responding in part to Poor Knight's statement that "(Gore's Nobel Prize win was) one of the very few proud moments we have been able to share on the world stage in the past seven years."
I don't know that Mike Huckabee said that and I won't fall into your trap. I don't like Huckabee anyway, but he is right that Republicans have been slow to pursue a more pro-evironment view, however if you look at some of the bi-partisan bills that just went through the Senate, having to do with environmental issues, people did not vote along party lines at all, even Democrats voted against fuel efficiency increases because it will kill the auto industry.

If you think that mankind and animals can't evolve look at what happened to the moths in England at the height of the Industrial Revolution. They turned black to disguise better with the plant life that was largely covered in soot.

Here is a link that you might find interesting, look at the signatories, I only saw 2 that weren't related to global warming.

http://scienceandpublicpolicy.org/reprint/open_letter_to_un.html

This very well may be the case.  Politicians are despicable.

I think that most were well intentioned to start. Has anyone read All The Kings Men? I have a feeling that it is a good look into the way politics might affect a good person. I have always wanted to get into politics, but working with politicians has really made me discouraged. I worked with a County Executive who had a huge fall from grace and may be the most hated man in my area (his approval rating went from about 90% to 8% in about a month). Yet we elected a new executive from his same party - which suggests that people care more about the person than the party.

So in your world a President's popularity equals his effectiveness.

I guess Truman was a horrible President then?

everyone you meet hates him

Well that's obviously not true, I know many people who like him,  about 7 in 20 like him, and they are forecasting based on the current trend that his approval rating will hit 42% in March (this was according to research done Rasmussen, AP did a similar study that said 39% by April)

Those numbers aren't great, but given the fact the average of all the major surveys say that the Democrat-controlled Congress approval rating is 26%, it seems pretty good. Have any of you considered that maybe people are simply disillusioned with politics and don't approve of anyone?

if not the singular roll

Are you not aware that 80% of Greenhouse gases come from volcanic activity (which has been at rates never seen seen the 1840s (the 1850s were also very hot)). We are not in the hottest years on record 1934 was the hottest year ever.
I actually believe that Global Warming does exist, but if you look at the models, most say that the Earth will only heat up 0.5 degrees C by 2100. Based on the oceans will rise by one foot, which is really nothing as we see these fluctuations often anyway.

Saying man plays the singular role shows a great amount of lack of any scientific knowledge, because even those who believe that Global Warming is the biggest issue facing our time will admit that the percentage of CO2 and Methane produced by man is miniscule compared to that produced in nature.

Breathing of animals causes far more CO2 than all the factories in the world. A few people are saying that America should adopt the same 1 child policy as China to combat this. I am not making that up.

I am assuming that you didn't read my previous post. Go ahead, read it.

I never said that Bush was great on the environment, I implied that he is reasonable.

And Poor Knight, 90% of scientists is irrelevant, I don't care what a Zoologist says for example. But I would like to see your source for the 90% from a fairly unbiased source (a scientific poll with its methods known would be good).
The Russian Roulette analogy is wrong. You don't need to make any sacrifices in order to make sure that I don't kill myself. And Global Warming still is a theory, the fact that you will likely die if you play Russian Roulette with 5 of 6 chambers full is a fact.

Um, what the heck. Anti-environment? Since when does not believing that global warming is man-made constitute being anti-environment? Most Conservatives love the environment, we just want to be reasonable and not destroy our way of life over a THEORY. That would be silly, imagine if Jimmy Carter reacted this way in the 1970s when global cooling was imminent? A reaction is in line to help preserve our environment, but the initiatives that the Liberals have come up with range anywhere from reasonable to absolutely inane. For example taxing people heavily to somehow stop global warming, or $6 a gallon gas (with an approx. $2.50/ gal. tax to help stop theoretical global warming).
And the "vast majority" of Americans don't hate Bush, lost the popular vote by a few hundred thousand in 2000, and in 2004 he crushed John Kerry. President Bush has a higher approval rating than Harry Reid, he also has a higher approval rating than Congress. If anything the Democrats are unpopular.