The World According to Anna
By Sean at 12 November, 2007, 2:39 am
Anna Politkovskaya, A Russian Diary: A Journalist’s Final Account of Life, Corruption, and Death in Putin’s Russia, trans. Arch Tait, Forward Scott Simon, Random House, New York, 2007.
I’m told that when you begin reading a book you should always start with the title. It’s a small window into the tales between its covers. This is especially the case for Anna Politkovskaya’s posthumous Russian Diary. The title of this English translation pretty much says its all. Anna will tell you stories about how life is slowing becoming paralyzed by a creeping and sinister despotism. She will spin you stories of a State and society rotted out by corruption. And then there is death. It’s a showcase of political gore, depression, and misery. (Interestingly the Russian version’s title lacks such promotional edge. It is simply titled What For (Za Chto).
Political gore is what English speaking readers should expect from Politkovskaya. Her previous three works, A Dirty War, A Small Corner in Hell, and Putin’s Russia all propounded the same thesis. Russian democracy is a façade spun to cover the emergence of despotism. There is a creeping counterrevolution going on in Russia headed by Putin and his chekists.
Some would call Politkovskaya paranoid. But even if she was, it’s hard to completely write off her theory. She was victim of it. In A Small Corner in Hell, she wrote about how in 2001 she was detained, humiliated and taunted by Russian troops. En route to help with negotiations in Beslan she was poisoned. And finally, she was gunned down in her apartment building last year. To a certain extent all of this suggests that perhaps she was on to something.
In Russian Dairy, that “something” is spelled out in dated entries that begin in the frigid months of December 2003 and end in the Fall of August 2005. The end of Politkovskaya’s tale is already foreshadowed in the book’s first entry. It was 7 December 2004. The day Duma elections were held. After voting, Mrs. Putina remarked that the President was worried and needed to hurry home. What was the urgency? The Putins’ Labrador Connie gave birth to puppies the night before. The President of Russia said nothing to the fact that that morning thirteen victims of a terrorist attack in Yessentuki were being buried. Politikovskaya’s friends announced that Putin’s silence meant political suicide of United Russia in the elections. But she wasn’t swayed. “By morning,” she writes with little surprise, “there was no more incredulity. Russia, rejecting the lies and arrogance of the democrats, had mutely surrendered herself to Putin. A majority had voted for the phantom United Russia Party, whole sole political program was to support Putin.”
This is the main theme of Russian Diary: a manipulative, emotionless, cynical yet all powerful Tsar in the form of Putin, a withering, delusional, or worse self-seeking liberal opposition, and an apathetic and fooled public who willingly embraces the opiates the State feeds them. There are few heroes in Russian Diary. When they appear they tend to be individuals or families that risk name, property, and person to survive the brutalities in Chechnya, stand up against its horrors, or risk all to form political organizations—like the Committees of Soldiers’ Mothers—that use their moral authority to make political change. But besides these token examples of power from below, Politkovskaya’s Russia is filled to the brim with villainy.
The misery in the book is so thick that it is difficult to isolate what Anna Politkovskaya stands for. Surely she is an advocate for human rights. At times it’s with fervorous and unshakable naiveté. She is a partisan for democracy, but what that buzz word means to her is unclear. She not only takes pride in speaking truth to power, she is willing to take the risks to do so. She possesses a will that is not fueled by fame or fortune (had she wanted those, she would have taken up one of the many offers to move to the West) but by the energy exhibited by the small peoples she interviews in the war torn regions of the North Caucuses. All of this in the end fails to give the reader a clear picture of Politkovskaya politics, but rather forces him to wade through what she is against to discern what she advocates.
It is this ambiguity that makes Russian Diary frustrating at times and turns the myriad of sorrowful tales of human survival in Putin’s Russia into trivia. The book is void of any self-reflexivity, not just on a personal level, but also on a political level. This is strange considering that the book is a diary or at least written in a diary format. But this lack of self reflection suggests that Politkovskaya wrote her diary with the intention of publication from its inception. Those seeking to delve into her soul would be surely disappointed. That is unless they are willing to construct it by peeling away all of the death and corruption that mediates her self and the reader.
The only explicit statement of why Anna Politkovskaya risked her life for her profession is found in the short “Am I Afraid?” that occupies the book’s final two pages. There she denies charges of pessimism, obsession with Putin, and disdain for the Russian people. Her problem, she says, is that “I see everything, and that is the whole problem. I see both what is good and what bad.” The reason why the latter overwhelms the former is because it represents a “mushroom” that can’t be ignored. This is what makes her “want to do something about changing the situation in Russia right now.” And what is that situation? “Our state authorities today,” she writes, “are only interested in making money. That is literally all they are interested in.”
Anna Politkovskaya was the daughter of Soviet diplomats. It was a social position that bequeathed a life of a Soviet elite—access to a good Russian middle class living, education, travel, and intellectual circles. Being from a family of diplomats gave her access to Western books, ideas, and idealism. Not unlike the sons (and some daughters) of Tsarist nobility a century before, Politkovskaya’s class position showered her in benefits of a system she despised. Such is the internal contradiction of the Russian middle class intellectual. Either he or she reconciles themselves to the system, as so many liberals in Politkovskaya’s text have done and continue to do, or embrace the nagging sense of justice that pervades their soul. One can say what they want about Politkovskaya’s brand of “yellow journalism,” but she sincerely chose the latter path. And like so many Russian intellectuals of the past that path ultimately led to her destruction.
Russian Diary is at its best when talking about the small peoples Politkovskaya encounters in her search for a just Russia. You get a sense of how they are caught in the whirlwind of power, corruption, but also hope and the discovery of their agency. Take for example, her conversations with parents of two radicalized youths. One a National Bolshevik, the other a follower of Basaev. According to their parents, neither idolized the NPB’s Eduard Limonov or the Islamism of Shamil Basaev. Both were rather pushed to these extremes by the hopelessness of the political situation. “It is Limonov and Basaev who keep the hope alive in our children that someday they will be able to feel they are decent human beings. It is appalling, but that is how things stand,” Politkovskaya wrote.
This is really the essence of Putin’s Russia in Politkovskaya’s eyes. It’s not so much the corruption, the torture, the disregard for human life, or even the cynicism of Russia’s political elites. The essence for her is the fact that so many people hide their “eyes to reality until it hits us like a typhoon.” For her, Putin’s Russia is approaching what Leopold Haimson called “dual polarization.” The Russian political center has dropped out, civil society has been crushed, and there is a wide disconnect between the intransigent state and the hungry people. Russian politics is increasingly pushed to the margins, with despotism on the one side and radical revolution on the other. This is what the young National Bolshevik and Islamist represent to Politkovskaya. What appalls her is that the Russian state has learned nothing from its torrid history. “Are they suicidal?” She asks. “Are they calmly waiting for the appearance of new terrorist Kalyaevs, Zasuliches, and Savinkovs like the tsars conjured up? Or are they simply mindless, living for the moment? . . . I think they are mindless.”
Yet despite the Kremlin’s mindlessness, Putin and his circle appear to display a political adeptness that almost turns them into a superhuman omnipresent evil. Putin is everywhere in the text, and despite the scorn she heaps on his person, he is still elevated to master villain that has his hands firmly wrapped around the puppet strings. So much so that a reader might walk away with the sense that Russia is merely a victim of a mass conspiracy.
This is perhaps the main fault of Russian Diary. Politkovskaya’s world is one inhabited by individuals with Putin as its alpha and omega. It’s a kind of reverse monarchism really. Instead of thinking that everything would be right if the Tsar knew about the machinations of his nobles, we have the autocrat at the helm, in full control of steamship Russia. Why Putin possesses this authoritarian impulse is more assumed than explained. His career in the Company overshadows all else. And Politkovskaya’s fetishism of the individual leaves no room for any kind of wider analysis of the social, political, and economic forces that Russia finds itself in, whether those conditions are of its own making or not. One gets the sense from Russian Diary that if Putin had a sudden conversion and saw the liberal light, all that is bad in Russia would be magically swept away.
In his introduction to A Small Corner of Hell, Georgi Derluguian wrote that “this book represents a political position in a struggle where the stakes are exceedingly high. The author wants us to appreciate this because she hopes to enlist out support in her cause.” The same can be said of Russian Diary as well as all her books. Politkovskaya had an agenda, and she wasn’t ashamed to arm it with an arsenal of hyperbole. Though she has been repeatedly condemned as more a partisan than a journalist, her lack of objectivity is refreshing in a time when journalists more and more often strip themselves of their passions.
The fact that Politkovskaya threw self-censorship to history’s dustbin is what makes Russian Diary an important text. With that said, that passion drives the narrative to suspension at points. It leaves the reader thinking, “Okay, I get the point” far too often and left wondering if there is anything novel within its remaining pages. But I place the blame for this not on Politkovskaya herself, but on the Random House editors that felt the compulsion to publish every entry she wrote in those two years. After all, posthumous works are never really about the author making a mark for themselves. It’s about turning the author’s every word into something sacred as if their greater meaning would be loss with a single edit.
For better or worse, if Politkovskaya diagnosis for Russia is even a quarter right, what is emerging before us is neither Soviet nor Tsarist (though she makes rather crude allusions to both systems throughout). Putin’s Russia is something far more sinister; a quality, at least she hoped, would hasten its implosion.
Popularity: 8% [?]
Trackbacks & Pingbacks
- Pingback by Global Voices Online » Russia: Politkovskaya Diary on November 13, 2007 @ 9:44 pm
Comments
Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.
Sean, A great even-handed review. I can’t wait to watch you get slapped around by both (all?) sides in the comments!
A random recent Anna-moment for me, for no particular reason: Right before the Russian March last weekend, a Russian friend asked if I thought the US government would do anything if I were attacked or murdered. I stammered, “I hope so, who knows…” Her response? “Look at how they abandoned Politkovskaya! You know she was an American citizen too.” For some reason, this never occured to me.
“En route to help with negotiations in Beslan she was poisoned.”
Ahem. She got sick on the plane. “I was poisoned” was her own interpretation of events.
Sean, by “small peoples” do you mean “nationalities with few members” or do you mean “small groups of people”?
Neither. I mean people with little power or connections to those who have it.
Thanks for the compliment Buster. It’s true that Politkovskaya had American citizenship. AT least this is what the Guardian claims. It reads:
“[Politkovskaya] had dual Russian-American citizenship, it has been revealed. She was born in New York in 1958 to the family of a Soviet diplomat. Politkovskaya claimed her citizenship at the beginning of the 1990s.”
But what American citizenship meant for her isn’t clear. I know it’s used to make out to be some kind of 5th column. I’m afraid that if something happened to you, me, or any American in Russia, I’m sure we would all be abandoned too.
She must have interviewed a rather biased selection of simple people, since most of them support Putin. Either that or they’re Communists. Did AP even mention the KPRF in her book?
Come to think of it, AP kind of reminds me of those 19th-century liberal or socialist Russian intellectuals who claimed to speak for the little guy, all the while having values antithetical to those possessed by the little guy.
She does mention the KPRF but not systematically. She is none too kind to the liberals who she views as opportunistic. Most of the “small people” she interviews are those who suffered in some way at the hands of the authorities.
It’s funny you mention the 19th c because the other day I was trying to think about where Politkovskaya would fall among them. But I didn’t have time to review the literature to pick an appropriate comparison. But this is where I was going with mentioning her very middle class background. She definitely reminds me of noble sons and daughters who embraced liberalism, socialism, etc in the 19th century. I agree with you for the most part, though I don’t think she was cynical in her speaking for the little guy no more than the Narodniki were when they “went to the people.” Politkvoskaya’s views of the “people” are quite contradictory. On the one hand she sees them as apathetic, dark masses and on the other signs of hope if only they would act. Given the lack of reflexivity I mention in the review, it’s difficult to say if she ever consciously dealt with this ambivalence.
“Our state authorities today,” she writes, “are only interested in making money. That is literally all they are interested in.”
If this is the case, Putin is doing a staggeringly bad job at it, at least on a personal level.
Ahead of the Russia-EU meetings last month, there was an article discussing the personal wealth and fortunes of various world leaders. Putin was at the bottom of the list. Bush, Sarkozy, and all other leaders of Europe have vast fortunes compared to Putin’s own rather modest means.
From the October 26th Gazeta.ru article, President Putin, had recently submitted a declaration of assets. He reported earning 2 million rubles ($81,000) in 2006 and reported having 3.7 million rubles in savings. He also reported owning two Volga automobiles from the 1960s and an apartment of 77 square meters in St. Petersburg, all of which he inherited from his parents, as well as a small plot of land outside Moscow and 230 shares in St. Petersburg Bank.
Of course, this isn’t the case with the Duma, where approximately one-third of the people on the Unified Russia’s list of 600 candidates for the December Duma elections are dollar millionaires, per political analyst Mikhail Tulsky as told to RFE/RL’s Russian Service on October 26. There are more details in the Tulsky interview, but the long and short of it is – Putin doesn’t appear to be lining his own pockets by any stretch of the imagination.
Regarding the Duma’s wealth – I can’t see where it would be much different than most Western countries. I suppose if she worked in the US, she would be writing some article about this for The Nation, and Americans would be yawning instead of Russians. The vast majority of lawmakers have incomes far in excess of the populace their represent.
There are many other holes that can be punched into Politkovskaya’s picture of the world. Certainly Russia can be an extraordinarily cruel nation, but that hardly tells the entire story. That picture does sell books and promote funding for “liberal” institutions in Russia, however.
I don’t think she was cynical. I think she was horribly naive and out of contact with reality. (Sort of like John Pilger.)
Sean,
There is one conundrum Politkovskaya never seemed to resolve.
She was an advocate for human rights – yet her newspaper was co-owned was a fomer Secretary-General.
Does not compute.
It is simply titled What For (Za Chto).
Shouldn’t that be Za Chem? Or do people speak funny in Sakhalin?
Zachem is one word.
Sean, let me second Buster’s comment. I have not read the book (and probably will not–too many books, too little time), but your review seemed balanced and informative. Neither adulation, nor demonization, neither hero worship, nor snide mockery.
Zachem is one word.
Ooh! I didn’t know that. I don’t think I’ve ever seen it written down, only spoken. Presumably it is made up of “za” and “chem”, though?
Back to the matter at hand, this is an excellent post Sean. I’ve seen supposedly professional book reviews fall way short of this standard. Meaty slap on the back for you.
“Ooh! I didn’t know that. I don’t think I’ve ever seen it written down, only spoken. Presumably it is made up of “za” and “chem”, though?”
Yeah. I’m no linguist, but I think “zachem” would mean “what for?” and “za chto” more of “why I do this,” if you see the subtle distinction.
Oh and it’s a very good review too!
Yeah. I’m no linguist, but I think “zachem” would mean “what for?”
I see the distinction, just about. I’m no linguist either, but when I ask one of my 25-year-old sultry female Russian staff to do anything which might resemble work, I am met with the reply “Zachem?”
In English, it translates as “For vot I do zis?”
Katja insists that zachem and za chto are similar, meaning why/what for, but not interchangeable. She describes za chto as more dramatic.
She flipped back and forth on this one as to which meant “why” and which meant “what for”.
I am left with the conclusion that there are too many interrogatives in Russian.
She actually IS a linguist, although god knows it does very little for her here in the US of A.
за что can mean what for as in “what did I do? what do they blame me for?”
It does not usually mean “what for” as in “what do you do it for?” – that is зачем. Except a very special case when что and for literally mean actual payback, or anticipated result: “what would you sell it for?”
За чем can be spelled separately as in за чем пойдешь то и найдешь
As for Putin’s wealth, lets not forget his wife’s shares of Megafon just for one. If he really is that poor, then how is he building his villa on Kamenny Ostrov in St Pete known locally as Брестская Крепость. The land alone would probably be over 20 mil
“Regarding the Duma’s wealth – I can’t see where it would be much different than most Western countries.”
It is interesting that a lot of things foreigners blow off in their own countries they suddenly notice, and thematize, in Russia. Such as wealth discrepancy — even though differences in income between the rich and the poor are actually lower in Russia than in the United States, it’s supposed to be a big deal in the former and just business as usual in the latter. Or compare coverage of abuses in Iraq (“it’s just a few bad apples”) vs. those in Chechnya (“it’s state-conducted genocide!”).
As an aside, I noticed that self-righteous articles in the US media about Chechnya seemed to shrivel up after Abu Graib. I wonder why.
As an aside, I noticed that self-righteous articles in the US media about Chechnya seemed to shrivel up after Abu Graib. I wonder why.
We lost the moral high ground.
As for Putin’s wealth, lets not forget his wife’s shares of Megafon just for one. If he really is that poor, then how is he building his villa on Kamenny Ostrov in St Pete known locally as Брестская Крепость. The land alone would probably be over 20 mil
You going to hit him up for tax evasion, like Al Capone?
According to Gazeta.ru and his documents filed with the Russian government, he owns only what I described above. So I can’t answer your question about “his” villa. Based on what I can ready about “Stony Island”, I suspect what you are talking about is government property, a dacha on the island.
Rather like saying George Bush owns Camp David.
“We lost the moral high ground.”
I think a great deal of the reporting a few years ago of the “Russia is trapped in a brutal, bloody unwinnable war” genre was really motivated by a wish to feel morally superior, combined with a prurient desire to hear about lurid tales of suffering and a simplistic moral story. Plus, there was the “you cannot defeat a counterinsurgency” theme, which I think has something to do with Americans wanting to console themselves about losing the Vietnam War. In some ways, it reminds me of some left-wing reporting on Third World countries of the Poverty Porn variety, which seems to revel in finding ever-new depths of poverty (once again, John Pilger, I am looking at you).
“According to their parents, neither idolized the NPB’s Eduard Limonov or the Islamism of Shamil Basaev. Both were rather pushed to these extremes by the hopelessness of the political situation.”
I was thinking — isn’t this the kind of thing you would expect a parent to say whose child had taken up with an extremist organization? “Sure he’s taken up with a bad crowd, but our Johnny a Nazi skinhead? No way! He’s just alienated and will grow out of it.”
The following is from a reader names Charles, who asked me me to post it for him. Charles writes:
“Perhaps we should look back farther than Stalin to find Putin’s father: Peter the Great. Both leaders finding the Russian state unsatisfactory as it was, embarked upon rebuilding it from the top. And as Peter forcibly fused some of the West to the East, Putin is attempting a hybrid of the Czarist and the Soviet to the end of building a Russian “brand”, to use the terminology of western product marketing. The ingredients may not be greatly to the taste of us in the West, but it’s brewed for the Russians, who like us all, need a national myth.
And speaking purely as a selfish American, I wish Putin the Great and Russia success.”
It is interesting that a lot of things foreigners blow off in their own countries they suddenly notice, and thematize, in Russia. Such as wealth discrepancy — even though differences in income between the rich and the poor are actually lower in Russia than in the United States, it’s supposed to be a big deal in the former and just business as usual in the latter.
I would not speak for others but differences in income do not bother me as long as wealth has not been collected using government corruption. When Megafon uses existing government/military networks in Leningradskaya oblast while Putin is so prominent there, when minister Leonid Reiman owns $2B worth of telecom assets he supposedly regulates, when it is impossible to tell where the state ends and huge monopolistic monstrosities like Gazprom begin – that is quite different.
Has Putin changed his ways dramatically since the times he was collecting envelopes from joint venture applicants as the man responsible for attracting foreign capital to St. Pete? I doubt it. Has Igor Sechin changed his ways since the time he was hanging out with bandit Malyshev? (Why would Malyshev had his “hotel” set up next door to the FSB hostel on that same Stony Island?) I would not be surprised if some sinister racketeering stuff spills out into the open from the war of thugs between Sechin and Cherkesov.
So, yes, let’s point to Abramoff or Cunningham in an attempt to cover corruption institutionalized under Putin.
You going to hit him up for tax evasion, like Al Capone?
You are kidding. Al Capone was a local peon. Putin’s racket is the whole country. Who is the most prominent tax collector in Russia? Mister “Витька дай миллион” Zubkov. Will he hit his master for tax evasion?
And speaking purely as a selfish American, I wish Putin the Great and Russia success.
I agree. As long as it means making Russian people not the Russian government wealthier and better off. It is getting much better, however I suspect it is happening despite Putin and not because of him.
Such as wealth discrepancy — even though differences in income between the rich and the poor are actually lower in Russia than in the United States, it’s supposed to be a big deal in the former and just business as usual in the latter.
There is a good reason for the discrepancy. Although income equality might be lower in the US than Russia, the low earners in the US earn far more allowing for purchasing parity and have far more control over their lives than the low earners in Russia. It is not a problem, except for ideological idiots, that the richest in the USA earn billions when absolute poverty has been eliminated across almost the enitire population. It is a huge problem in Russia that the richest earn billions when huge swathes of the population live in dire poverty without access to the most basic of services.
People are quick to point out that if you go to parts of the US, especially in the South, you will find dire poverty on a par with that found in Russia. My response is that in the US you have to make a journey to find such poverty. In Russia, you can normally find it within walking distance of your apartment.
It is not a problem, except for ideological idiots, that the richest in the USA earn billions when absolute poverty has been eliminated across almost the enitire population.
Well I guess you can count me as one of the “ideological idiots”. Considering that the poverty level in the US is measured at $16,242 for a family of 4, I would hope that there wouldn’t be that much poverty in the US given how much money the wealthy vampires suck up. Yet 12% of Americans are still listed living in poverty. And I know you mean dire poverty, but if a family of 4 is living on even $20,000 a year I would consider that dire especially considering the amount of wealth the US economy generates.
And you don’t need to go to the South to find poverty in the US. You can find it within walking distance of my apartment in Los Angeles. Let’s see, shall I introduce you to the family next door to me who live 5 people in a two room apartment. Two are adults who work in food service at the local hospital (read minimum wage at $7.50/hour.) There are three children. Or how about my old neighbors who live 4 people in a studio apartment? Or shall I introduce you to the homeless who wonder LA and other American cities, 1/4 of which are war veterans an increasing number of which are vets from Iraq and Afghanistan.
I don’t discount the poverty problem in Russia. But if you want to see poverty in the US I assure you that you don’t need to “make a journey.”
Sean, there is no disputing that there is poverty in the US and it’s a real shame. But, frankly, it simply does not compare with what I have seen in other places (including Russia). I think I know how you feel, though. It is always hurts more when something ugly or wrong takes place in your own home. As an analogy, I would not be too happy if I find out that the kid down the block was caught shoplifting, but if I find out that my daughter was also shoplifting I would be shocked, unhappy and angry.
So far in this thread I found Cyrill’s comment the most perceptive.
it simply does not compare with what I have seen in other places (including Russia).
I don’t dispute this at all. I dispute the idea that one would have to “make a journey” to see it.
absolute poverty has been eliminated across almost the enitire population.
Even without the typo, this is one of the mostly grossly inaccurate statements I’ve even seen posted at this forum.
Sean elaborated a little bit on that point. I agree with his statements. As Katja worked for 8 months at Wal-Mart, she and I are now more in touch with our own local working poor. I won’t belabor it; Sean gives perfect examples. To suggest that there is no poverty in the US, or that you have to travel to see poor people, is just delusional.
You are kidding. Al Capone was a local peon. Putin’s racket is the whole country.
Of course I was joking about Putin being tried for tax evasion.
However, I have yet to see a single coherent example of his great personal wealth or how he uses his position of power to his personal advantage. As I cited, the figures show quite the opposite – he is a relative pauper when compared to the leaders of the US and Europe.
At one time, I actually expected Putin to get out of political office for a while so that he could rake some serious coin. But it appears quite the opposite.
And I know you mean dire poverty, but if a family of 4 is living on even $20,000 a year I would consider that dire especially considering the amount of wealth the US economy generates.
Oh, so your definition of dire poverty should take into account how much other people earn? What was it you said?
Well I guess you can count me as one of the “ideological idiots”.
I guess I can. I was referring to absolute poverty, not how much someone has in relation to everyone else.
I don’t discount the poverty problem in Russia. But if you want to see poverty in the US I assure you that you don’t need to “make a journey.”
Living in LA, no you don’t. Any large city in the world, even Singapore, has people living in dire poverty. But take a trip to, say, Lancaster on the North Carolina-South Carolina border, a medium sized town of 8,000 people where my friend lives. Or any other small provincial town. The find me poverty of the type experienced in practically every single town and city in Russia. You will have to get in a car at least, as opposed to strolling off the main street by 100 yards.
Even without the typo, this is one of the mostly grossly inaccurate statements I’ve even seen posted at this forum.
Feel free to believe that absolute poverty is still widespread across the USA. Just don’t expect anyone to take you seriously.
To suggest that there is no poverty in the US, or that you have to travel to see poor people, is just delusional.
Kindly point to where anyone, including me, has said you have to travel to see poor people in the US.
Let’s see, shall I introduce you to the family next door to me who live 5 people in a two room apartment. Two are adults who work in food service at the local hospital (read minimum wage at $7.50/hour.) There are three children. Or how about my old neighbors who live 4 people in a studio apartment?
Please do. And we can compare how dire is their poverty compared to a random selection of my neighbours, shall we? Bearing in mind also that Yuzhno-Sakahlinsk happens to be one of the wealthiest cities in Russia now.
Like I said above, I don’t doubt that the poverty in Russia is worse than the US. The statistics bear this out. Though according to the Gini coefficient which measures inequality, the United States (a Gini of 15.9) has slightly more inequality than Russia (a Gini of 12.7). But I think that this is made worse by the fact that the US is fourth in the world in GDP(PPP) while Russia is 59th. The US is wealthier but more unequal.
I didn’t know what you mean by “absolute poverty” so I looked it up. Do you mean the following? “Absolute poverty refers to a set standard which is consistent over time and between countries. An example of an absolute measurement would be the percentage of the population eating less food than is required to sustain the human body (approximately 2000-2500 calories per day for an adult male).”
This is how the US Government determines the poverty line. According to the most recent statistics, around 12% of the US population are living in absolute poverty. In Russia its 17%, though I don’t know how they measure it.
Oh, so your definition of dire poverty should take into account how much other people earn? What was it you said?
Yes and so do poverty statistics. Poverty can only be determined in relation to those who are not in poverty. At least in the US it is calculated by way of the Consumer Price Index, income cutoffs, household size, and the cost of living. My personal understanding of it is also in relation to the gap between rich and poor. The more wealth is concentrated in fewer hands, a process which is a global phenomena, poverty increases. Economies have limited amount of pie to dole out and if the largest portion is held by a few, and smaller potions are left for the many, then you are bound to have more poverty.
“Relative poverty” is measured by comparing incomes. To quote Wiki again (with hesitation): “”Relative poverty” can be defined as having significantly less access to income and wealth than other members of society. Therefore, the relative poverty rate can directly be linked to income inequality. When the standard of living among those in more financially advantageous positions rises while that of those considered poor stagnates, the relative poverty rate will reflect such growing income inequality and increase. Conversely, the poverty rate can decrease, with low income people coming to have less wealth and income if wealthier people’s wealth is reduced by a larger percentage than theirs.”
So I’m not alone in viewing poverty in relation to what other people earn.
So I’m not alone in viewing poverty in relation to what other people earn.
No, you are most certainly not. But this doesn’t make defining poverty as a factor of equality any more ludicrous. The way poverty is defined in the UK, for example, is anyone earning less than 60% of the median income. This tells us absolutely nothing about material depravation, as 60% less than median income could – and usually does – mean adequate means to live.
If we are interested in eradicating poverty, we should be concerned with the absolute poverty – that measured by material depravation – of the poorest of society, not with income inequality. That somebody has adeqequate food, housing, and clothing should be of more concern than whether everyone is starving but equally so, as in former and existing communist regimes. That people concern themselves more with equality than whether the poorest have adequate provisions is why I call them ideological idiots, as they are no different from the ideological idiots who insisted that equality in the USSR was more important than making sure everyone was well fed. Everyone being equally miserable is not a virtue of a system of government.
Economies have limited amount of pie to dole out and if the largest portion is held by a few, and smaller potions are left for the many, then you are bound to have more poverty.
Good grief!! I might have to reevaluate ideological idiot to something a lot less polite! Do you really believe economics to be a zero-sum game, whereby more wealth for some results in less wealth for somebody else?!! How do you explain two millenia of economic growth for crying out loud!!
This tells us absolutely nothing about material depravation, as 60% less than median income could – and usually does – mean adequate means to live.
Bold words from a man who makes a 6-figure income and doesn’t pay taxes.
I would dare say that those who are making less than 60% of the median income would beg to differ with you.
Beg to differ – that’s a joke, son. I made, I said, I made a funny.
Bold words from a man who makes a 6-figure income and doesn’t pay taxes.
Erm, I don’t have anywhere near a six figure salary and I do pay taxes.
Next!
Erm, I don’t have anywhere near a six figure salary and I do pay taxes.
Next!
This flies in direct contradiction to comments you’ve made previously on your blog.
That somebody has adeqequate food, housing, and clothing should be of more concern than whether everyone is starving but equally so, as in former and existing communist regimes. That people concern themselves more with equality than whether the poorest have adequate provisions is why I call them ideological idiots, as they are no different from the ideological idiots who insisted that equality in the USSR was more important than making sure everyone was well fed. Everyone being equally miserable is not a virtue of a system of government.
Now who is being ideological or at least rhetorical? To suggest closing the gap of inequality is not promoting an equality of misery. The USSR preached propaganda of equality just like the US preaches propaganda of freedom, but neither were or are that. Indeed, there was inequality in the USSR, but the idea that everyone was equally miserable is an ideological myth. The nomenclature did quite well and a Soviet middle class was firmly in place. And like the ruling classes of the US, they too held too justified an ideology that supported their own class interests.
US poverty is measured on what you say above: a mathematical calculation of what is adequate food, housing and clothing. But at the same time, this is a completely abstract calculation because it doesn’t take into account that humans are more complex than animals. I would hope that life is more than settling for what is adequate. And if this was the case, as defenders of inequality seem to argue, then why don’t they subject the rich to the same definition? Why is it okay for the rich to live in total excess, while the poor must settle for adequate food, clothing and shelter? And what is adequate? Who defines this? My guess is the very people who suck profit off the labor of the poor and then turn around and say, “Don’t worry, you have adequate food and shelter” or “You should be happy that you don’t have the dire conditions of this or that poor in this or that country.” I wouldn’t want to live crowded and over worked for little pay and dignity like my neighbors do, so why should I expect them to?
Yes you are right, everyone being equally miserable shouldn’t be a virtue of government. But justifying base and emotionless definitions of poverty based on what is adequate for the many and not just doing nothing but justifying and promoting excess for the few shouldn’t be the virtue of government either.
Wasn’t the original point of this little economics tangent to address the fact that someone had the stones to suggest that there is no poverty in the US?
I realize that said person would like to put some shine on that turd – but the facts remain that they are wholly and factually incorrect with that statement.
This flies in direct contradiction to comments you’ve made previously on your blog.
Care to link to any blog post I’ve written which states my salary.
Oh, regarding claims on income, I believe the quote previously on your blog was “Fancy earning £600 per day tax free, plus accomodation and car, working 6 weeks on/3 weeks off?”
While you didn’t claim that was your income situation, you certainly do imply it. That income is well into 6-figures and does discuss not paying taxes.
Next!
It seems to me that someone in that situation, or anything approximating it, should shut the fuck up about whether a family of 4 living in Los Angeles on $20,000 a year is impoverished or not.
Oh, I see you want a link –
http://www.desertsun.co.uk/blog/?p=224
Quote as above.
And if this was the case, as defenders of inequality seem to argue, then why don’t they subject the rich to the same definition?
Why is it okay for the rich to live in total excess, while the poor must settle for adequate food, clothing and shelter?
Because anything other than this acceptance is the forcible appropriation of property by the state with the aim of achieving a political goal. At one end lies redistribution and the welfare state. At the other lies North Korea and banana republics. Achieving the right levels of forced appropriation is the key, which the US seems to do a lot better than most other places by caring more about absolute poverty than inequality.
And what is adequate? Who defines this?
Individuals decide this, preferably free individuals.
My guess is the very people who suck profit off the labor of the poor and then turn around and say, “Don’t worry, you have adequate food and shelter” or “You should be happy that you don’t have the dire conditions of this or that poor in this or that country.
Suck the profit off the labor of the poor? Economics is a zero-sum game? If you want to be taken seriously in economic discussion, I would broaden your reading beyond the writings of Marx and speeches of Lenin. I recommend Adam Smith as a starting point.
But justifying base and emotionless definitions of poverty based on what is adequate for the many and not just doing nothing but justifying and promoting excess for the few shouldn’t be the virtue of government either.
Actually, removing emotions from calculations of poverty is precisely what is required. Woolly ideological thinking full of emotions is usually a prerequisite to economic disaster.
Do you really believe economics to be a zero-sum game, whereby more wealth for some results in less wealth for somebody else?!! How do you explain two millenia of economic growth for crying out loud!!
Economies only momentarily grow beyond 100%. There is profit but that profit is recalculated back into the total economy. Now if more of that profit or even new wealth is given to one person and not another, though both contributed to the growth of that economy, then yes it results in less wealth than someone else.
Now the person who gets that wealth may recirculate it back into the economy. And some of it may even “trickle down” to a person with less wealth. But laboring people weren’t given a better standard of living or a greater portion of wealth by virtue of economic growth. Nor by the good graces of the rich. They got it through collective struggle–labor unions, political power, and yes, violence. Any redistribution of wealth to working people was because they fought for it and their power was enough to influence the wealthy to take less to preserve their own long term political and economic hegemony. This is what in more honest times was called class struggle. But unfortunately class warfare is now more the weapon of the rich and powerful. The “middle class” as they like to call it here in the US is satisfied with the fantasy of plenitude that capital promises to provide as their real material conditions become worse, while the rich and powerful actually drown themselves in a bacchanalia of their material wealth.
Quote as above.
Sorry. I’ve read and re-read what I wrote, and I still can’t find a reference to my salary. Care to quote the relevant passage on here?
While you didn’t claim that was your income situation, you certainly do imply it. That income is well into 6-figures and does discuss not paying taxes.
No, I certainly do not imply it. The passage is about the maximum earning potential in today’s oil and gas industry, not about my personal salary, which I take care not to mention.
Next!
Not so fast. You’re still floundering on this one.
It seems to me that someone in that situation, or anything approximating it, should shut the fuck up about whether a family of 4 living in Los Angeles on $20,000 a year is impoverished or not.
Feel free to impose means-tested censorship on your own blog. In the meantime, until such time a similar policy arises here, I will opine until my heart’s content.
Sorry. I’ve read and re-read what I wrote, and I still can’t find a reference to my salary. Care to quote the relevant passage on here?
Consider remedial reading classes. I posted this above the thread link, as I could see your next insipid question coming a mile away.
In a discussion of engineering jobs in Sakhalin, you say “Fancy earning £600 per day tax free, plus accomodation and car, working 6 weeks on/3 weeks off?”
Given that you are – you know, an engineer working in Sakhalin – it is strongly inferred that you are earning £600 per day tax free, etc. That is an income well into 6-figures.
If you aren’t – then maybe you should have applied for one of those engineering jobs that you are talking about, because you imply that you know an awful lot about them.
Economies only momentarily grow beyond 100%.
Jesus wept! So the US economy has not grown 100% since 1776?!! Nor that of Japan since 1945?
Given that you are – you know, an engineer working in Sakhalin – it is strongly inferred that you are earning £600 per day tax free, etc. That is an income well into 6-figures.
It may well be strongly inferred, but that is a factor of the skill – or lack of it – of the reader. It was not implied.
If you aren’t – then maybe you should have applied for one of those engineering jobs that you are talking about, because you imply that you know an awful lot about them.
I do know an awful lot about them, as I am surrounded by people on these sort of wages, at least one of which I employ. There are good reasons why I did not apply for one of these jobs, the main one being I am not a discipline engineer, another being I do not have anywhere near the experience required.
Feel free to impose means-tested censorship on your own blog. In the meantime, until such time a similar policy arises here, I will opine until my heart’s content.
I would expect nothing less of you. Time on this forum has proven you’re a smug, stubborn canker sore.
Of course, I didn’t say anything about censorship, but nice of you to try to slip that in there. I simply said that – in my opinion – someone of the discussed means of income should shut the fuck up about whether a particular family is impoverished.
You can pretend that you have the market cornered on determining what is or isn’t poverty. But it rings hollow, considering your discussed/implied income status, as related above.
Time on this forum has proven you’re a smug, stubborn canker sore.
Time on this forum has proven you are not very bright, and ineffective at debating politely.
You can pretend that you have the market cornered on determining what is or isn’t poverty. But it rings hollow, considering your discussed/implied income status, as related above.
Actually, I am unsure – other than a reason born of ideological idiocy – what my salary has to do with my opinions on poverty. I have travelled 26 of the US states, and currently reside in Russia. It is these two facts and their accompanying observations, not my salary, on which I am basing whether poverty is a problem of far greater magnitude in Russia than the US.
Incidentally, has there ever been a case in recorded history where a country with supposedly high levels of poverty has cheap food in such plentiful supply that the poorest of society are facing an obesity epidemic?
“In Russia, you can normally find it within walking distance of your apartment.”
I could find that in walking distance of my apartment in DC.
I could find that in walking distance of my apartment in DC.
On what scale? Are there really a few thousand people within walking distance of your apartment in DC living in apartments like these,/a>, with intermittent electricity, almost no emergency service cover, and unemployment running at about 50%? Perhaps a photo or two would convince me.
I could find that in walking distance of my apartment in DC.
On what scale? Are there really a few thousand people within walking distance of your apartment in DC living in apartments like these,, with intermittent electricity, almost no emergency service cover, and unemployment running at about 50%? Perhaps a photo or two would convince me.
“On what scale? Are there really a few thousand people within walking distance of your apartment in DC living in apartments like these,, with intermittent electricity, almost no emergency service cover, and unemployment running at about 50%? Perhaps a photo or two would convince me.”
Were. I live in Moscow now (which is much richer than Washington DC, but I know Moscow isn’t Russia).
I didn’t do a survey, but I wouldn’t be surprised if unemployment was at 50% or higher. East DC is a pretty fucked-up place.
Electricity was probably a universal. As for emergency services — ha. “911 is a joke in your town.”
Meh. I lived in plenty of places worse than those apartments when I was in grad school, not to mention my blessedly brief Bohemian phase when I was about 20. Let me not tell you about the time I lived in the hotel in downtown Sab Diego, with the Guardian Angels in the halls. Brrr.
PS. Has anyobody besides me noticed that the American 1950s apartment in the Honeymooners TV show is the spitting image of a modetn Russian apartment?
“The nomenclature did quite well and a Soviet middle class was firmly in place.”
While you are certainly correct that 1) nobody in the USSR was starving and 2) they weren’t living equally, isn’t it the case that the Soviet “middle class” was more of a social label that refered to the intelligentsia than it was a matter of material wealth?
“Incidentally, has there ever been a case in recorded history where a country with supposedly high levels of poverty has cheap food in such plentiful supply that the poorest of society are facing an obesity epidemic?”
Brazil, too, weighs in on obesity
40% of adults are too fat, a government study concludes
By Larry RohterPublished: FRIDAY, JANUARY 14, 2005
RIO DE JANEIRO: Fat Brazilians? In a body-conscious society whose gifts to global culture include “The Girl From Ipanema,” the tanga bikini, and Gisele Bündchen and other supermodels, the idea seems heretical. Yet a controversial government study released late last month confirms it: Brazil is experiencing an epidemic of obesity.
According to the report, conducted by the Brazilian Institute of Geography and Statistics and issued just as summer arrived and people began flocking to the beaches in skimpy clothing, just over 40 percent of Brazil’s adult population is overweight. Over all, 1 adult in 10, or more than 10 million people, are obese, compared with fewer than 4 million who were deemed to be undernourished.
http://www.iht.com/articles/2005/01/13/news/brazil.php
High Prevalence of Obesity Among the Poor in Mexico
To the Editor: The burden of disease in developing countries has traditionally been characterized by undernutrition and infectious diseases. However, lifestyle in many developing countries now parallels that in the developed world, with increasing prevalence of overweight and obesity.1 It is unclear, however, how the prevalence of obesity varies across levels of socioeconomic status within such societies. We examined the prevalence of overweight and obesity among the rural poor in Mexico in comparison with a national sample.
http://jama.ama-assn.org/cgi/content/full/291/21/2544
More than one-third of African women and a quarter of African men are estimated to be overweight, and the World Health Organization predicts that will rise to 41 percent and 30 percent respectively in the next 10 years.
“We have gone from undernutrition to overnutrition without ever having passed healthy nutrition,” said Krisela Steyn, the retired director of the South African Medical Research Council’s Chronic Disease and Lifestyle unit.
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/15954744/
East DC is a pretty fucked-up place.
Much of the US is pretty fucked-up. But I found these fucked-up places were not representative of the US as a whole, and it was possible to travel for miles without seeing signs of decrepitness and poverty.
But when I first came to Russia, I was astounded not only by the state of the fucked-up places, but the number of them. I have yet to visit a Russian town which doesn’t feature sections where the infrastructure is similar to that of a war-zone and people are living in buildings which would be condemned in the UK.
If I were to pick a building which was representative of Russian housing, it would be a 1970s square block which has seen no maintenance since 1989, has a lift which probably doesn’t function or has been set on fire, features wiring in the apartments which would be classed as a dangerous fire-hazard in the west, has water coming out of the taps which you cannot drink without first boiling, and a basement full of the most foul squalor you are ever likely to see. (This adequately describes the apartment I am now living in, although thankfully the inside is much better than the outside.) The vast majority of those 12% of Americans who are supposedly beneath the poverty line live in far better conditions than this, and I doubt there are many who live in worse.
I lived in plenty of places worse than those apartments when I was in grad school, not to mention my blessedly brief Bohemian phase when I was about 20.
Hmmm. The Four Yorkshiremen come to mind.
Could be. I’ve never encountered a Russian apartment block that fits your description — but then I live in Moscow, which as we all know is not representative.
I tried to post a bunch of links to articles on the obesity epidemics in Mexico (with over half of women in rural Mexico being obese or overweight), Brazil and Africa, but it seems not to have gone through. It is obviously not a problem just of rich countries.
Just anecodotally, a friend of mine from Yaroslavl — not known as a rich place — visited DC a few years ago and was amazed at the elevl of poverty. It’s that bad.
This reminds me of the worst I ever lived, in comparison to which those apartments are palatial. I was 21, renting a rathole ground floor apartment in San Diego that was a bedroom with a mattress, a living room with no furniture and a bathroom with a toilet that wouldn’t flush properly. My upstairs neighbors were methamphetamine addicts, with a baby that kept crying all the time audible through the paper-thin walls. The landlady was an ex-drug addict with a kid who was trying to get by after getting divorced (God, haven’t thought of her in over a decade). The window, on the ground floor mind you, wouldn’t close all the way and lock. A dog could literally have leaped into my apartment.
That was no fun.
Could be. I’ve never encountered a Russian apartment block that fits your description — but then I live in Moscow, which as we all know is not representative.
I have not been to Moscow since 1990, but the area I used to live in sounds like a prime candidate for something along the lines Tim is describing. Try old Khrushchev matchboxes in Perovo/Novogireevo area, preferably away from main avenues and closer to the ring road.
Just before she passed, my mother sold her apartment in St Pete, she had been renting out – a tiny studio 20 min by bus away from the end of the line subway station. Electrical wiring there looked like what Tim described, plumbing in horrid state, brownish water…
Most of the time I stayed with her and her husband in the Nevsky district in St. Pete – the area I have never been to when I grew up there. Predominantly blue collar district, quite depressed economically and socially with poverty quite visible. What was mostly visible, however, was total disregard of residents to their living conditions – the amount of trash casually scattered all over was shocking as was the apparent ability of people to live amidst it. I have seen exactly the same pattern in Mexico, South Africa and US as well.
Tim has quite nicely dealt with the economics part of poverty and income inequality. Recent Treasury study shows the richer get richer moniker to be largely an ideological spin. But there is a social aspect to poverty that seems so persistent, there got to be a connection. Some dilapidated conditions people are willing to live in can be addressed by residents themselves. Somehow it rarely happens and people would complain but do absolutely nothing. Could it be that poverty in part is created by dependence on state’s redistribution of wealth – exactly the remedy the left has been promoting.
Zachem is one word.
)
Za chem? Za chemodanom
Za chem ushla Anna? Za maslom?
The topic was about the book.
Not about who better knows what poverty is/was…
You expect me to actually read this book? I could barely make it through one of her NG articles. She usually lost me when I got to the “unnamed sources revealed to me the secrets of the unholy ritual in which Putin made his pact with Satan” part.
Chris!
I’m not the nicest person on the planet but I’m not sadist either
I talked to real person who was interviewed by Anna. And this person had (and has) a full respect to her. But he had to admit that he didn’t say what Anna published as his words. So she easily “bend” story even for the named source.
UPD
This person lost his daughter in Nord-Ost.
“I have not been to Moscow since 1990, but the area I used to live in sounds like a prime candidate for something along the lines Tim is describing.”
Cyril, that was almost two decades ago. Modern Moscow is dripping in money, with a Shokolodanita on every corner and a sushi bar seemingly on every block. There is money on the street. The snow is made of money.
Even my ancient 1930s apartment in Lyublino was clean, functional and everything worked.
I currently live on the Ring Road, and while there is occasionally a faint urine smell in the staircase that is because a lot of homeless congregate in the area because of the nearby church and it is cold outside.
The snow is made of money.
There isn’t much you can buy with snow. A hundred grand will buy you this.
Nah, they’re you’re also paying for the secret base underneath the apartment with the Batmobile. They can’t show that in the ad.
Pardon for the misspell.
Hello Gentlemen!
sorry I havent been commenting lately, just up the walls with work at the moment and have no internet at home.
Hvae just finished reading Andrew Nagorski’s ‘The Greatest Battle’, a new book about the Battle of Moscow in 1941/42. I’d love to tell you I was hugely impressed, but wasnt. It was reasonably informative and reasonably written, but somehow it didnt capture the enormity of what was happening. Very little of the book actually described the detail of the battle itself during its most crucial time, october/november 1941. Still, not a bad book, and the intrigues between the US Embassy and the Kremlin were fascinating, as well as an excellent chapter on the NKVD’s plans to cause trouble in the city should Moscow have been taken. 7/10.
I see Mike has gone and is now publishing at Siberian Light. Chris, I blame you! You, the CHEERLEADER for the Ongoing Imperfections! How are we going to manage here without, as Mike himsllf put it, his ‘inciteful’ analysis?)
I suppose I could make a sock puppet called “Mike Averko” and start posting Russocentric commentary.
This ad opens up the whole new perspective on poverty. Squalor like this would probably be considered poverty in the US. But what portion of Moscow residents can afford 100K for this dump?
Chris, this apartment building is exactly the type I was mentioning. Houses like that were falling apart 2 decades ago. I doubt there was much maintenance since then. Remember the apartment building in Vyborg that collapsed last year? Do not forget, in Russia, your foreigner status moves you up the social ladder and you might not be even visiting areas like Novogireevo.
“Do not forget, in Russia, your foreigner status moves you up the social ladder.”
Not in 2007 it doesn’t. Not in Moscow. Maybe marginally. The times when Westerners in Moscow made more money than Muscovites are long gone. In fact, pampered Westerners here complain about it continuously, ad nauseum.
Didn’t you read the comments to the ad? They were all laughing at it.
“I doubt there was much maintenance since then.”
In Moscow???? Man, you must visit this city. It is affluence incarnate.
The asshole factor is alive and well.
It’s so cool how scientists have managed to teach monkeys to type.
Anyway, you know, high prices for poor properties are a sign of wealth, not the opposite.
… ad nauseum.
The correct spelling is ad nauseam.
“It’s so cool how scientists have managed to teach monkeys to type.”
The chimp blabs a thought of gratitude.
The silly monkey has not heard of typos.
I am curious: do you ever feel any resentment toward the man in the Yellow Hat for having taken you away from the jungle and all your jungle playmates? It must be hard to be removed from the simple, rustic world of grooming, eating fruit, and hot bonobo-on-bonobo action into the confusing universe of the contemporary high-tech hominid, filled as it is with shiny things and stuff that goes “boom,” all of which must be scary to a little monkey.
Also, a controversial issue: did he ever perform experiments on you, or was that removed from the textual accounts of your adventures as potentially disturbing to children?
You continue to not realize that I am not part of your clan.
Answer the man in the Yellow Hat question, dammit. Why leave us in the dark about such an important issue?
Chris,
you’re absolutely correct about the status of foreigners(westerners) now in Moscow. The days when they were super-wealthy and desirable are gone, though it can still give a slight advantage when it comes to getting into knickers – assuming the competition is an average Russian. Westerners (rightly in many cases) are reknowned for being mean with money and dressing badly, something wealthy Russians could never be accused of. Also – we all know a few – some of the westerners there are the pretty shitty individuals, with lovers in Moscow and large families back home and are generally crappy people(Doug and Marty’s Whorehouse is hangout central for most of them). I knew one American in our office who rarely changed his clothes ; the Russian women couldnt get over this, and rightly so. Speaking of the Whorehouse, seemingly there was a programme about it on Russian tv years ago, and the locals were not impressed with the behaviour of expats in Moscow at all.
I see Mike Averko is calling himself Misha in protest at the comment numbers chart. Boo-hoo. As he says himself, his asshole factor is alive and well.
Nowhere near as big as yours.
Hey, I think I figured out what Mike does for a living: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:CuriousGeorge.png
“I see Mike Averko is calling himself Misha in protest at the comment numbers chart.”
Soon, I will cast Mike down from his place at the top of the comment numbers list! I shall be king of the world! Me! ME!
Curious George!!
We used to watch it as kids on sat morning tv!)) Chris, Mike has moved on to bigger and better things – we just have to accept it.
”Nowhere near as big as yours.”
Mike, why have you stopped commenting here? Punch drunk from hidings?
“Curious George!!
We used to watch it as kids on sat morning tv!))”
See? Mike is an icon to millions, nay, tens of millions of children. I don’t know why he’s ashamed to admit it. He should be proud — the little Russocentric monkey who made it big.
Mike made a point before saying that you had posted more comments than him in recent months – of course, the spin was hilarious. He neglected to mention he’d gone into self-imposed exile from SRB in july for a few weeks, hence less comments. He’s going to be a star at SL now. We’re not good enough anymore.
There is no greater honor, no greater accomplishment, that one can have than being the top poster on Sean’s Russia Blog. I’m going to put it on my CV when that happy day arrives.
Chris,
nu pogodi!!!
I’m surprised Mike doesn’t put it in his self-description. “Mike Averko is a New York-based analyst. His work has been published in the Tiraspol Times, the New York Times (pre-Internet), and Serbiannia, and he has written over 1000 analytical pieces that have appeared on Sean’s Russia Blog.”
Chris,
I think you’ve just given him a few ideas! Only a matter of time before he uses that spin) Saw you comment on Scraps of Moscow about printing the TTT. Hilarious!!))
All you need is a computer, a printer, some paper and a stapler. Voila! Print edition.
Mike could also print out all his blog comments, staple them together, and write “Mike Averko’s Collected Works” on the front in crayon. Then he could claim he’d written a book.
It’s simultaneously pathetic and amusing reading you sissy boyz.
I’ll leave you two in your play area.
A 40-something-year-old balding white male virgin using the expression “sissy boyz” seriously. Now that is funny.
Look who is talking. A going in nowhere life little putz locked up in a room all day, posting BS at a blog.
He thinks he’s “normal.”
Actually Mike, I’m at work editing “Development of a Technique for High-Speed Gamma-Ray Spectrometry,” by D. B. Gin, I. N. Chugunov, and A. E. Shevelev, for the upcoming issue of Instruments of RAN. Be sure to check out the issue. And the door is open. Moreover, I have a standing offer from the Russian Space Program to resume my duties as Space Ninja should I ever get bored.
(“going in nowhere life little putz” should be “a little putz going nowhere in life,” by the way. They taught us that in the first year of Ninja College, as proper grammar is de rigueur for every self-respecting ninja, be he on Earth or in space.)
Westerners (rightly in many cases) are reknowned for being mean with money and dressing badly, something wealthy Russians could never be accused of.
The latter must be a Moscow thing. A lot of the Russians – wealthy or otherwise – in Yuzhno-Sakhalinsk dress awfully, style wise. One of the jokes around here is that when newcomers ask what clothes are suitable to bring to Sakhalin, the reply is “80s clothes”.
Ha! Not in Moscow. I don’t know how they afford all the clothes.
I don’t know how they afford all the clothes.
I don’t know how they afford them in Y-S either. My wife goes back to Piter and stocks up on clothes from Gostini Dvor as they are cheaper there than in the shabby “shopping centre” we have here.
I’ll be in Moscow next weekend, BTW. I’ll see if Muscovites have the same pointy-shoe fetish they have in the provinces.
Hey, we should hook up. Drop me a line when you’re in Moscow. We’ll have a beer or two.
Yeah, that would be good but I’ve got very little spare time when I’m there. I’ve got three evenings (Thur, Fri, Sat) in which I’ve got to take out two separate clients, meet up with two friends of mine, and possibly one other. If I’ve got a spare few hours, I’ll give you a shout for sure. I’ll be staying in the Belgrad on Smolenskaya Ploschad’. I haven’t got your email, can you send it to me on tnewman@desertsun.co.uk
Sean, sorry about turning your blog into Facebook.
(”going in nowhere life little putz” should be “a little putz going nowhere in life,” by the way. They taught us that in the first year of Ninja College, as proper grammar is de rigueur for every self-respecting ninja, be he on Earth or in space.)
*****
They apparently didn’t teach the proper use of “entitled” and that “there’re” is a valid substitute for “there are.”
As WS noted, grammar Nazis like yourself use your not so great grammar expertise as a last resort.