Monday, September 18, 2006

Журнал "Америка Illustrated"

Журнал "Америка Illustrated"

For those Russians interested in reading about life in America, I offer you Америка Illustrated.
This magazine is the historical counterpart to Russian Life magazine. Originally the two magazines were each sponsored in the USA and CCCP by the governments of the other, as a bilateral cultural exchange. This agreement continued in various forms until the early '90s. Similarly to Russian Life, since 1994, Америка Illustrated has operated as an independently published Russian language magazine.

I believe this existence of this magazine should silence those outspoken and misguided critics, who feel that Russia is too xenophobic to have a magazine devoted strictly to American life and culture. Of course, you could point to many other nations in this regard as well - does Canada or Italy have an "American Life" magazine? But yes, Russia is a big enough nation to encompass many tastes and opinions - including a magazine devoted to the USA.

Given the vast export of American culture in the form of magazines, music, movies, restaurants, and businesses already into Russia - I'm personally surprised any Russian would have the taste for more!

I should also point out that I was only able to find this magazine via the excellent Yandex search engine.

7 comments:

La Russophobe said...

Why Wally! A whole post devoted entirely to me! It must be love!

But couldn't have you have seen fit to give me the credit? A very gross violation of bloggers ethics I must say, not even a hat tip much less a link. Shame on you dear.

I'd like to ask how you think calling someone an "idiot" is a good way to show that you aren't a "hatemonger" but I know you wouldn't answer. I guess you think hatemongering is OK as long as it's directed at someone YOU personally hate, huh? But being the big mature man you are, I'm sure you already regret your infantile, venemous tirade and know what a fool you made of yourself, castigating someone for "hatemongering" while resorting to crass personal abuse.

You diss my blog, but it has WAY more traffic than yours, so if my blog sucks then your blog ULTRA sucks. And, after all, you devote posts to me, now don't you? So I guess your bitterness is understandable, since jealousy is a powerful emotion. Plus which, I exposed your hypocrisy, so naturally you're mad about that.

As for your substance, the link you give is for an issue in 2000, six years ago. The archive has exactly ONE issue in it. If it's still being published, why don't you link us to the current issue? Or, better yet, link us to the issue where the magazine laid out Russian propaganda against the US and showed how unfair it was. Or would that be too relevant and factual for your tastes?

Anyone who knows anything about Russia (you're clearly excluded, unless you're just a liar) knows that Russians are woefully ignorant of American history and culture. The fact that Russians know Madonna doesn't mean they understand American values or lifestyle beyond stereotypes, and there is no resource available in Russia, from a Russian source, to teach it to them. There's no Russian JRL. Informed people also know that Russia is FULL of anti-American propaganda. They know Russia is giving direct support to arch American foes like Venezuela, Iran, Hamas and Hezbollah, so there's plenty of reason for Americans to critize them. None of those basic facts made their way into your post. Your saying that Russians need no more education about American society is offensive to basic intelligence and smacks of propaganda.

In closing, let me say that if you can still call yourself a Russophile after your own blog documents Russians having no respect for human life or personal property, you are a real model of fortitude -- the kind that has brought Russia to the brink of ruin, offering various rationalizations for Russians to fuel their xenophobia and avoid reform. Interestingly, it's often the enabling family members of an alcoholic who kill him, not any foreign foe.

Anonymous said...

Wally,

Nice having LR drop by on one of her cyber-stalking visits, isn't it?

The important thing to remember is that -- since Sean Hannity's website gets more hits on any given day than that of Enclyclopedia Britannica or the British Museum -- it means that Hannity is infinitely more important and authoritative than either of those sources...in the view of La Russalope.

W. Shedd said...

Russophobe - you have to subtract your own hits to your blog. That is called self-adoration and not "traffic".

According to Technorati, I've 137 links from 52 other blogs, ranking me at 52,136. You're ranked 85,167. And yes, I've had more hits than you, despite taking 7 weeks off, for whatever that is worth. I don't believe internet hits improves either opinions nor quality of life. Perhaps besides learning to read, you should also be working on counting?

You're amazingly thin-skinned for someone who throws around insults and derogatory remarks so readily.

La Russophobe said...

ANONYMOUS: Tsk, tsk, so free and loose with the facts. You must be Russian. I never said my blog was more "important" or "authoritative" I said it has more traffic. Wally said my blog was awful, but more people visit it on any given day than visit his, so if he's right that means his blog is even awfuller. That's all I said. You can't really expect to opine about significance if you can't get your facts right. I think it's kind of silly to talk about any Russia blog being "important" the combined traffic on all Russia blogs is still miniscule, owing to the fact that most people couldn't care less about Russia. If you're suggesting somehow that "people who matter" are reading Wally's blog, finding illumination and then changing the world, then I'm sure you are Russian, and drunk out of your mind on samagon.

WALLY: Yes, I can see by your comments about Technorati that you are filled with self-loathing.

So, you're saying that the difference between 52,136 and 85,167 entitles you to belittle my blog? I disagree, especially since your blog has existed 30% longer than mine so you've had much more time to build up hits. If you were the least bit fair, you'd wait until my blog has existed 9 months and then compare my links at that point to yours now. But then, fairness is not your long suit, is it?

If it was, you'd mention that I have significantly more links from blogs than you do. Why do you hide that data? I think it's the fact that you've drunk too much Russian water.

You haven't had more hits than me. That's a lie. Far more people visit my blog than yours on any given day. I have far more profile views than you do, and my counter will pass you any day now even though you have existed 30% longer.

But what's most unfair about your comments is that YOU raised this issue. YOU haughtily dismissed my blog, and then you object when I provide data to defend it. That really is quite lame.

Face it: What you meant to say is that you personally don't like my blog, but you aren't confident enough of your own opinion so, in a childish way, you had to pretend nobody likes it. That resulted in you telling something that verges on a lie.

I'm not thin skinned about insults, I love and encourage them. But I do have a very thin skin where hypocrisy like yours is concerned, no doubt. I'm proud of that, so thanks for the compliment. I don't care if you call me an idiot, I live for that stuff. What I object to is you pretending to be holier than thou, judging others for what you do yourself. That's just plain disgusting, and I have no obligation to tolerate it.

You're the one, in fact, who has thin skin. I made substantive criticism of your blog and you responded with personal abuse. You claim I'm insignificant, then you devote a post to me. I write one about you, and your first response is more personal abuse. Not really very consistent.

But don't get me wrong, Wally dear. You're just like Russia -- when you get it right you hit a home run, and when you get it wrong you burst into flames. I don't have contempt for your blog the way I do for the obscene Russian Blog and the fraudulent Russia Blog; to the contary, I admire many of your posts. I'm trying to save both of you from yourselves before it's too late.

La Russophobe said...

ANONYMOUS: Tsk, tsk, so free and loose with the facts. You must be Russian. I never said my blog was more "important" or "authoritative" I said it has more traffic. Wally said my blog was awful, but more people visit it on any given day than visit his, so if he's right that means his blog is even awfuller. That's all I said. You can't really expect to opine about significance if you can't get your facts right. I think it's kind of silly to talk about any Russia blog being "important" the combined traffic on all Russia blogs is still miniscule, owing to the fact that most people couldn't care less about Russia. If you're suggesting somehow that "people who matter" are reading Wally's blog, finding illumination and then changing the world, then I'm sure you are Russian, and drunk out of your mind on samagon.

WALLY: Yes, I can see by your comments about Technorati that you are filled with self-loathing.

So, you're saying that the difference between 52,136 and 85,167 entitles you to belittle my blog? I disagree, especially since your blog has existed 30% longer than mine so you've had much more time to build up hits. If you were the least bit fair, you'd wait until my blog has existed 9 months and then compare my links at that point to yours now. But then, fairness is not your long suit, is it?

If it was, you'd mention that I have significantly more links from blogs than you do. Why do you hide that data? I think it's the fact that you've drunk too much Russian water.

You haven't had more hits than me. That's a lie. Far more people visit my blog than yours on any given day. I have far more profile views than you do, and my counter will pass you any day now even though you have existed 30% longer.

But what's most unfair about your comments is that YOU raised this issue. YOU haughtily dismissed my blog, and then you object when I provide data to defend it. That really is quite lame.

Face it: What you meant to say is that you personally don't like my blog, but you aren't confident enough of your own opinion so, in a childish way, you had to pretend nobody likes it. That resulted in you telling something that verges on a lie.

I'm not thin skinned about insults, I love and encourage them. But I do have a very thin skin where hypocrisy like yours is concerned, no doubt. I'm proud of that, so thanks for the compliment. I don't care if you call me an idiot, I live for that stuff. What I object to is you pretending to be holier than thou, judging others for what you do yourself. That's just plain disgusting, and I have no obligation to tolerate it.

You're the one, in fact, who has thin skin. I made substantive criticism of your blog and you responded with personal abuse. You claim I'm insignificant, then you devote a post to me. I write one about you, and your first response is more personal abuse. Not really very consistent.

But don't get me wrong, Wally dear. You're just like Russia -- when you get it right you hit a home run, and when you get it wrong you burst into flames. I don't have contempt for your blog the way I do for the obscene Russian Blog and the fraudulent Russia Blog; to the contary, I admire many of your posts. I'm trying to save both of you from yourselves before it's too late.

ilyich said...

I am new to this blog, but it is very odd to read russophobes comments-- he/she clearly has deep seated problems, and I am curious as to how he/she got that way, and TRY to read his/her blog but soon find it tiresome. The tone sorta reminds me of Lyndon Larouche-- as if all evil is flowing from one tiny area (Russia, in his/her case). It also reminds me of what a friend once said about schizophrenics (though I don't think russophobe IS): "the pattern-recognition part of the brain sees patterns where there are none." Also a very childish attitude to her comments here ( note the obviously adolescent artwork she uses for her icon-- makes me think he/she is a male).

He/she has a very obvious and illogical (redundant) bias against Russia (note comments about "you're drinking Russian water" among others"), and the parsing of the numbers to his/her advantage (I suspect if the data on the two websites in question were reversed, he/she would still insist they showed his/her site were better.)

Tiresome and deliberately argumentative. I suspect he/she will try to find a way back to post more comments.

chunxue said...

During the World War II, Art Deco jewellery was ugg sale a very popular style among women. The females started ugg boots wearing short dresses and cut their hair short. And uggs such boyish style was accessorized with Art Deco jewellery. They used cheap ugg boots long dangling earrings and necklaces, multiple bracelets and bold ugg boots uk rings.Art Deco jewellery has harshly geometric and symmetrical theme instead disocunt ugg boots of free flowing curves and naturalistic motifs. Art Deco Jewelry buy ugg boots today displays designs that consist of arcs, circles, rectangles, squares, and ugg outlet triangles. Bracelets, earrings, necklaces and rings are added with long ugg boots outlet lines and curves.One example of Art Deco jewelry is the Art Deco ring. Art Deco rings have ugg mall sophisticated sparkle and bold styles. These rings are not intended for a subtle look, they are meant to be noticed. Hence, these are perfect for people with bold styles.