: A reason for grief

Watching the remote control, he ran at the TV show "Is there a choice?" (NTV). Once again I got acquainted with the assortment of a political shop. I remember that one of my friends once responded about our common acquaintance:

- If I had not seen that he was alive, I would have thought that it was a caricature.

Mikhail Prokhorov looks like a living person who was mistaken in a puppet show. Well, to be precise, Zhirinovsky is entering the role of a wooden fascist trusted to him, as if waiting. The strategy of "United Russia" is clear: the opposition should still be Merzea . Stalin opposition and Nazi opposition. Why is Prokhorov with a human face, it’s not clear right away. On the other hand, he will not win, but gives some kind of mention. Revenues the landscape. If M.P. Mentally remove, it remains such a panoptic that, as it were, NATO did not begin to bomb. And since it bombed is not aptly, scary for a new paving slabs.

Let me not criticize communist and Nazi nonsense for a long time. Unless one detail. Journalists ask the communist:

- How can you agitate for Stalin, when almost every family tortured and executed in every family?

He stupidly hollows:

- But there was a strong country.

I have doubts a particle of “but”. Why? It was a strong country that entered the apartment in the middle of the night, torn her husband from his wife, and his father from the children. This strong country had enough echelons, and guards, and barbed wire. She, this strong country, without any “but” put on his knees half a century in advance not Italians or Japanese, but the Slav brothers from Eastern Europe. In this strong country, a weak man did not have the right not only to his opinion or to choose from religion, but even with complete loyalty - to freedom and life. Damn, willy-nilly rolling into banality, but I only wanted to notice that it is obviously not to achieve such successes with a weak country.

Another thing is more interesting. Looking closely at the journalists - both the host and filling the studio - I did not notice the catch. That is, they behaved completely as normal people - sincerely, relaxed, adequately. If you stubbornly adhere to a conspiracy -based model, power authors and image makers of the show with amazing persuasiveness prescribed human replicas, normal reactions, put facial expressions and gestures. But if political technology had reached such a frantic level, we would hardly have seen such buratin at least in the positions of representatives of United Russia. If you do not get involved in science fiction, a rather interesting picture is obtained.

For example, we are stealing. Can we say that they steal? You can - not even talk about it. This is customary to be indignant. And we can say that we can say that they steal, but it does not change anything? (I apologize for the incomprehensible phrase, but it is necessary). Can. We can say that the elections are falsify. In fact, you can say almost everything (the search for what cannot be said turns into a kind of sport), but the mechanism that gives these words the consequences is laid out. But also about the arranged mechanism - we can also talk.

If we approach the theater world in terms of the dominant genre, then the actions incorporating the hall are into fashion. Actors in scarlet masks call the audience on the stage, not only grateful, but also irritated. So even more fun. You can go out and shout:

- And the king is naked!

Applause. Or:

- Citizens! This is a shameful booth! We are breeding like suckers!

Approval in the hall. Or:

- Santa Claus is not real!

Not the point. The horror is that this (any) replica does not bring us beyond the scope of the performance. Santa Claus lives lively:

“Do you think I'm not real?!” Why, then, is cold outside the window?

And he is a show. What to say. On the one hand, this mixed representation is infinitely far from autistic meetings of the Politburo of the Central Committee of the CPSU, for which thanks. On the other hand, it is also far from our (well, well, my) ideas about civil society - with all the blur of these ideas.

Longing for the city model

Well, what else to say good?
Everything is nothing, but only after all
I want something more
Than just live and die.

That's something ... prohibitive!
More significant, maybe
Than even a son, a house and a tree
Give birth - build - plant!
Igor Fedorov

Sometimes a strange sensation arises. This is about this very something more just everything is in order. Well ... not in terms of achievement, but in terms of discussion. It is easy and pleasant to talk about something more with a good person. Moreover, here in the format it implies an individual or group project. In general, there are no problems in words.

But with the house and wood - 2/3 of the foundation - everything is not so simple. I will explain: the model itself is clearly Old Testament, village, from where the territory was conquered from wildlife. A little more to cut down, plow, sow, build a house out of cut trunks - it seems like such an outpost on the border with the unlit. And then, looking back, at the already mastered, plowed and sown, to stick a tree somewhere there. And rather garden than forest. Such a pathos of the positive reconstruction of the world at the time when the world is a thousand times stronger than man, the oceans are not intersect, the mountains hang over the clouds, etc.

I am trying to catch the general pathos of urban civilization of the latter, for example, 100 years, in recalculation for one city dweller. Build a house - well, frankly, it is not his business. This is the case of developers, architects and builders. Yes, perhaps, landscaping is not a matter of amateur performances. Cleaning the territory, improvement of the yard? On the one hand, there was something genuine and touching in these Luzhkov initiatives (sorry, I am on my material. My wrong computer, by the way, has already managed to forget the name of Luzhkov, emphasizes it). Something even village in a good sense of the word was in these courtyard initiatives. But it does not grow to a triumphant model. Give birth to a son, break a flower bed, pay a mortgage? May be. But it blows some compilation, adaptation. Did urban culture have not generated its imperatives (for dozens of centuries)?

Skamed on the Internet, checked - no, my memory does not cheat on me. Some formulations include writing a book - either instead of a house, then a tree, or even in addition.

You know, it is close to me - and not because I am connected with the book culture and here, it turns out, has already reported. The form of conservation of experience is now more universal - maybe a film, maybe music. Information; Units and zeros. And a private portion visually adheres to the general. Somehow the meaning of the history of mankind is emerging-it is the accumulation of experience.

So, son, book, what else? Probably, something environmental, protective. Still a flower bed? Or is it a tree-in order to participate in a subbotnik?

Hello from the future

We leave the village. The very beginning of September. Autumn is conditional. And suddenly - one birch right along the course is absolutely red, against the background of a blue summer sky.