Food plate, thousand two hundred

This is a lyrical note on the role of radio and television in the smoothing of contradictions of any degree of severity. Of course, it is enough just to rub something in any studio, as everything will become domestic and, as a result, cute. Yes, but for this rule to work even in the case of a prime minister’s press secretary?

It's about the visit of D. Peskov to "Rain". But it all started differently: at first there was a title. In Gazeta.ru. He was like this : "Peskov: the reasoning about Putin's Brezhnevization does not know anything about the Secretary General, he was a plus for the country."

That is, the prime minister’s spokeswoman reports that-well, with this structure of the phrase-that Brezhnev was wow what statesman, but his (Peskova) to the boss to row and row to become a plus for the country. The thought is clear, but why does D. Peskov say this?

Well, he did not say that. In general, these were not strict formulations of the press secretary exit to the press, but Peskov’s conversation with five Russian journalists on the air of the Hard Day's Night program. On the Rain TV channel. So it’s not an exit to the press, but as if a conversation. In fact, Peskov said this way : “ Indeed, in Moscow you can often hear the words“ Why is he returning? ”Indeed, many talk about Putin’s Brezhnevization, while those people who know nothing about Brezhnev at all.” And he added: “You know, Brezhnev is not a minus sign for the history of our country, this is a huge plus. He laid the foundation of the economy, agriculture, etc. ”

This point of view on Brezhnev is not commented, it is a private (since the conversation is here) the case of D. Peskov. Then it was like this: “ This is stagnation,” Gevorkyan remarked. “Then stagnation. But stagnation was much shorter in terms of duration, ”Peskov retorted. In his opinion, this happened due to the fact that Brezhnev“ did not leave on time ” .

The topic "on time - not on time" is already interesting here. Personal memory (at the same time, it should serve as proof that the author of this note Brezhnev remembers). In the autumn-winter season of 1975, we partially had fun at the GZ Moscow State University, sometimes listening to the "double of Brezhnev", his performance at the XVII Congress of the Komsomol. A chic set of two records, a neighbor in the room (Hello, Volodya!) Bought a joke for 30 (or 50). During the listening, discussions continued on the topic: how much, nevertheless, at the post-seni-like, the Secretary General was accelerated? Twice or only one and a half? The task was quite correct, the original in the surrounding reality was quite present and could be compared. In general, somewhere between 2 and 1.5. But in this option, this happiness sounded like this .

And the record is 1974. We count. Brezhnev became the main one in 1964. He served as Secretary General until 1982 (when he died). So, this is the most “did not go on time”) certainly refers to the period 1974-1982. 8 years, at least. So, only 18 years old. Suppose that 10 is more or less sane and plus for the country ("large"), approx. So the Peskovsky stagnation, which is “much shorter”, is 8 years relative to 10 years. But not the point.

What happens in the event that the analogy of D. Peskov is applied to the case? For 8 years, V. Putin worked as president (okay, we have not counted the prime minister for 4 years), and if four years (if, like Brezhnev), is it already the topic “has not gone on time” begins? Three more years and it's time to leave to “in time”? Why does this spokeswoman say this?!

So, all this does not matter at all, because there is not a crucial exit of the press secretary, but purely purely. What is the most important role of audio means of communication. Further, too, there was a lot of cheerful and sincere. Quote: “ The prime minister’s spokesman noticed that Putin’s return is critically perceived by the Moscow society that does not know the countries.“ We are constantly traveling around Russia, and there are completely different problems than those who live within the Garden Ring, and those who can spend two to three hours to write on blogs and social networks, ”reproached the press secretary of the Putin’s critics. ".

What do we see here? Here we see an interesting topology, but more on that later. So far, we note that what has been said about blogs and social networks reports on knowledge of the press secretary of the prime minister of this environment. He is in the subject. In addition, his words are a compliment of the mentioned environment-since sitting for two or three hours means that there is something to do and read. In addition, here is the recognition of the fact that discourse and paradigm, built on blogs and social networks, will not fully coincide with the lines of the government, this structure is not very friendly. If desired, here you can even see the internal conflict of power on this subject: President Medvedev had a great interest in social networks, but it is unlikely that D. Peskov thought about him at that moment.

But how to understand: living within the garden ring and writing on blogs, in what sense is it used here "and"? They live and write or - some live, but others write? It is clear that social networks are and social networks, so as not to be attached to the garden ring. Did D. Peskov report that social networks have already formed a certain virtual garden ring, which also dwell on ... The roles of L.I. Brezhnev in the history of the Russian state? And then again a new snip of distinction is introduced. Having reported how the prime minister (namely the prime minister!) Walking the country from the economic crisis, D. Peskov said: " And I would like to tell about all this to the very society, which, the most interesting, sits in expensive restaurants, where there is not a single free table, eats delicious Italian food for 1200 rubles per plate ." What is 1200? Why exactly 1200? How does this number correspond to the theme of social networks, blogs and garden ring?

Seriously - not seriously, but a specific opposition is built: you are here, and we are everywhere where the people love Brezhnev and the Soviet Union (see also an article by V.V. Putin in Izvestia on the new geopolitical association under his leadership). It was here that the topology: the closed environment in the Kremlin (White House) is surrounded by residents of the garden ring and the regulars of social networks equated to it. But she found a hole, they jumped into it and now they are constantly going on in Russia. Well, already surrounding in fact this is the most garden ring in an expanded interpretation.

In fact, a very harsh reality arises, fundamentally rejects all the above persons, including (like their elite?) And those who have a plate of food for 1200. Well, it would be so if it were an exit to the press. It turns out that all this says without leading questions and complete clarity. And so, the word behind the word is nothing special. That's why they are talking in order to remove the most insurmountable contradictions between any parts of society and on any topics. Any topic is losing it in this format and it becomes easy and pleasant. That is, this is all about: why doesn’t television in the person of its first three channels categorically turn to such an obvious method? Do they only know how to read from the souffler?