Thursday, November 29, 2007

This came in response to what I wrote at the end of the previous post:

Dear Veronica,

I am shocked by your grossly inaccurate statement about my blog and hereby demand an apology. It's amazing that you can be so hypocritical, calling for accuracy yet doing nothing to assure that you accurately characterize my post. Beyond that, your post is one of the most vapid and inane I've ever come across in the blogosphere, which is really saying something.

All my blog did was to re-publish the New York Times article, with no commentary at all of any kind, leaving readers totally free to draw their own conclusions. There is NO commentary in my post about Mr. Simachev WHATSOEVER. Our headline is aimed at THE PEOPLE OF RUSSIA who are embracing Stalin, and documentation that they are doing so is legion an indisputable, and the article is just one more indication of their egregious behavior. As for Robert Amsterdam, whose blog was just nominated for best of Europe (peeved that Global voices wasn't in the running, sweetie?), he needs no defense from me. Your haughty, arrogant dismissal of our blogs as "clueless" is pretty indicative of how seriously your own blog (with few Technorati links and little traffic) can be taken.

You clearly didn't spend any time at all reading our actual post, even as you dare to criticize us for not reading the Times piece. It looks for all the world that you were just waiting for some chance to attack us. If so, that’s pretty pathetic.

Having said that, your substantive analysis of the Times piece is deeply warped on two different levels (and I say this as no fan of the Times, which I've often mercilessly attacked).

First, how you can justify diverting attention from the outrageous decline of democracy in Russia by publishing a piece that could easily have issued from the Kremlin itself is beyond me, and it hardly seems consistent with your mission at Global Voices.

Second, your attempt to suggest that tourists buying souvenirs that they then shove in drawer is the same as rich Russians buying $600 t-shirts that they proudly flaunt to the world is simply idiotic. Dumber still is your suggestion that the Times is implying that because Putin and Soviet garb has become much more popular, it didn't exist before. There's no such implication, and the fact that this has been going on so long only makes it that much more outrageous. I don't know what planet you are from, but in New York City one doesn't see people marching about proudly with images of Vladimir Putin on their chests, surrounded by flowers -- or David Duke for that matter.

Do you have ANY evidence that Mr. Simachev has spoken out against the rise of dictatorship in Russia? Has he ever made any direct criticism of Putin? Don't you think it's even a LITTLE bit disgusting to have $600 t-shirts of Putin while he is crushing the life out of Russian democracy and becoming dictator for life? Doesn't Mr. Simachev have ANY obligation to civic responsibility?

It's obvious that you have just given vent to your own amazingly narrow-minded biases in this post. Would you have dared to write the same thing about a designer who was touting Hitler, or those who brought about the Ukrainian genocide? You know damn well you wouldn't.

You should be ashamed of yourself. If one were cynical, one might think that you are simply jealous of the fact that Robert and I dominate the Russia blogosphere while you are ignored. A bit more cynical, and one would conclude you are using crass Limbaugh tactics to generate traffic for your blog, hardly what one would expect from the holier-than-thou Global Voices ensemble.

Yours disappointedly,

Kim Zigfeld
La Russophobe


  1. Irony is apparently dead.


    What a surprise.

  2. Wow - that piece from La Russophobe is really something. It reads to me like Zigfield went off the deep end to *make* *her* *point* *dammit*. The entire contents of the wastebasket got emptied. Makes me wonder why they would be so sensitive and work/try so hard to tear your thoughts apart and your site down? Very weird IMHO. And contradictory why go ballistic/nuclear if you are of little account? допекло її?

    Again, wow and thanks for publishing it. Personally, me never liked La Russophobe - thought well-intentioned but nasty in a mean sort of way. And IMHO does more to encourage Nashi/Putin/anti-West fervor than to quell it. But that is just my two cents.

    My very best wishes to you Neeka and yours!


  3. This last paragraph is just a shame for us women!! Men would never indulge in such dust-up! It annihilates any points the author may have made prior to this (Simachev or not Simachev... I admit I do not know him).

    Well done of Veronica to publish it!

    And the legislative? I am so eager to follow the campaign through your eyes!

    Genia from Switzerland

  4. Genia, Kim Zigfeld is "ono" ("it"), not "ona."

  5. Neeka, really, you should just do what so many other bloggers have done - just delete LaRussophobe without further comment. It always makes its "points" with insults and hyperbole and it's a waste of time and energy trying to argue a logical point with it.

  6. It's moments like these that make me glad that nobody reads my pithy little blog.