This was exactly what I was thinking. All of them have been very nice and with this blog are likely to get into trouble. He could have told the same tale but anonymized things and definitely not post a photo of Irlan when he requested not to.
It appears that this adventure happened ~6-7 years ago. Folks bent the rules for him, but its not like their bosses haven't ALSO done the exact same thing (and probably more so) throughout their careers. I seriously doubt anyone is getting "in trouble".
Bribing and twisting rules is "a thing" in some places that is part of the normal functioning of society. Is anyone _REALLY_ going to be shocked in Khazakhstan?
The article is a nice contrast to his dehumanizing police experience in SF.
This is crazy because I did not get this impression at all. Being rational and clean-cut and descriptive does not an asshole make. I mean seriously, if THIS is your definition of "asshole..."
But I can't help but now wonder if his mere being just triggers vastly different things in people unfortunately (such as instant hatred of "tech elite" by SFPD cops in the San Francisco piece he wrote).
Try spending even a night in a U.S. jail, or worse yet, any considerable amount of time in a US jail while awaiting trail, and ONLY THEN can you appreciate how easy he got off. Before reading the article, my gut told me that he was going to get it much harder in Russia. I was surprised to find out how humanely he was treated compared to the way we treat suspects/inmates in the U.S.
He's actually a really nice and interesting guy around a lot of SF communities. He has definitely traveled a lot and has tons of other great stories too.
The "situations" in the first part of the story, I felt like he was just acting strategically and smart (impressive even, I'm not quite that forward-thinking). Because he did't know yet if these people are helpful or just trying to screw him out of as much $100's as possible and then let him hang.
But after the rest of the story, those guys helping him, drinking with him, showing him a good time (probably because life can be boring there and hanging out with a foreigner was an enervating experience for them too?) and greasing a few wheels for him (the "lenient judge" and possibly some other things he doesn't know about), I felt a bit different.
He was carrying $160 all the time, while Irlan paid for everything (probably not very much in dollars, but still). Some guy needed a spot for $6.5 to carry him to the end of the month, that says something about how far $160 goes in that country. At the end when Irlan said "it's gonna be boring without you", he knew he was free and could have wired himself another $200 later with relative ease (or maybe not? I'm not sure). I think at the very least he could have given Irlan some money/tip for all the effort, lunch, coffee, drinks? I mean, now that you know you're no longer in a complex negotiation / bribing situation with this person (so the cards are more open), he did go the extra mile, spent his own money even (while in the end, the author spent .. $0 ??? or did I miss something, he did say he got the $100 back). Say $50, that he'd otherwise spend on a single night out in SF, would mean a LOT more to this guy, so why not just do it? He'd earned it yes?
Could be some kind of cultural differences though. The author seems to know the culture of the area really well, so maybe it's something obvious. Maybe Irlan would be insulted getting such a large sum for just being hospitable. OTOH maybe Irlan hoped all this extra effort would earn him the $100 deal he couldn't fulfil earlier. Or maybe during all the "bonding" the author had been hinting he was a stranded student with zero money left and therefore they felt pity on him, so he didn't dare to break that character and suddenly producing $50 cash to give away (but Irlan knew he still carried that $100 at least).
Or maybe, the author's bottom-line thinking about this was, I did my best to stick to the (admittedly, draconian) rules, bad shit (aka adventure) still happened, so I really oughtn't face any consequences at all (except the part where he got free lunch, drinks and a tour).
At least he deleted the pictures of the girl. To share her story (edit: I removed some details here) along with her (hopefully fake!) name can already put her in danger, considering the extremely conservative environment she is likely still in. But to include pictures of her - I am at a loss for words at this level of insensitivity.
Here's hoping the pictures won't show up in archived versions of the article.
Hopefully any higher up officials can recognize this just gave what is probably on average a fairly affluent tech class on HN a more positive outlook on Kazakhstan. Its positive advertising for the country to hear that you don't end up in a gulag for having your passport lapse.
Yes I'm sure those in charge of Kazakhstan are just foaming at the mouth to win over the hipster web dev crowd. I think you're really overestimating your own importance.
The article states that they didn't want him to rat them out to their superiors about the nice treatment and the help. Being allowed to take a pic doesn't mean he was meant to sell them out on the Internet. The guy who will particularly be screwed is the one that accepted the bribe.
I honestly (as a brazillian native) think that working with the GIVEN rules and CULTURE of a given place is NOT being an asshole;
Yet, I really wish he didn't posted pics nor gave real names.
Bribe culture is bad, but it's not something to dismiss in such situations, eg, here, it would get him into way MORE trouble just to put up a firm NO about bribing and social skills.
Being out of your main cultural context is pretty much about "going with the flow" and social engineering rather than enforcing your own beliefs onto an already established and deeply rooted status quo.
Sometimes highlighting the problem can cause a bigger problem than the original was.
Do you think that this post will make a dent in corruption issues in Kazakhstan? That it will fix anything? The only thing it may cause is repercussions for the good people in this story. Which will leave the system even worse.
There is this concept of responsibility when publishing the story. I have a feeling that it's often forgotten.
No. Bribes are part of a culture, and carry consequences into behaviour of society. It's weird (even alien) if you're not familiar. To me as well. But the US situation with tips, service staff and their separate minimum wages is just as weird and alien to me. Doesn't mean the people living that culture are not good. I understand that tips are basically mandatory in the US or I'll be screwing people out of their needed income (I got great use from the tipping % calculator app that happened to be in the burner phone I bought for the trip). The way it's often solicited is distasteful (to my Dutch cultural norms), flat-out passive-agressive messages on the receipts, occasionally pushy servers (just a few though) trying get rapport, while I'm just there to eat. But I understand these people aren't being bad either, they're just being people manoeuvring in the cultural environment they are part of.
I can disagree with this, or think up improvement, fixes. But at the end, I'm still a tourist, a guest in this country. I'm there to experience the culture, not to tell them they're doin' it wrong. That would be activism, not tourism.
Addition: experiencing other cultures has taught me things as well. Having to barter in Turkey, I probably got screwed but did learn a few lessons that are applicable at home (particular from watching other tourists handle it) (though sometimes they were dicks). All that tipping in the US, coupled with the fact that listed prices are never what you pay (because they're pre-tax) (this is not the case in the EU, it feels very weird not being able to calculate the final sum before checkout--a little exercise I often do in NL to keep my mental math sharp) I took home a bit more fluid idea of prices, and this makes for a lower barrier to tip in NL as well (but I still feel 20% is just crazy :p).
Great read. I've never been in a situation where a bribe might have helped and so it's good to get some idea of "how bribes work" for possible future reference.
I have noticed that it seems valuable to project being "poorer" rather than "richer" when traveling. Naively it might seem like throwing money around would grease all sorts of wheels but the opposite has been my experience (although probably I just don't have enough money to throw around to really grease the wheels).
John MacAfee has a great guide. Context is important. You need to know the situation, you have to be situationally aware. You can't just start showing money (maybe alcohol or other "currency" depending on their penchants are more apt). You have to know a bit about the locals. See http://www.whoismcafee.com/the-travel-guide/
Just because he's paranoid schizophrenic now does not lessen his experiences before his brain went AWOL. Considering he's dealt with some pretty hostile governments and government officials, I'd say the advice is pretty solid.
On a side note, when I was in telecom, My boss (who had been in the industry for 15 years) used to tell me about working for MCI and doing surveying and laying copper in several middle eastern countries. He told me some stories that would make the hair on your neck stand up.
He said it was an open secret that MCI was giving his team suitcases of cash to bribe officials and the military just to allow them to do their job. Stories of being pulled over at gunpoint, negotiating with military people and being able to talk through the process of a bribe was something he always maintained was part of the day-to-day survival game they played.
Being schizophrenic does not mean that the brain/mind is "AWOL". Schizophrenics endure experience like the rest of us. The idea that the insane have "no mind" is an old-fashioned, dehumanizing idea which should not be tolerated even on HN where everyone is of course young, healthy and overconfident. (!)
...as a tangent, I'm impressed and slightly weirded out by the fact that I googled for "etymology demented" and it answered directly with an etymological tree for the word. Google's getting smarter.
Was this confirmed somewhere? I can't find any evidence with a quick search and I saw some of his interviews during the presidential campaign (he was running from the libertarian nomination I think) and he seemed ok.
I think a lot of that stems from his reported behavior in Belize. I think it was reported he was high on something on the occasions of some of his reportedly bizarre behavior. From my recollection.
Most probably they did throw in fact it around lightly, but (carelessly) didn't intend to. I'm always very careful to not throw around medical (particularly psychiatric) diagnoses because I'm not trained for that. Instead I prefer to describe the symptoms I perceive and phrase it as my personal perception (aka, own it). At very most I might say "that guy might have some autistic tendencies ..." and almost always qualify it with "... but that spectrum is so vague, forget the label and just assess him on his particular quirks like the individual he is".
Anyway, not to distract this discussion into a further tangent, I think the best way is to charitably read it as "paranoid schizophrenic episode" (which is kind of fair, yes?) and the "mind AWOL" remark as hyperbole, without reading too much behind it. It was a setup to the post's main point anyway, the anecdotal part.
Sasha was a responsible scientist with a stable life.
McAfee is someone who kept a minor girlfriend, fled Belize after being implicated in the murder of his neighbor and spent most of his time down there booty bumping bath salts.
> spent most of his time down there booty bumping bath salts
source?
Having lived in Cambodia (nowhere near as dangerous as Belize, but probably just as corrupt), being implicated with a crime you didn't commit isn't the most far fetched thing.
India is exactly the same, for its much hyped democracy, it is one of the most corrupt countries in the world. Recently there is a trend for implicating husbands and relatives in criminal cases just because the wife didn't get along. All interested parties including lawyers, judges, police get involved for financial gain.
Recently there is a trend for implicating husbands and relatives in criminal cases just because the wife didn't get along.
It is the same in USA. Every "decent" divorce lawyer's first step is for the wife to whack herself on the face, call the police, and get the husband kicked out of the house. The cops don't like it, but they have to take the report. Sometimes they have enough spine to not arrest the dude.
All interested parties including lawyers, judges, police get involved for financial gain.
Yeah this too. Family court is the biggest racket going now.
Going by forum posts McAfee made—it's questionable whether or not he was trolling (he was for sure at one point wrt bath salts) but it's also somewhat likely he's into stimulants and sex.
> Like every single other human being on this planet. It's a feature of our brains.
In my experience, most of us don't move down to Belize to manufacture research chemicals and fuck underage women then get implicated in a murder all while being investigated for tax evasion.
Well, going to these places is by the nature of them, risky for non locals. Knowing what works, how locals operate helps. Don't overplay your hand, don't insult (even unintentionally, it can cause affront). I think it helped that he seems to be very situationally aware. It's not going to work well, if you're green at it. Like many things, it probably takes luck and practice and interpersonal skills.
I just responded on the Medium link but here's another short Kazakhstan bribe story:
I once took the train from Urumqi to Almaty. After touring around Kazakhstan for a week or so I went to the airport to fly to Baku. When I walked into the airport two police officers told me to follow them. They took me to a small room. They kept asking me “would you like any tea?” And I kept responding “no thanks, I really need to catch my flight.” They asked at least five times and then started using variants like “would you like coffee?” I ignorantly kept replying, “I’m really sorry. I appreciate the offer but I need to catch my flight.” After ten minutes or so they got frustrated and told me that I’m a stupid American and to leave and catch my flight. It clicked after sharing the story w/ some Kazakh folks that they were asking for a bribe. Sometimes ignorance is bliss. Oops.
Poor is better, because then you aren't worth their time. Why bother with the small fries when they are plenty of big fish out there?
When I was younger and traveling in China alone, I fell for one of the "tea house" scams common in the bigger cities. The leader of the heavies sent to intimidate me was somewhat nicer when he figured out that I didn't have much money or a credit card and wasn't lying about it.
He gave me some life advice: "don't go anywhere with a stranger" then took ¥10,000 (about 300 in Chinese money) and sent me on my way. It was pretty surreal.
I don't know even what to make of this... The preamble suggests that Kazakhstan justice was superior to American justice, but after reading the whole story I'm like... dude, grow a sense of self-responsibility. It's not like your visa expiring was a surprise... you knew exactly when it was going to happen, and YOU CHOSE to violate it without giving yourself any wiggle room. Then you willingly participated in a corrupt system, rewarding those who profit from it.
It would have been so much easier and involve less questionable ethics to just leave more than 24 hours in advance.
I find this response, and the suggestions, exemplifying why Kazakhstan justice (as expressed in the story, I don't know how it's in general) is superior to American justice.
It's the ability to take the law and regulations lightly, when they're not that serious, and be humane about it.
I mean writing: "YOU CHOSE to violate it", with added emphasis, as if having a visa expiring on the same day you leave a place (and literally while you're on a vehicle leaving it) is some kind of huge crime...
All this does is provide random and selective justice for those who can pay the bribe.
What about the visum expiring the day before you leave? Two days? The law has to draw a line somewhere. It is the obligation of the person to stay clear of that line. If the visum duration is too short, just make all visa valid for 16 days rather than 15 days, and then enforce that line equally for everybody. Once corruption has taken a hold it tends to encroach on everything.
> "All this does is provide random and selective justice for those who can pay the bribe."
That was actually the most heart-warming part of the tale. The guy initially tried to bribe the police and get out of trouble, but the new computer systems prevented him from doing so. The cop who initially tried to collect a bribe from him, then returned the money, befriended him, and went to bat for him, with no financial incentives whatsoever.
>All this does is provide random and selective justice for those who can pay the bribe.
The ability to pay your way out of it, usually comes together with the ability to talk your way out of it, and with the ability of police and such to bend some things on their discretion if they seem BS.
[addition] To quote John McAffee's guide on the matter:
"In order to make the most of your travels, you need to first understand that, throughout much of the Third World, there is a smoothly functioning “system” in place that has evolved over centuries. From the First World perspective it is a “corrupt” system, and indeed, at the higher levels there is no other word for it (...) at the lower levels, however, the system contains an element of grace and humanity, and this lower lever is all that most people will ever encounter. You might still call this lower level “corruption”, but that’s not a helpful word if you want to acquire the most effective attitude for dancing with it. I prefer “negotiable”."
>What about the visa expiring the day before you leave? Two days? The law has to put a line somewhere. It is the obligation of the person to stay clear of that line.
And it's an attribute of a good attitude towards the legal system to not be jerks about it, since "expired last day and I'm on a train leaving the country" is just as good as "it will expire after I leave".
Even if the "law must put a line somewhere", people should be served by the law, not be slaves to it, and enforce it according to its spirit, not merely its letter.
Of course with this mindset you don't get to be 4% of the world's population but have 25% of it's prison population.
There's a name used in some parts of Europe for the kind of legal anal retentive mindset that everything must be 100% according to the letter (and not the spirit) of the law, that someone is like "Javert" (from Les Miserables).
He ends like that in the book, btw (spoiler alert):
For the first time in his life, Javert is faced with the situation where he cannot act lawfully without acting immorally, and vice versa. Javert is unable to find a solution to this dilemma, and horrified at the sudden realization that Valjean was simultaneously a criminal and a good person—a conundrum which reveals deep flaws in his ethical system, and suggests to him the existence of a superior moral system. He feels that the only possible resolution for himself is in death, and— after leaving for the prefect of police a brief letter addressing lapses in the Conciergerie— he drowns himself in the river Seine.
> The ability to pay your way out of it, usually comes together with the ability to talk your way out of it
No it doesn't. Hardly anybody would pay a large bribe if they could simply talk themselves out of it instead.
> Of course with this mindset you don't get to be 4% of the world's population but have 25% of it's prison population.
No, that is the result of crazy harsh sentences. That is a problem, but applying justice selectively to rich people is not the solution to that problem. The solution is to decrease the punishment for crimes that aren't serious, and then apply it equally. A prison sentence for a 1 day visum overstay is ridiculous, of course.
>No it doesn't. Hardly anybody would pay a large bribe if they could simply talk themselves out of it instead.
That's the case in game theory terms.
Fortunately real people don't act like that.
"Corrupted" third world officials and such are not profit-maximizing automata (well, a few are. Most are regular people trying to make a buck for the family on top of meagre salaries).
Even if you can afford a bribe and they know it (e.g. you look rich westerner etc), there's often tons of room for negotiation on the price. Including talking your way out of it, them getting a liking for you and just letting you go etc.
But I primarily talked about people who can't afford to pay and it shows. Sometimes what started as a probe as to whether you can pay them a bride even ends up as them getting out of their way to help you for free, if they see you cannot pay and they take sympathy on you.
Aside from "corruption" which might be all some westerner can see, those places also have ages old codes of hospitality and such.
>A prison sentence for a 1 day visum overstay is ridiculous, of course.
Well, if you can't change the law, another way is to selectively enforce it on someone's discretion (bribe or not). It might not benefit 100% of the people but it benefits massively more people than strictly following the ridiculous harsh law.
> You might still call this lower level “corruption”, but that’s not a helpful word if you want to acquire the most effective attitude for dancing with it. I prefer “negotiable”."
The people I know who have lived significant periods of their life in these systems would describe them as "corrupt", not "negotiable".
Though "negotiable" does correspond to the way I've usually heard wealthy Americans who've encountered these systems describe them.
You have a few typos there. The singular is "visa" and the plural is "visas". Don't be discouraged, your English is already quite good. You'll get there.
Yep. Exactly. There's something to be said for a little wiggle room outside of "the rules".
And for what it worth, he was "detained" (in a way) and had to pay a steep fine of $500, and had to face some significant stressful (and interesting) uncertainty. It was perhaps not as punitive as rules-oriented folks might like, but I think its safe to say that this guy is now careful to have his paperwork in order on foreign trips. What more can one expect?
It may be too easy to look at this and be appreciative of the humanity and 'wiggle room' if one should be the person to benefit from it. Would a local be afforded the same wiggle room?
Recently, I read an anecdote about someone in the US arrested for drug possession. The family was well-known in the community. Charges were dropped due to minor procedural errors. Other cases with potential procedural errors are pursued and the accused are often recommended to take plea deals.
> What more can one expect?
Someone may find it great that the rules were bent for a not-so-bad infraction. Someone else may want a system that is evenly applied and by-the-book in all situations.
> Someone else may want a system that is fair and by-the-book in all situations.
It is utterly unreasonable to expect or desire everything to be "by the book" all the time. If you do, you'll be sorely disappointed with the real world.
Your particular example actually works against your argument. The "minor procedural errors" were likely discovered and exploited by highly compensated lawyers who make a living negotiating with the "fair" rules. The real problem for both cases is getting arrested in the first place. Both actors likely spent a miserable night in jail. Could a little discretion from the police involved have averted the misery, expense, and absurd waste of resources grinding the gears of the criminal justice system over nothing much at all? I think so.
I don't have the story around, but if I recall correctly, the minor procedural errors were forgetting to read Miranda rights. In the US, conviction can be based on possession without that form of evidence. Let's say for the sake of the argument that social status was an important factor here.
If going by-the-book is overly harsh, then the book needs to be amended. Bending the rules is not really praiseworthy, though it may end up with an good result in a particular case. It's not what I prefer in a justice system.
The problem is that it's basically impossible to come up with a book of rules that are reasonable to enforce in all circumstances. The world is too complicated for that, which is why it's necessary to look at each case individually.
Right, I don't mean to imply that there can never be any nuance or discretion within the system.
But in the author's case the rules were bent for him (officers rewriting his confession, having 'the' lenient judge; "It seems like she might actually let him off," said the prosecutor) and seems that he was either a) given special treatment, possibly influenced by US citizenship or education; or b) that the prosecution being baffled by the results is common. The author suggests that because of the officer camaraderie and that he received what he believes a reasonable punishment, it's an example of a better (more humane) system.
Cultures with different values will have differing punishments for transgressions, but an ideal justice system should aim to reduce bias and codify procedure, so that no one is left scratching their head at the end of the day.
What you see as humanity, I see as corruption. The system where you have onerous laws that aren't enforced against normal people because they pay nominal sums to avoid enforcement is also the system where you have to pay nominal sums to get anything done, and where the price to avoid enforcement for "undesirable" people climbs to infinity.
This isn't theoretical: it describes plenty of corrupt governments that nobody would hold up against any western country.
>and where the price to avoid enforcement for "undesirable" people climbs to infinity.
How's that latter part any different from any western country? There too, it's mostly the undesirables and those low down that get the full force of the enforcement. Those advanced countries just remove the part where less rich people can have a go at bending the rules, even if a little.
As for the equality of basic enforcement, that's illusory under the inequality of means and motivations. To quote Anatole France, "In its majestic equality, the law forbids rich and poor alike to sleep under bridges, beg in the streets and steal loaves of bread".
Yes, he did choose to violate it, in the sense that waiting until you've got 24 hours left on a visa to leave is just straight up bananapants crazy, especially when you are in a place where all sorts of things can happen that could delay your exit, and the legal system is unusually unpredictable (and the consequences could be unusually bad for you).
Accepting a certain level of risk that something bad might happen is absolutely equivalent (in terms of personal responsibility) to choosing to make that thing happen.
Example: drunk driving is dangerous. If you've had a lot to drink, and you get in a car to drive someplace, and you get in an accident, you take additional responsibility for that accident because you chose to increase risk above a certain common-sense level that everyone is aware of. Regardless of whether or not the accident would have happened without drunk driving, the drunk driver will be held accountable in a way that they would not have otherwise.
Waiting until you've got 24 hours left on your visa to leave Kazakhstan is so far beyond any common-sense threshold of acceptable risk (that pretty much any rational adult would be cognizant of) that it is equivalent to choosing this fate.
I think the point is, it's only a stupid risk if you're dealing with stupid systems. When all the actors involved see his transgression for what it actually is (instead of just yelling BUT THE RULEZ) it's apparently not as big of a risk.
>Yes, he did choose to violate it, in the sense that waiting until you've got 24 hours left on a visa to leave is just straight up bananapants crazy, especially when you are in a place where all sorts of things can happen that could delay your exit, and the legal system is unusually unpredictable (and the consequences could be unusually bad for you).
As far as risks people take go, this one is pretty inconsequential -- even in the worst case scenario, which would be a couple months in some jail.
His visa expired the day before he left "the place". That his train would make it across the border in the wee hours of the morning is not legally relevant.
The whole point of this thread is that what's "legally relevant" is not always what's morally or humanely relevant.
That's a millennia old distinction people have made. It's difficult for the puritan mindset to parse, of course.
Sodomy (and being gay) was not that far ago persecuted (still is in the books in some states). Blacks where not allowed in the same establishment as whites.
Slavery was the law once. I wouldn't blame Southern border guards looking the other way when blacks crossed to the North. Even if they took a bride.
And let's not forget the "I was just following orders"/"the law at the time" excuse that tons of military trials clarified that it is not a valid excuse.
It'd be better if sodomy and slavery were legal for people who could pay the bribe, but prosecuted in the cases of poor people and racial/religious/political minorities (aka people the official doesn't like and can't do anything for them)? It's a legitimate point of view to be an advocate for kleptocracy, but it's honestly rare to see one in the wild. I consider selective enforcement and latitude in sentencing the constant lurking enemy of Black people in the US; I think you've already got what you want there.
>It'd be better if sodomy and [flee from] slavery were legal for people who could pay the bribe, but prosecuted in the cases of poor people and racial/religious/political minorities (aka people the official doesn't like and can't do anything for them)?
Compared to it being totally illegal for everybody and 100% enforced, yes, it would be better.
Compared to fully killing anti-sodomy laws and slavery, of course, not.
But in the real world, totally changing a law takes far more time (and influence) that merely being able to leverage some wiggle room/bribe/whatever.
>It's a legitimate point of view to be an advocate for kleptocracy, but it's honestly rare to see one in the wild.
The actual and powerful kleptocracy are people who have influence on government and on MAKING laws -- not those at the bottom taking some bribe or looking the other way for a friend etc.
"It's the ability to take the law and regulations lightly, when they're not that serious, and be humane about it."
I agree that laws should be tempered by common sense, and each case judged taking into account context, but in a country with a serious state of law, those that are not serious or unfair should be changed, not "taken lightly".
The moment you assume laws are not rules but "suggestions", and open to subjective interpretation, it's very easy for some people to find justifications for everything (classic example: taxes are not fair, so I'll just evade them).
But then he wouldn't have had a cool story to post on Medium. He wouldn't have gotten all this attention.
Alternatively, one could argue that he took one for the team - he did something risky and stupid so he could find out what would happen, see if he could get out of it, and share the experience with those of us too responsible and sane to try it ourselves.
Either way though your point stands. He clearly chose to put himself in the situation he was in.
> He clearly chose to put himself in the situation he was in.
The thing that always bothers me about that attitude is that it removes any and all responsibility from the people who make the situation within which the choice is made.
It actually reminds me of basic Bayesian considerations: just as you can't know what a test means without knowing the false positive rate (and false negative, and true positive and negative...), you can't pass any kind of reasonable judgement on a choice unless you know what the alternatives were (and the situation in which the choice was made, and whether the alternatives were known or unknown, or...)
So no. He did NOT clearly choose to put himself in that situation.
That's a good point. We certainly don't know everything there is to know about the situation. There could very well have been circumstances beyond his control, or, circumstances that otherwise made the decision to push the limits much more reasonable.
That said, he doesn't explain any extenuating circumstances. He came across more like, 'And then my visa was about to expire that night. Crazy how visas expire all of a sudden, am I right?' If he didn't have much agency in the situation it doesn't seem to have bothered him enough to make a big deal about it.
Of course, he might have just felt rationalizing the situation wouldn't have added a whole lot to the essay, which it probably wouldn't have. Then again, who knows how much of the story is true and how much is entirely made up?
I am gonna sound like the devil's advocate here, but I'd take the risk:
He didn't intend to do anything malicious. He wasn't on drugs. Wasn't going to kill or rob anyone. He was maybe simply playing a mischievous kid, not a "bloody criminal". Are laws really meant to be taken so rigidly? Has he actually done anything immoral (except for the bribe part, which I also confidently despise of)? Laws are meant to help people live comfortably and save the innocents from criminal. Yes he could have left 24 hours earlier, but maybe he felt it was more comfortable to leave later. He chose his comfort for the cost of absolutely nothing except not following a law, hopefully made to ultimately give comfort to people. He didn't harm anyone.
The fact that such a non-malicious "crime" (read: mischief) did not have to face the brutality given to actual criminals is enough evidence for me to believe that Kazakhstan's law is indeed superior to American law - because boy do I hear so much ill of the American law punishing innocents every other day on the internet.
Think about it. There's an electronic system in place. So he's registered as a passenger and border control police closed their eyes on his visa. But system will generate a notification and this notification will cause an investigation: why exactly is border control police didn't do their job properly? Did they took a bribe? They'll have to fill a lot of papers just to stay in their work and it's possible that they will be fired anyway.
They have clear instructions so they must follow them. If they don't follow the instructions, they might get in trouble, because there are other people who control them. So they did what they have to do.
On the other side, court made a right decision and let him go without any penalties, because court have the authority to make those decisions.
So overall I'm proud of Kazakhstan officials and I think that they did their jobs properly (except for a bribe episode, it's a real shame).
He could have just stayed at home, much easier for everyone.
Oh wait, no, then he wouldn't have had an adventure and a interesting story to tell, so interesting other people actually enjoy hearing it.
I don't really get this comment at all, he never claimed to be hard done by.
He just told the story as it happened while giving us an insight into other cultures.
Visas are bullshit anyway, people should have the RIGHT to free travel wherever they wish, so BS on the ethics bit.
The only ethical issue is around using names (assuming they are real) and photos of people who helped him.
Other than that I suggest you get out and travel. You obviously don't, else you would know what it's like to get into situations that later seem so obviously could have been avoided. But to travel the world and have fun it's part and parcel of the experience.
Honestly, he was just a student. People make mistakes in order to learn and I'm very sure that the author learned exactly this facet of responsibility.
Ooh, I have a relevant story that I've never shared before.
I was living in Kazakhstan for a while and had to take the overnight train to Kyrgyzstan for a visa run. They're very old trains. I woke up around 3am and had to use the restroom. The train had just stopped at a station in the middle of nowhere, and it was the middle of winter. I went to the restroom. I flushed. But when I looked down through the toilet, I saw snow and train tracks. These trains didn't have anything to collect waste, they just flushed straight onto the ground. I immediately heard some loud whistles and shouting, and footsteps.
I rushed back to the bed and hoped that no-one saw me, but it was too late, and then we spent the next 30 minutes talking to soldiers. I wasn't sure if they were asking for extra money, or if it was something we needed to pay anyway because we were crossing the border.
It was a tiny train station in the middle of nowhere, and we had no SIM cards, so I started thinking about what we would do if they kicked us off the train. I was actually kind of excited about the idea of building an igloo and sleeping there overnight, and then going to get some help in the morning. That would have been a better story, but in the end they just let us go.
So don't flush any ex-soviet train toilets when you're stopped at a station in Central Asia.
> But don't flush any ex-soviet train toilets when you're stopped at a train station.
Not just ex-Soviet trains, British ones too. Newer and renovated trains have sewage tanks, but older trains flush directly onto the tracks (and often therefore have a sign in the toilet asking you not to flush when stopped at a station). According to the BBC, as of 2015 this applied to about 10% of the trains in service: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-30541015
The tabloids periodically have a field day with it when people notice again that these trains are still not quite phased out. E.g. in 2014, there was a minor sensation about the quantity of "fertiliser" on the tracks producing tomato growth: http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/trains-dump-much-human-...
I really doubt if that problem will ever be tackled. In cities it is a logistical problem. Standing in line for 5 minutes for a proper toilet v/s shitting on a track right away. There is no way on earth we can build sufficient number of toilets for the people in Mulund or Dharavi slums. There are politically incorrect solutions such as letting people defecate in open but provide slightly better facilities which will help tackle all the shit.
In village however the problem is purely cultural. I worked with some NGO which build proper flush toilets but people would prefer to use them as goat shelters. Their priorities are different.
Only in certain areas. In many villages a person can be beaten up for defecating in open and in some cities it would lead to arrest. Despite all the perception "toilets"has been a priority in many cities and especially villages. If you travel in rural Mahrashtra you will see large boards that say "Open Defecation Free Village", such places will even have vigilante groups to enforce this law.
It is a big health/hygiene problem. If you happen to be in fairly large train stations in India in the mornings, you can see cleaning staff spreading bleaching powder on the tracks to cover up the mess.
This was somewhat common until recently on small tourist and passenger trains in the US too until about 15-20 years ago. The Cape Cod Railroad was shutdown for a long time due to disposing of waste on the tracks
I'm surprised, that a western man is so ready to participate in corruption. I live in Kazakhstan and I would be very afraid to bribe an official, it could become worse very fast and if you are caught with that, you'll have to bribe much more people or end up in a jail with a very serious offence. I definitely don't recommend to bribe an official in Kazakhstan, usually it's better and safer to follow a law.
>it could become worse very fast and if you are caught with that, you'll have to bribe much more people or end up in a jail with a very serious offence
by association, how even the ones with Masters in Bribery can make a rookie mistake - right these days the top staff of the Moscow DA office (the first deputy) and Russia AG office (the head of the Internal Affairs and his first deputy) have just been arrested by FSB on charges of taking bribes (on the scale of 1M euro) for helping the recently arrested "thief in law" (a king in organized crime hierarchy) and his "colleagues". The issue of course not the bribes itself :) The "king"'s group tried to extort from a restaurant which was under "protection" of ("roofed by") a group of former KGB officers (thus FSB involvement). One would think that challenging KGB/FSB wouldn't be a smart move, and it probably can be explained by the fact that the "king" - Shakro "Young" - was crowned only recently after the previous "king" had been killed (that guy was "Grandpa Hasan", i kid you not, it is Moscow, 21st century :). By taking the bribes the DA guys made the same rookie mistake of going against FSB.
Anybody who thinks it's "very naive" has never travelled much in such places to see how things work, or went to some kind of boy scouts or the seminary school...
5 years ago we went on a Mongol Rally. Driving European vehicle through the Stans makes you easy prey for local policeman. My co-driver had a strategy of befriending them and sharing small gifts (pens, lighters etc.). Most expensive were Tajik GBAO guards, they got headlamps. During my shifts I had 2 encounters but played dumb, even though I'm native in similar language and could communicate. No bribes given. :)
Had a great time in Semey, KZ and later across the border in Barnaul. Must go back some day, driving, of course:). If you love big skies of US west, you'll be in heaven in Kazakhstan.
>Side note, Google translate's OCR feature saved me from eating testicles so many times.
Your loss. Testicles, e.g. lamb testicles, are just as delicious as any other part -- plus, if you think about it, there's nothing that strange or dirty about them (compared to liver or whatever), it's just some prudish mental connection people make.
There are plenty of videos and blogs, and in fact 2016 MR just started, so you can follow teams. This is how they got me, took me few years to prepare.
We were with convoying Mongolia with bunch of cool guys from AUS, NZ and UK. One team went through northern Iraq (it was relatively safe back in 2011) and later had to double as Kyrgyz emergency as they were driving an ambulance. Links are mostly broken, but you can read some of it here:
We had another trouble in Novokuznetsk, as we were filming clip on factory there, for a project on environment and pollution. Part of the sponsorship deal, so we took Wikipedia and found bad spots along the route. Of course, few minutes after setting up the camera we were busted. Screeching tyres of UAZs as they were coming out, like in the movie. It was tense, but we played Slavic card there and so they just deleted memory cards. At that point after 30 days or so in a van, I guess we were not much of your typical spy. :). We were told it's good it was private security company, because they could just kick us out from the scene without all the paperwork required by regular police.
Not the OP, but I did it a few years ago, it was amazing. Got away without any bribing too. I wrote a nearly complete blog...one day I'll write the last couple of entries.
Follow their FB page, there are many people who are looking for a partner, or additional team member to share costs.
In fact, if you need to spend a month in a car, it might be better with a person you don't know (friend, relative...). There will be too much information you don't need to know. :)
Another #protip: the ultimate "get out of jail" card is the red MAN UTD t-shirt.
It's the better universal value than cigarettes, pens or crisp $20 notes. If we had few of those (fakes, obviously) we would've seriously cut our mechanic bills and few other expenses along the way.
Great read, but I don't buy it. I've not been to Kazakhstan but traveled Africa and South America extensively. I've been to war zones. A lot of things don't add up:
* A cop takes a bribe, is surprised the tourist is in some computer and then returns the bribe? I've never ever encountered a cop who takes bribes but does not know how the system works. They are not this stupid. This, by the way, is the best way to avoid bribing: Point out you accept punishment and let them work out the consequences for them - paperwork, getting you to jail etc. All this for a visa that expired a few hours ago? I'm sure they'll find a less work-intensive way to let you go.
* Cops being happy to have some "criminal" around for getting drunk and they even pay? No, they rather take your money and get drunk with their friends.
* The girl's story did not make much sense (abortion, breaking up, being raped, leaving school, being arrested, being dug on by a male guard while making out with a female guard and all of this within 24h? wait, what, I am missing some connections here).
I'm not saying that the base of the story ain't true, but there is, IMHO, a lot of storytelling in there, too.
I live in Kazakhstan and this story is absolutely true in my opinion. Yerlan (Irlan is incorrect) just wanted to get "easy" money from foreign. I even think this was a first time when he'd wanted to take a bribe as he hadn't known how computer system works.
"Cops being happy to have some "criminal" around for getting drunk and they even pay?" - lol he was just a poor student whose visa expired, he wasn't a drug dealer. In Kazakhstan, most people are hospitable. And paying for guests is absolutely normal.
"The girl's story did not make much sense" - in our country sexual education is at a very low level. Abortions at young age is a big problem in poor small cities like where author have been.
If you read his story about his SF arrest you'll see he and his friend were drunkenly interfering with paramedics trying to treat an accident victim, even after the police told them to stop. He then threatened to commit suicide while in jail and got put on psychiatric hold.
And somehow he turns that into a story of injustice. So yes, he likes storytelling.
Um, what? I read the story of his SF arrest. That's... not what happened.
He was arrested because the police resented that he did not immediately 'respect my authoritah'. He was not interfering with paramedics. He was a safe distance away.
He got put on psychiatric hold by the police as retribution for insisting it is reasonable for him to have the right to see a doctor for medical treatment.
Medical treatment which was only required because the police physically assaulted him.
It's very hard to imagine a retelling of his story which doesn't involve substantial police misconduct.
That's a... selective reading of that police report.
The idea that it is right for police to violently enforce their every whim if one does not immediately obey all commands is a serious problem.
For one, only a small subset of all possible commands a police officer could make are commands which one is legally obligated to follow.
Secondly, I think we want a society where police choose constructive dialog over violence.
Nothing about this incident was necessary or proportionate.
Unnecessary violence has made policing dangerous lately. A few years ago it was more dangerous to supervise lawncare, be a taxi driver, collect garbage, or be a handyman than it was to be a police officer.
I wonder if this year's escalations will lead to policing actually becoming a dangerous profession. :(
>Secondly, I think we want a society where police choose constructive dialog over violence.
seeing how deep the police got addicted to violence one can only wonder whether it is possible for them to get sober at all.
I mean you can't make that up - https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/morning-mix/wp/2016/07/2... . Just make sure to watch the video. The police tried to shoot the autistic patient even after the therapist clearly explained to them everything, and there were absolutely no danger to anybody. The police screwed the shot [fortunately] and instead of killing the autistic patient they hit the therapist in the leg.
I get that everyone's on edge, but please, "PUT AWAY THE GUNS".
America has many consensual crimes (drugs, prostitution, etc.), and that makes a very large percentage of the population criminals who must live outside the law.
I'm not sure this can be fixed until it is unusual for a police interaction with a citizen to be a police-criminal interaction. If most of the people you meet as a law enforcement officer are criminals who interact with the world of drugs (a world which currently features privatized violence-based contract enforcement), then I guess a person's prior probability matrix gets fucked up.
it gets even "better" - the police who shot black therapist is now saying that he was trying to save the therapist from the autistic patient. If not for the video, we'd never knew how really low their lies are. The police demonstrate all the symptoms of addiction - doing their drug (violence) and lying about it in the face of obviously contradicting evidence.
Man! The fact that such explanation even came to your mind ... It would be hilarious if it wasn't a such tragic indication of a new low police have reached in public perception and the cost of it shouldered by the blacks and others.
"I've never ever encountered a cop who takes bribes but does not know how the system works.". It's not about now knowing how the system works, it's just not knowing what its going to happen.
The kid could easily be overlooked by the border guards since he had his passport, and it might have took extreme due diligence on their part to bother to look it up on the computer.
>Cops being happy to have some "criminal" around for getting drunk and they even pay? No, they rather take your money and get drunk with their friends.
If you travel in the right places and chance on the right people, the first can happen just as well.
Especially if you have to be in their company (custody etc) in the first place for a few days, it's some small place and you're seen as interesting talking material, and lots of other situations. Even bribe-taking officials are not one-sided hardened corrupted caricatures.
I hope not, but it seems to me that not taking photos if explicitly asked not to is the least you can do for a guy who, upon arresting you treats you like a best friend, helps you to get refund for unused ticket and buys you bear and coffee. Hell, it's actually only human to restrain from taking photos of somebody who doesn't want to, but doing so to that Irlan guy?
The most repulsive thing is author doesn't do that because of malevolence. He just honestly doesn't care.
It's funny that probably being a type of person that I dislike so much, may be actually helping him to write a story I like so much.
I personally don't find it morally wrong to take pictures of someone who was pressuring you for bribes. My "best friends" don't try to extort me for money. Irlan was only nice when he realized the author could provide entertainment and had very little assets...
It's also sad that being a helpful person may put you in a world of trouble.
The author may have just not cared, but this kind of behaviour makes good people less helpful just out of a need for self-preservation - you never know if that random person you've just bent the rules for won't do something that'll cost you your job, or your freedom.
The same thing crossed my mind. In his statement to the judge, he says:
I very sincerely, on behalf of my country and Obama, my state and Arnold Schwarzenegger, myself and my family beseeched her to be lenient in her judgment.
Schwarzenegger was governor until 2011, which would presumably date his escapades to sometime between 2009 and 2011. Hopefully it's long enough ago to clear Irlan or anyone else mentioned or photographed in the post of any problems should it get traced back to them.
I was wondering the same thing. Hopefully the wrong people never find it. It's no wonder they didn't want him sharing their picture, I hope he changed the actual names.
Something similar happened to me. I was a citizen of Uzbekistan at the time. I was about to fly out of Almaty. When the lady at the checkpoint saw my passport, she asked where my exit visa was. I never knew all the Uzbek citizens needed one to leave the post Soviet territory. So, I was denied my seat on the plane. Had to renew my ticket for $50. Come next day, another lady at the checkpoint says the same thing - without the exit visa I am not going anywhere. The plane was already boarding and I was about to miss it again. She saw me getting agitated and says "why don't you talk to this man here?". He said everything could be arranged for mere $300. Even though I was an actual student and poor as a church mouse, I had to pay it. I was let out.
Curious why you found out you needed an exit visa, rebooked, and came back without one. Were you just hoping you'd get lucky with the border staff the second time?
I must say this is strange. As an Uzbek citizen you don't need an exit visa (OVIR) to go to Kazakhstan or Russia. I guess they were trying to hustle you.
@pavel_lishin: The exit visa costs about $50 -- you pay a fee to the government and possibly a fee to fill out the application. These days it takes anywhere between 2 weeks to 2 months to get it. Depending on the country you want to visit or where you have been previously (based on your application), you might also have to go through a security interview with intelligence officers.
In my opinion, this is a great, well written traveling story, where no objective, willful harm was caused by the author. What I got from it was that a book should not be judged by its cover, it's important to try and relate to people when traveling, and violence against women is a horrible problem.
If the names weren't changed, you could say he was a bit naive (although the odds of this ever reaching Irlan seem somewhat small to me), but ultimately, he portrayed all of the people he met in a positive light that makes me want to visit Kazakhstan.
I think being in such a situation, out of one's comfort zone, gives great perspective on what really matters (although it's not for everyone).
What I've experienced is, all over the world, people will try to help: if you seem like you need help and don't have all the answers/money.
For travelers -- if you know the local language, speak it. I had a scary experience in the same part of the word and managed to "ingenious" my way out of it. Speakign the local language just helps people identify with you more.
treat them like a person and they'll treat you like you are a person.
It happened, but whether it happened like he said is up for debate. There's reports from others out there that he actually was being drunk, disruptive to rescue operations, and elbowed a cop in the eye.
Yet another reason to have body cameras -- no he said, they said.
All ex-communist countries were poverty is the status quo have a similar way of dealing with things. We call it bribe, but most of us are on the bright side of the planet, financially speaking at least.
If Irlan didn't wanted to be bribed there would no discussion. All the chit-chat was in order to induce the victim to bribe him.
I heard much more salty stories from my father who was a Businessmen in the Balkan area in the 90s and 00s. After 2002 the situation in the Balkan area improved a lot, but it's not uncommon for police officers to get bribed, it's their way to make ends meet and the easier way for a foreigner to get things done.
While speaking a common language usually (but not always) helps, being a US citizen is the way more important part of the story.
Police in the United States are used to generally treating everyone (including foreigners) with impunity, while cops in other countries dealing with US citizens are more wary of causing a diplomatic incident. There's also the novelty factor: people from high status countries are seen as interesting, and the more uncommon your presence is there, the more friendly interest officials take.
He's making a mistaken inference by assuming that how the police treat US citizens also reflects how they treat locals.
> There's also the novelty factor: people from high status countries are seen as interesting, and the more uncommon your presence is there, the more friendly interest officials take.
My in-laws were in Iran during the revolution. He's American and she's Thai. They have a long story whose climactic confrontation with guards is suddenly resolved when they decide that the Thai lady with the fuzzy hooded coat must obviously be an American Eskimo and that this is the most amazing thing he's ever seen.
So the two of them have a story about the time they got out of a terrifying situation, and there's an Iranian somewhere who has a story about that one time, for reasons he will never understand, an American Eskimo wandered through his guard post.
In my experience police / border guards in the west threat people worse in normal situations. In most of the rest of the world they are just local bureaucrats who are trying to get through their day without trouble. If you do something wrong it's mostly a bureaucratic process and you're not suddenly a suspected terrorist. Of course in less normal situations that might imply jail time or getting beaten up I'd take the western version.
I still think it's a great story that's funny and well told while being respectful to the people involved. It's definitely indicative of a meaningful part of the culture that's very different from the western/american bureaucratic mindset.
While it most likely would have been different in some way, the treatment he received in Kazakhstan still seems to be better than the authors treatment in the US prison system.
That seems to be largely due to the small-town nature of where he was, and the boredom of the guards. Plus, presumably the author is a friendly, affable sort.
It might've actually worked out better if he hadn't spoken Russian. Speaking the local language evokes a "who are you to bypass the rules?" sentiment and enables the officers to pass the time hanging out with you. A non-speaker would just be a huge hassle.
Being able to speak the local language and to be able to portray yourself as "local boy made good" seems to bring out something in people where they want to root for you.
Yeah, I think it can go either way. I've had a few situations in Russia where speaking the language evoked "You idiot. You should know better and let me set you straight." while speaking English evoked "Stupid American. Here's how we fix it."
Yes, on this trip I had many Police encounters. Most of the time, the best course of action was to feign ignorance and speak very loudly and excitedly in English, "Good Morning Officer!" and just keep repeating that and smiling. Then they would give up on you and move on to easier targets. I tried that at first here, but then changed tactics.
Both your responses have the person taking on the role of a --short term-- mentee: they show some sort of of connection + naïveté that prompts the authority figure into rooting for them ie caring enough to indicate next steps. '
The outcome would be worse if you were Russian or Kyrgyz or Uzbek or Tajik or of whatever 3rd world origin and knew Russian/Kazakh. My father used to buy cars in Europe to sell them in Kyrgyzstan and he says that there is no other country as corrupt as Kazakhstan. Example: On the last checkpoint on the road to Kyrgyzstan cops wanted him to give a bribe. He was out of money (he ran out of them giving them to Kazakh policemen all the road down from Russian border), and the cop asked my dad to give him a first-aid box as a bribe (!). That desperate.
Why they wanted bribe? Just because. Even if you don't break rules, they'll rob you. Because you are not Kazakh (and not from a Western country).
Update: To be fair, I'll add that some cops in Kyrgyzstan like that kind of easy money -- they could harass you until you give them some money. But don't bribe them. It is best to play a total idiot like "you me, me you, me friend to you, you friend to me, yes, I like your country, nature mountains ... " etc. Don't forget to smile :)
The future of Kazakhstan is highly unstable. The current slightly benevolent dictator has no good processor and the development of Kazakhstan is mostly dependent of oil, so when renewable energy becomes the norm and rhe president dies in the coming ten years the country will probably implode.
The author was being a total dick in that other story so his conclusion was incorrect.
At the very least its very impolite to hang around and gaggle at a police investigation or someone getting aid from the EMS. At that point you are only getting in the way.
I've never personally gotten assistance from a US Embassy but I know people who have and they were genuinely helpful.
Hi guys! I was recommended on some website to privateinvestigator1967@gmail.comwhen trying to hack my wife's cell phone without physical contact. He was really helpful and now I have access to much more than expected, contact him, he's absolutely reliable and efficient...He also hacks from destroying data and evidence against you,changing school and university grades,expunging your driving and criminal records to someone who is trying to blackmail you...etc.Tell him Robertson referred you
I work too hard to live with a cheating husband..As soon as I saw the signs I was able to get a PI who recommended me to privateinvestigator1967@gmail.com who helped me to hack my husband's internet habits..He hacked my husband email,phone calls,text messages,iCloud,dating websites(tinder) and found the truth about him..I am happy now that he is gone from my life,at least I can breath well now!! Tell him Michelle Mallette referred you
I met him back then in 2014, he has helped me with more than five exploits, he is a great guy and a competent professional. I feel everybody should have him as a hackerbuddy. just add [privateinvestigator1967@gmail.com]on your gmail and contact him for anything you might need..Tell him Ann Albano referred you
a) Sensationalist headline - something that seems amazing to someone who is not e.g. russian - but the person is actually russian
b) Outing the photo of a cute 18 yo girl "who just got raped"
Yes - an interesting story - but this is extreme clickbait likely for profit. And problematic in other dimensions. This guy is an opportunist who does not seem to care about other people.
A) This was a pretty unusual experience for me. And I think it is unusual for the readers.
B) I can see your point. She did ask me to take photos and to tell her story. I have not been in touch with her in a while. I will deliberate for a bit and consider taking down her photos.
There is no profit motive. I am not paid for this story.
Irlan (left) wouldn’t let me take pictures, but occasionally I’d sneak one in.
I'm not sure what to think about this. Corruption is bad. But this particular official's heart seemed to be in the right place, and he treated you with respect, honesty, and generosity, even when he didn't have to. He doesn't seem to have been repaid in kind.
I want to say something like, "Hopefully Irlan isn't on the wrong side of the courtroom as a result of your story," but on the other hand... corruption is bad, and I don't want the legal system in my own country to work this way.
So, did you do a good thing by exposing Irlan and his colleagues, or a bad thing by betraying them? I honestly don't know. You made me empathize with someone I wouldn't ordinarily empathize with, and then you stuck a knife in his back. Which is interesting.
Parenthetically, if you're a US citizen, you're subject to the FCPA, which can potentially be a pretty big deal. Google it if you're not familiar with the acronym. I don't know if the FCPA's reach extends to bribing low-level immigration officials, but it's worth looking into if you plan to leave the article up.
Dunno. However, the Feds have a long history of defining "business transactions" in whatever terms suit their purposes at the moment. (Wickard v. Filburn comes to mind, for one thing.) And certainly export regulations don't make a distinction between commercial and private transactions.
also I'd be so grateful for the boys, I'd least make some effort to repay all the beers :)
about a) i liked it. It builds a expectation that is completely shattered by the "but i got treated so well". He lures you in to thinking a little racist and than disproves it :)
> and asked me to take lots of pictures of her for my memory
For his memory. Clearly it wasn't a "tell my story!" Kind of moment. Even if it was, she'd been raped the day before then tried to flee the country with no money, got arrested and thrown in prison. She was clearly in a very vulnerable state and the writer was the first friendly face she'd seen. He admits he didn't contact her before posting her face all over the internet. The pictures have been taken down now btw.
Edit: OP says she asked him to tell her story. I still think he should have asked her at a time when, you know, she wasn't at the lowest point in her life.
