Em

Please watch this clip. I LOVE his response to the woman who yells "VOCH" toward the end of the song.

Just saw this. I think that title is quite perfect for him.

About Blame and Blindness: HR252 has no relevance to “protocols” By John Hughes ArmeniaNow Chief Editor Yerevan, Armenia ain’t Washington, D.C., any more than this newsroom is a Congressional Committee hall. But in the world we live in here, most accept what nobody, there, is saying. This: “Normalization” talks between Armenia and Turkey, failed quite a while before a late-afternoon vote in D.C. had congresspersons talking about that possibility. Not since last October, when State Department led “protocols” offered promises that soon became impossible to fulfill, has there been reasonable belief that Armenia and Turkey were skipping hand in hand on a yellow brick road to lollipops and Technicolor dreams. Yet from Secretary of State Hillary Clinton in Costa Rica, to President of Turkey Abdullah Gul in Ankara and repeatedly invoked by congresspersons who reveal their shallow understanding of the Armenian reality, the collateral damage feared to the protocol process was raised as an emergency brake on House Resolution 252 by those who wrongly think that October roadmap is still leading anywhere. When Congressman Delahunt, for example, argued that the resolution would impede the protocol process, had he been in recess nearly a month ago when Turkey’s Foreign Minister Ahmet Davutoglu called the process dead? (Davutoglu was displeased that Armenia’s Constitutional Court opined that the documents were constitutional so long as they allowed Armenia to maintain its resistance to Genocide deniers.) And when Congressman Burton said the protocol process would be damaged, had he no clue that Armenia herself has just this week passed legislation that provides an escape clause against enforcing the protocols even if they are ratified? These are not steps that imply compliance on either side of the State Department’s Kumbaya dance. It is reasonable that Secretary Clinton wishes to see her hard-fought diplomacy find a payoff. It was she, after all, who spent an October Saturday afternoon hold up in a staff car with cell phones at each ear, just to get the Turk and the Armenian FMs to follow through on signing. It is not reasonable, though, that all sides shouldn’t admit that the protocols were flawed, scrap them with dignity if possible, and regroup knowing that at least 23 U.S. congresspersons on a House committee see the bigger picture. Which is this: A government, a nation, a race, can either be the aggressor or the martyr; it can’t be both (with the possible exception of Al-Qaeda as today’s reality suggests). Practically no one in that hearing chamber on Thursday claimed that what happened to the Armenians was anything but genocide. Still, those who voted against the resolution justified their vote by the political equivalent of saying “you murdered, raped, burned, exiled my family and stole their land but, eh, you have feelings too, so let’s be nice to each other”. And it is that loophole in morality that somehow, after nearly 100 years of denial, finds Turkey claiming rights as the aggrieved. And here’s a bewildering aspect: The men and women in D.C. feel it cushions the blow of accountability if references condemn the “Ottomans”, rather than the Turks. Oddly, though, by reacting with indignation, President Gul links his people to the stained past none should want a part of. “I consider the decision (to endorse HR252) unreasonable. It lacks respect to the Turkish nation . . .” No. It lacks respect – for none is deserved – to the criminals whose bloodline modern Turks unfortunately share, but for whom descendants should not be held in contempt. No modern Turk should be condemned for the Genocide anymore than a modern American should be condemned for slavery, for the Trail of Tears, for historic resistance to civil rights, for inequality of women, for a misguided president starting wars that cannot be won... Unless that modern Turk embraces denial, the bedfellow of guilt. By retracting its ambassador from Washington – as it did within minutes of the Committee vote – and by threatening diplomatic repercussions, Ankara in effect has said to Washington in March what it said to Yerevan last October: Share our blindness to history so that we all might squint our way to a brighter future. Yerevan didn’t buy it. But, as said, Yerevan ain’t Washington.

Mossssssss.......es yerg@.......lav chem asi. Bayc aprres!

Speech of keynote speaker, Raffi Hovhanissian: Part 1 of 6. http://www.youtube.c...u/3/BMrrKIzZnOo

Well worth reading in its entirety. Congratulations to the members of PFA who dedicate of their time and intelligence to such projects/events. Job well done!

http://www.pf-armenia.org/fileadmin/pfa_uploads/Diaspora_Forum/PFA_Diaspora_Report.pdf

LOL. Duq demq eq! )))))) Isk hima vonc es zgum kez?

They did so just as you were posting that question.

Happy birthday Vava jan!!!!!!!

A man should not walk ahead of the woman he cares for. He should walk beside her. If she is always left trailing behind him, it speaks volumes about their relationship. Thoughts? (The above-mentioned can be taken literally or otherwise.)

Is Sarkis not an Armenian word/name? This and that piqued my interest as to the origins of the name.

Thank you again for sharing. Arizona "spoke" to me. I completely agree with your comment about the immigrant aspect.

Reiterating that statement (threat?) in every single editorial or piece written relative to Turkish-Armenian issues is irking me!

http://www.economist.com/world/europe/displaystory.cfm?story_id=15549523 Zero progress Relations are growing frosty again Feb 18th 2010 | ANKARA | From The Economist print edition http://media.economist.com/images/20100220/201008EUM959.gifWHEN the Turkish government signed a deal with Armenia last October, it looked like a clear achievement for its policy of “zero problems” with its neighbours. The old foes agreed to establish relations and open their common border, which had been sealed by the Turks in 1993 in solidarity with Azerbaijan, during its nasty war with Armenia over Nagorno-Karabakh, a mainly Armenian enclave. The deal offered the hope of burying the ghosts of the past by setting up a joint committee of historians to investigate the mass slaughter of Ottoman Armenians in 1915. But ancient enmities are not so easily cast off. Just a day after the deal was signed, Turkey’s prime minister, Recep Tayyip Erdogan, said that it could not be implemented until Armenia withdrew from Nagorno-Karabakh, which it has occupied since the war. No matter that the agreement made no mention of the conflict. Now Turkey is throwing a fresh tantrum. The Armenian constitutional court recently approved the agreement on the grounds that it satisfied the founding principles of the state, which include seeking worldwide recognition of the 1915 tragedy as genocide. Fearing any such moves, Turkey has demanded that the court retract its reasoning. Many think the Turkish government, squeezed between proud nationalists at home and outraged Azerbaijanis abroad, is seizing on the Armenian court’s word to justify its qualms. Armenia has sent the deal to parliament for approval. Turkey looks isolated. America, its most important ally (and the deal’s biggest backer), has taken Armenia’s side. Russia argues that Turkish-Armenian relations should not be linked to Nagorno-Karabakh, a view shared in Washington. Yet the deal is not universally backed in Armenia. In making its judgment, the constitutional court may have been responding to hardline nationalists, who are furious that their government has agreed to recognise Turkey’s borders. (They claim that parts of eastern Turkey belong to an Armenian “historical homeland”.) The president, Serzh Sargsyan, has now declared that ratification will be held up until the Turkish parliament votes on the deal. America is watching closely. If the deal collapses, the way would be left open for Congress to pass a resolution recognising the 1915 killings as genocide, something it has long threatened. This in turn could trigger anti-American feelings in Turkey strong enough to leave Ankara feeling that it has no choice but to retaliate. One option would be to kick the Americans out from the strategically located Incirlik airbase. The comfort is that ordinary Turks and Armenians are ignoring their leaders and building friendship on their own terms. Turkey’s privately owned Su TV recently launched an Armenian-language news programme. And business between the two countries, despite their closed border, is growing daily, via Georgia.

"You’re not a kid anymore. You have the right to choose your own life. You can start again. If you want a cat, all you have to do is choose a life in which you can have a cat. It’s simple. It’s your right." It's not simple. It's not merely a right. You are obligated to be the best version of you for the ones you share your life with. Take steps to allow the cat to come into your life. Maybe not today, but make certain that every day you move closer to one day having the cat.

Problem solved. I see everything on the page now. I love the one entitled Arizona. You attended HHS and LACC. Same here.

The 'Luxury Prime': How Luxury Changes People Q&A with:Roy Y.J. ChuaPublished:February 1, 2010Author:Sarah Jane Gilbert Executive Summary: What effect does luxury have on human cognition and decision making? According to new research, there seems to be a link between luxury and self interest, an insight that may help curb corporate excesses. Roy Y.J. Chua of Harvard Business School discusses findings from his work conducted with Xi Zou of London Business School. Key concepts include: People who were made to think about luxury before a decision-making task were more likely to endorse self-interested decisions that might potentially harm others. Although luxury does not necessarily induce people to harm others, it may cause them to be less considerate. Limiting corporate excesses and luxuries might be a step toward getting executives to behave more responsibly toward society. Roy Chua is an assistant professor in the Organizational behavior unit at Harvard Business School.~ ~~~~~~~ Are people who travel in town cars and on corporate jets different—on a psychological level—from you and me? Does the availability of luxury goods "prime" individuals to be less concerned about or considerate toward others? The answer from new research seems to be yes.HBS professor Roy Y.J. Chua and Xi Zou, an assistant professor at London Business School, suggest that luxury goods have an important effect on human behavior that is only now becoming clear—and that may have implications for addressing the continuation of objectionable choices among, for example, high-flying executives on Wall Street. According to Chua, their research found that "people who were made to think about luxury prior to a decision-making task have a higher tendency to endorse self-interested decisions that might potentially harm others." Their findings are detailed in the HBS working paper "The Devil Wears Prada? Effects of Exposure to Luxury Goods on Cognition and Decision Making" [PDF]. "Will the same business meeting reach different decisions when it is held at a luxury resort as opposed to a modest conference room?" the authors write. "Will CEOs who bequeath themselves expensive office facilities and luxurious corporate jets make different business decisions than those who do not? In this age of Wall Street excesses, these are pertinent questions that could further our understanding of why some [people] continue to place their own interests over others', even in difficult economic times." Chua, whose research draws on human psychology to better understand important social processes in business organizations, explained more about the findings in an e-mail Q&A. Sarah Jane Gilbert: You conducted two experiments to explore a psychological link between the notion of luxury and self-interest. What did you find? Roy Chua: In the first experiment, participants were asked to answer a series of business-related decision-making questions that were designed to tap the extent to which people place self-interests (profit maximization for one's firm) above society interests. An example involved asking participants how likely they are to endorse the manufacturing of a new model of car that could bring in enormous profit but could potentially pollute the environment. Before answering these questions, half of the participants were asked to evaluate luxury products, while the other half evaluated cheaper equivalents. We found that people who were made to think about luxury prior to the decision-making task have a higher tendency to endorse self-interested decisions that might potentially harm others. These results led us to wonder whether "luxury-primed" individuals are simply self-interested or are indeed more prone to harm others. Thus, we conducted a second experiment that was similar to the first one in that the participants were either primed with luxury or not. The difference is that after the prime, we asked them to do a word recognition exercise. The task was to write down the first word that came to their mind when given a string of scrambled letters. These strings of scrambled letters were each constructed by interleaving a pro-social word with an anti-social word of equal length. Examples of the pro-social words used were nice, giving, and helpful; examples of anti-social words were rude, stingy, and selfish. We found that luxury-primed participants identified significantly fewer pro-social words than non-luxury-primed participants. However, there was no significant difference in the identification of anti-social words. This pattern of findings suggests that luxury-primed individuals were not more likely to have anti-social cognition, but were less likely to have pro-social thoughts. In other words, when thinking about luxury, people tend to focus more on themselves and less on others. Q: Did anything in your research surprise you? A: The findings are not so much surprising as illuminating. We expected a relationship between luxury and self-interests. However, self-interested behaviors are often conflated with those that do harm to others (e.g., selling low-quality products that might be harmful to consumers). Our second study to some extent clarifies the psychological dynamics that arise from luxury. Luxury does not necessarily induce one to do harm to others, but simply causes one to be less concerned or considerate toward them. Q: How do your findings help us to understand corporate greed? Do you think there is a different mindset now for companies and executives to change and become more socially and morally responsible? A: In the midst of the current global economic crisis, people are outraged by highly paid executives living in the lap of luxury while continuing to make self-serving decisions and ignoring the plight of others. To date, more than a year since the crisis started, despite much public outrage and threats to more strongly regulate the financial industry, there do not seem to be any substantive changes in their mindset. Bankers are still planning large bonuses for themselves. One commonly proffered explanation is that these executives lack a moral compass, leading them to care only about themselves to the extent of hurting others. Our findings offer another perspective—the fact that these executives are surrounded by luxury did not help their decision-making to be more "other-oriented." Yet their seemingly "immoral" decisions stem not so much from a real desire to hurt others but more from over self-indulgence. Perhaps besides limiting the size of bonuses, limiting corporate excesses and luxuries might be a step toward getting executives to behave more responsibly. Q: Since your research is work in progress, do you have plans to expand your study to uncover additional findings? What would you include in future studies? A: Yes, this is still very much work in progress. While our findings established the effects of exposure to luxury, we believe more work is required. Future research should tease out the nuances in the psychological effects of "luxury prime" (which we have shown to promote self-interest) and "money prime" (which has been shown to promote self-sufficiency and independence). Toward this end, Xi Zou and I have recently completed a new study in which participants tested perfumes as part of an ostensible marketing research project. Participants were divided into two groups: In the first group, participants read about perfumes as luxury products, and in the second group, participants read about perfumes as becoming daily necessities. Both groups tested the same perfumes. We found that luxury-primed participants behaved in a more self-interested manner in that they were less likely to make contributions toward the public good. Priming luxury did not have any effect on self-sufficiency measures, suggesting that priming luxury is different from priming money. Future research should also examine the mechanisms through which luxury goods activate self-interests. We posit that several potential mechanisms may be involved in the process. Exposure to luxury goods may activate a social norm that it is appropriate to pursue interests beyond a basic comfort level, even at the expense of others. It may be this activated social norm affects people's judgment and decision-making. Alternatively, exposure to luxury may directly increase people's personal desire, causing them to focus on their own benefits such as prioritizing profits over social responsibilities. Although these two mechanisms lead to the same observed results, they have distinct social implications. As social scientists, we think it is important to understand the "why" beneath the effects we found, and so we are currently planning more studies.

If the intent is to win or place in the highest position possible, then we should send Emmy and Mihran. They will present exactly what Eurovision fans respond to, they have already spent a great deal of money preparing for whatever they intend to perform so there is hope that it will be a "grand spectacle" and it's a nice symbolic gesture for the unity of our people that a diasporan (Mihran) and a native (Emmy) are joining forces for the competition. I support them for that latter reason alone. If we want to present our traditional Armenianness to the world, I think we are very misguided in using Eurovision as the forum/venue to do so.

All I see is your name and the main image. I cannot move ahead as there is no menu option when I open the page. I'm sure the problem is on my end.

http://www.pf-armenia.org/fileadmin/pfa_uploads/Yerevan_Municipal_Election_Report--FINAL.pdf

Ani has been engrossed in her French lessons and music in the last few days. She is heavily influencing me. MON MEC A` MOI / THAT GUY OF MINE He plays with my heart He toys with my life He's full of lying words And I believe whatever he says The songs he sings me The dreams made for two It's like mint candy It feels good when it rains. I make up stories As I listen to his voice. These stories, they're not true, But I believe them Refrain: That guy of mine, He tells me of adventures, And when they shine in his eyes It's there I want to stay the night. When he talks of love It's like he's talking about cars, And I follow whenever he wants That's how much i trust what he tells me, That's how much I trust what he tells me... Oh, yeah, That guy of mine. The way he has of being mine Without ever saying "I love you" It's pure cinema, But it's all the same to me. That old black-and-white film That he's played for me dozens of times, It's Jean Gabin and Michele Morgan.. Well, or something just like that. He makes up stories, Exotic fantasies, They're not true, these stories But I believe them.

These types of things remind me of all the things I would like to (yet may never) do in life.