MJ

Thorny, Without a specific research, I cannot provide any evidence of Germany’s retributions to the State of Israel. If I have stretched the truth in this respect, I would be ready to retract my arguments along those lines. However, my understanding is that Germany has not only paid retributions to the survivors of the Holocaust, but also the Jewish Organizations. Additionally, what means a Holocaust/Genocide survivor? Are these only the ones directly survived, or are the children/grandchildren of the survived also entitled to some kind of retribution as a matter of principle? As a matter of rationality, in my personal opinion, which may or may not be shared by many, the potential “retributions” should not be pursued as a constitution of punishment and compensation. I think more creative and mutually beneficial solutions could be structured provided some kind of ingenuity from both sides. But this kind of structure may be discussed only if the problem is recognized and discussed in its entirety, i.e. not only a problem for the Armenian people and state, but also of Turkish. I didn’t follow your arguments about Iran, though suspect that you were replying something that you have read in this thread, which I couldn’t find after glancing through.

Just bringing the thread up, after moving it.

quote:Originally posted by Gayane: Martin, correction: I HAD problems...lol... I've been cured Your problems are cured, his are starting... Just kidding! Dear Gayane, I am very happy for you. You desrve all the best.

I have no doubt that some of the nations oppressed by the Ottomans have, perhaps, been more atrocious than the Ottomans themselves. Centuries of oppression and Ottoman rule should've made them to hate the regime. Additionally, much of the national liberation movements against the Ottoman have evolved in the period of unbundling of the revolutionary sentiment. Furthermore, the revolutionaries have always claimed (at least their leaders have done so) that the implementation of their "revolutionary ideals" is easier among the oppressed nations. When the nationalism and revolutionarism come together, it may result in the most disgusting form of atrocities. But the observation that needs to be made is that among all national-territorial minorities of the Ottoman Empire, only Armenians, Arabs and Jews (in Palestine) have not unbundled such movements. Of all three groups, it has been much more difficult for the Armenians to organize national-liberation movement, perhaps because they have resided in the heart of Anatolia, and they had been torn apart and weakened by the Byzantine and Persian/Iranian empires even way before the arrival of the first Turks to the region. One interesting testimony in this regard is the testimony of the Catholicos Mgrtich Khrimian at the time. Khrimian has been the representative of Armenians at the Berlin conference. Failing to achieve more than minor support from the European powers in pressing the Ottoman Empire in implementing reforms oriented at easing the discrimination of the Armenian minority of the Empire (which subsequently has not been implemented to any degree), the Catholicos has expressed his dissatisfaction to the leaders of the Conference. To which, they have replied to him almost like “learn from the Serbs.” The subsequent event have come to show, that Armenians “have not learned from the Serbs,” however. Sure, there have been some Armenian terrorists attempting to "force" the Sultans to implement the promised reforms, but as we know, terror has never solved any problems, but has only aggravated them. In our particular case, each action of terror has been followed by a massacre of tens of thousands of peaceful Armenians. In the post-Genocide era, some bands of “avengers” have also come to the scene. I am sure these have been highly distressed individuals who have had perhaps their families slaughtered through various means by the Ottoman Government, the local Kurdish minorities, and some other Turkish paramilitaries and local villagers. That they would’ve committed not any less horrifying atrocities against the Turks and the Kurds – there is no question in my mind. Can I find any justification for their actions? Not at all. They were not any different from who we accuse in atrocities. But the perspective and the scale of their atrocities have not to be lost from one’s sight. While their crimes might’ve been of the same magnitude in their vicousness as the ones of the Turkish and Kurdish paramilitaries and mobs, their actions are in no way comparable in the scale to the actions of the Ottoman Government. Reportedly, these kinds of Armenian bands have resulted at most in few thousand innocent Turkish victims, the innocence of a fraction of which may even be occasionally questioned, since many of them might've been participants of the slaughter of Armenians during their death marches. Have to run. [ May 19, 2001: Message edited by: MJ ]

quote:Originally posted by Nvard: Does anyone know why the name Ruben appears only in Spanish and Amenian? Dear Nvard, Ruben is a Biblical name. This was the name given to the long waited son of Abraham from his old wife Sarah. If I am not mistaken, Ruben translates as "Here is a son for you" from Hebrew, though in Hebrew it is pronounced differently - something like "Rakhim," I think.

OK. I got you, now.

quote: Originally posted by Tornado: but he used the Original Arabic title? I think that that work should be qualified as Armenian work but allways mention the source. but in those heroic epics the source is usually an Oral one with unknown date and origin. As I said, it is an implementation of an Arabic theme by an Armenian poet. Sure it is an Armenian work (though there is a similarly titled epic in Arabic - the original one), but it doesn't make the epic Armenian, right? quote: Second point is that Armenian , Persian and Georgian, Sogdian and to some extents Byzantine and even Slavic litterature are much more closer to each other than Arabic is to them. And the conclusion is...?

quote:Originally posted by Tornado: [QB] ... as the Arabic book you mentioned is just a translation, The creativity and reflexing the world around you in the form of a poem or story is the key point by which you can claim you have created a new work and not only translated it. [QB] It was not an Arabic book. It is an implementation of a famous Arabic theme into Armenian poetry.

If Nersesian has implemented some version of Rostam and Dilard, it doesn’t make it an Armenian epic, does it? I don’t know how you can purchase it, btw. Another example is Avetik Isahakian, who has written his masterpiece - Abul-Ala-Al- Mahari, but I doubt that it makes Abul-Ala-Al Mahari an Armenian Ballad, right? And I didn’t mean that Nersisian has written about Azhdahak. And I don’t think it would serve you as a source for the hidden story behind the one on Rostam and Dilara. As you claim, it is a 20th century ‘epic,” right? Also, Khorenatsi is referring to the "Biuraspi Azhdahak” not as to an Armenian source, doesn’t he?

OK. I read almost all threads.

Well, I guess there is nothing better that I can do, other than to refer you to the mentioned story in the Old Testament. P.S. BTW, in the 20th Century, Armenians have not written epics like Rostam and Dilara. And did you mean that the work of N.N. was an implementation of "Biuraspi Azhdahak?" [ May 18, 2001: Message edited by: MJ ]

quote:Originally posted by Berj: If we decide that tourism and software are to become the main sectors of our economy we must wait for approx. 10-15 years for uncertain results. I have read in the news that the US is discussing to open its Alaska oil fields and increase its sales in Latin America. This is an indicator that the Central Asia oil boom may be delayed. Berj, Just two comments: 1. Under proper administrative decisions, the software industry in Armenia may be elevated into a qualitatively much higher level in some 4-5 years, while producing significant results in the mean time; 2. The Central Asian Oil would be of interest to the US no matter what - if nothing else, at least so that to diversify the sources of supply, and not to be overly dependent on one source. But, in my view, it will depend on the progress in the political domain - primarily the improvement of American-Iranian relations, which would be very good for Armenia in a very big picture (It seems that improving the relations with Iran occupies a central role in the agenda of the current administration.)

Grammer problems are OK. They are nothing compared to the ones that Gayane has: "This man has given me a renewed faith in the sacred nature of the institution of marriage." This is what I call problems.

quote:Originally posted by Berj: Please, do not use "Berj would say" until I'm out If you were out, I would've used, "Berj would've said."

She was just saying: "Diamonds are forever." Now, Berj would say "us too, us too!"

Common you guys. She is just having fun writing such essays. Didn't she say "kidding, kidding?"

Alpha, Contrary to your allegations, I have to claim that I find the current President one of the most competent and capable executives. As it relates to Kyoto, the document itself has been a demonstration of incompetence, arbitrariness, and was antiscientific. No state in the world, except Romania, has ratified that treaty. Additionally, that treaty was dead before the arrival to the US Senate, way before the latest Presidential elections. 95 out of 100 Senators have voted no on the treaty. I just cannot understand what makes you to allege the things that you have not studied. I am surprised by your the tax cut and the oil refinery assessment statements. Off all the people in this forum you, as an economist, should not make such misleading and incorrect statements. It is very easy to throw such unfounded allegations as someone representing the oil, energy and military complexes. The tranquility in energy markets and the establishment of equilibrium between the supply and demand is the most fundamental need of the entire economy of the US, and any other industrial country. It is the obligation of the president, first of all, to see that that kind of equilibrium is established. Additionally, due to the transportation constraints and the costs, no equilibrium is possible in the oil sector without new generation of refineries. Moreover, contrary to the past generation of refineries, new refineries can be environmentally much cleaner. Needless to say that, if the US economy goes does, the economy of the world does so. As to the military complex, if the President of a country doesn’t represent the military, who should do it? Could you give me one example of a responsible government, which has more than marginal role in the world affairs, that doesn’t represent the military? It is his job and the sworn duty to represent the military. I think you are taking his statements on the tax cut subsidization of the rising energy costs out of the context. For the short run, that is one of the few marginal measures to help the consumers. For the long run, the only solution is the refineries. You oppose both, which makes me wonder whether you have thought enough about the issues from the professional points of view, or are you just taking out your whatever frustrations, and no matter what, you just want to bash those who you don’t like, no matter what they would do? Your statements also show that you have no real understanding of the energy industry. Of all the industries in the US, the energy industry hearts most. The absolute majority of the energy industry participants are registering substantial loses, or no growth. It is reflected in their financials, if you would desire to check them. The few companies in the energy industry who register substantial “profits,” are in the development business and not in the marketing business, i.e. those are the companies in the business of power plant developments for example. Even those, who seemingly make huge money on the surface, are not happy with the situation. For one thing, due to the high profile defaults that you might’ve heard of, they are unable to collect their receivables. As a professional in the energy industry, as much as such statement of mine may be credible in your eyes, let me inform you that nobody benefits from the current state of the affairs in energy markets. Even those who for short while make substantial profits, would prefer lower, but steady profits, so that to have the necessary certainty when making strategic investment decisions. If the climate that is present would continue, and if the left leaning people would prevail in this argument, the future in some 10 years would be devastating, because nobody would make the decisions that need to be made today, so that to take the horrendous risks idiosyncratic to the energy markets, if the expected reward doesn’t justify it. Remember that all the energy developments are capital-intensive ventures, and their planning requires certainty in the regulatory and market domains. This is basic economics. As to the tax cut being given to the top 1%, give me a break. You are smarter than that… And of all the people, you and me know perfectly well what the outcome of the “elimination of the gap between the rich and the poor is.” We have experienced one such experience. The mission of the government is not the elimination of this gap, but creating a climate of opportunity for everybody to materialize his/her opportunities to the fullest of his/her capacity. The outcome of any attempt of “eliminating the gap” between the poor and rich has meant robbery, genocide, mass killings, exile, etc. The inequality is not created by this president, or by one or another political force. The (social) inequality is a fundamental premise of the world history. The only equality may be under Communism, that is if we believe it is morally justifiable and realistic. Additionally, in no way states like Texas are more backward than, say California. As you know, California has been once called Wild West. As much as I have explored it, and as much as I have lived in many states and cities, California is the worst place if it is to be judged outside the SF-San Jose area - both culturally and quality of lifewise, speaking. And the booming industries of the Southern States attract the best professionals in the nation, and in many ways lead its technological progress. Sorry for the tone. With all due respect, I just was taken by surprise to read such a partisan and shallow analysis from you. [ May 17, 2001: Message edited by: MJ ]

Dear Alpha, When you pose a rhetoric question to me “tell as why is the clean air so bad,” I think it implicitly alleges that I am advocating “dirty air,” and that’s why I have felt it is sort of demagoguery. As to the social Darwinism, and humanism. I don’t think what you advocate is called humanism. It is simply called Socialism. To the contrary, I think the US is one of the most humanistic societies and countries in the world. And, normally, I try to avoid and “isms.” Believe me, I am not negative against you. It is just my expectations are much higher for you. None of the arguments that you have made in this threat look like originating from you. And not only I have not questioned your intelligence, but to the contrary I find you to be quite intelligent. That’s why I have been puzzled while reading your arguments. I think you are not right when telling I have argued your personality. I have questioned your sources of information, or your deliberateness in studying these issues, and giving overly emotional assessments to people without studying their policies, just because you don’t like them for whatever reasons. I am glad that you have been in many parts of the world. Have you been in Georgia, Florida, Alabama, Carolinas, etc. I mean the South East USA? If you really care about the environment, then you would have such an appreciation for all these places. Besides, Georgia, for example, in particular Atlanta, is the technological center of the South-East. It is such a beauty – something in the middle of a resort and urban area, with the qualities of both, and the people are much more cultured than those in California or New York, by the way. And by the way, I do take jokes – have an unlimited capacity for it.

quote:Originally posted by BTac: Is it true that the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge in Alaska has only enough fossil fuel to last the US for only 6 months? That's what I heard. By the way, by some other estimates, there is enough oil in AWR to substitute the oil imports from Saudi Arabia in the next 30 years. In any case, no investor is crazy to invest in ANWR, if the volume of available oil is not substantial. Investors don't finance pipeline, refinery and storage constructions for 6 months exploitation. This argument of "6 months" is just being used by people, who would not stop at any dirty tactics to advance their extremism.

“I have never claimed to be an expert on anything.” Well, then why are you badmouthing the experts – Dick Cheney, for example? But I have not questioned your rights, but rather the validity of your arguments. About conservation and generation. No specialist in his good mind can provide and valid arguments that one may conserve 20-40% of demand. If one can conserve 2-5% annually, it would be an overwhelming success. In any case, it is not possible this year. Therefore, the only way the Fed may help the consumers is through financial policies. It is totally impossible to conserve demand in the magnitude, you claim. Or if it would become possible, per se, it will take a dozen of years. Now, normally and historically, the demand on energy has grown at 2% per annum. The bumming economy has increased this rate. You, as a person knowing the effect of compounding of rates, can asses the pace of the growth of the demand and the rate of conservation. When you refer to alternative fuels, what do you refer you? It is such a buzz word, isn’t it? Where there are alternative fuel resources, people are rushing to build plants there. But this is a very insignificant source of energy. If this was feasible, the energy companies would’ve jumped on it. No Fed is capable to finance such research better than the energy companies themselves, and the energy companies are more interested in this then the Fed, believe me. When the possibility is feasible, the energy companies use even the hen droppings as a combusting substance to generate power (I am not joking). The alternative fuels, and the wind propelled generators are solutions of Don Kihotian era. They ease environmental rules on coal-burning power plants. You are wrong again. Being 8 years in the office, the Clinton administration had not done anything along the lines of CO2. In the last month of their tenure, they issued a whole bunch of regulations, which in Russian folklore would be characterized as “Putting a pig in one’s bed.” I am sure you know what I mean. Anything that Bush administration has reversed has been related to the package of last month initiatives of the previous administration. But I think you were confusing the arsenic related “regulations,” with the CO2 regulations. What Bush has done is to back away from his campaign promises of CO2 regulations. In fact, he hasn’t done anything on that subject yet, but has refused to take immediate actions for another six months or so, until a comprehensive package is brought together. The primary reason is that the power plants are already scrambling under the heavy burden of regulations, and under such energy crisis, one has to ease their burden, rather than to force them into bankruptcy one after another. Additionally, it was true that the old generation of coal fired power plants were not environmentally clean. But it is not true about the new generation of them. They are practically as clean as the gas fired plants. Furthermore, the biggest pollutants of the environment from the CO2 stand point of view are the people and the other animals, since we all inhale oxygen, and exhale CO2. According to the “anti-CO2” logic, we can propose to put limitations on the human reproduction, for example. I think this addresses the rhetoric question of yours about the smart presidents. About the energy barons and the middle class. There is a problem. It has been created by the previous administration. Conservation is good, and should be exercised, but it cannot produce any visual results. There cannot be increased supply – no way to generate in California, or to transport. Therefore, one or another way, the prices will be high. Since one cannot fight with the shortages of supply in the short run, the only thing that one can do is to fight with the prices hikes. It would have devastating effect on the strategic developments from the point of view of investors’ confidence to impose price caps. In fact, the fundamental analysis of the market will show that the price caps would only aggravate the problem over the long run. Therefore, the only thing that can be done is providing relief to the consumers in terms of tax cuts. It is not a solution, but there is no solution in the short run. Actually, I would vigorously argue with you on your argument of closing the gap between the rich and poor. What you are proposing is not to make the poor richer, but to make the rich poorer. Guess what, this “rich” are the hard working and creative people in the society. It is morally unjustifiable to punish the hard working for the sake of providing free ride to a generation of punks and irresponsible people, who wouldn’t aspire to become rich themselves, but would aspire to take the wealth of others and give it to them. I think that the gap has to be closed by encouraging the poor and giving them all the support so that they become rich. If they refuse to aspire, others should not be held responsible for their laziness. If rich are getting richer, it is not at the expense of the poor. In fact, quite the opposite – when the rich become richer, they invest their money in industry, which creates jobs for the “poor.” Additionally, the taxing system in the US is progressive, and it has always been so. It is known that about 90% of taxes are paid by about 2% of the population (my numbers may not be very accurate, but only in their appearance, and not in their substance – I may bee few percents off in one or another direction). There is no question that the government has to take care of the unfortunate. And the US does it through the welfare system, and the Social Security System. I think any resident of Glendale has hundreds of examples of this. As to the Scandinavians, they cannot be considered the business model for the world. First of all, they come from a totally different culture – it is a uniquely Scandinavian culture. Second, they don’t practice progressive tax system, or at least not as progressive as in the US, to the best of my knowledge. Whether the Swedish economic growth may be sustained for the long-term – we have to see it, yet. But it is evident that their system is a closed system, and they are making a substantial profit by tapping into the American markets, while keeping their markets under tight control. With all this, they bash the US. About the military. If you have followed the discussions, the current US Administration claims that he cold war is indeed over, and it is substantially cutting the military budget, which is raising an uproar from the Democrats – how funny the world has become. You might also recall that during the presidential campaign, Gore used to brag (along with Liberman) that he allocates more money for the military, then Bush does. Currently, Liberman and the other liberal democrats bash the administration as an “irresponsible” one for cutting the defense budget (when you make your allegations, I just wonder where do you take your information from). This administration has increased the, military budget in one dimension so far- giving a necessary pay raise tot eh military. As to the space program, I am not a specialist in it, but I can tell you what their arguments are. They say a real threat of international terrorism and random and non-state level missile attack by terrorists and rogue states. This is what they propose to be ready against. Additionally, they claim that they would be ready to share this system even with Russia, and their other allies. What is wrong about it? Now, if you are claiming that the $100 billion anti-missile endeavor is going to throw the US into an era of budget deficits, when the nation is floated with surpluses, and when the administration is taking the most fiscally conservative steps, by fighting with the liberal to hold the rate of growth of the federal budget at 4% (basically almost the inflation rate), I have to just wonder why are you so misinformed? Is it because you are interested only in select and incorrect information, or is it because you just don’t care to investigate, though are ready to throw around allegations. About Kyoto… The primary emissions producers in the world are the third-world countries – India, China, Indonesia, Pakistan, Russia, some Eastern European countries, etc. The USA is one of the environmentally cleanest industrial countries of the world. Imposing stringent restrictions on the US, and not having any such leverages on the real polluters of the environment puts a disproportionate burden on the US. It is unfair, and it makes no sense from the pint of view of world economy and the world pollution. Europeans always like to hide in the back of the US. There is nothing new about that – whether it is contributing military assistance or military presence even in their back yard, or providing monetary contribution to the international monetary organizations. What is unexpected of their behavior regarding Kyoto? Isn’t it convenient hiding behind the US one more time? Since you are the expert MJ can you please educate the masses why is clean environment such a bad thing and Kyoto Protocol unfair. I think anybody would agree that this statement of your is a pure demagoguery, which is another unexpected thing to hear from you. I guess with coming of Bush administration oil interests have taken priority over everything else. This is another evidence of demagoguery. Since his coming to the office, his administration has taken on the issues that the previous administration has not only not tried to resolve, but has blocked from any attempt to resolve them. This concerns to the education agenda, Medicare, social security, energy policy, restructuring of the defense to a post-Cold War era, etc. All I can do is to conclude that you are getting your information either from highly partisan sources, or for whatever reasons, this is the information that you are searching deliberately. As to the rising of the South, I would not comment on it, since it is not a remark on the merits. But I have a question for you: have you ever been outside Los Angeles?

quote:Originally posted by Azat: MJ, is Heinrich Heine the German person you were thinking about? Sorry, Azat. Don't remember.

I think you best bet is the Moderator Berj.

I am sure there will be such classes, at least due to the number of foreign embassys in Armenia.

quote:Originally posted by Tornado: No as I know there are similar Persian epics, but this is an Armenian epic. Still many Iranologists doubt wether the sources of many similar epics has been Ferdowsi's Shahname or more ancient epics. OK. Then the politically correct statement would be that I am not aware of such Armenian epic.

OK. I have misunderstood you because the premise of your question was very unexpected. Armenian language is the state language in Armenia, and the primary language of communication. The vest majority of grade and high schools in Armenia teach in Armenian. P.S. The same concerns history and culture. [ May 17, 2001: Message edited by: MJ ]