MJ

Gamavor, I have never been inclined to explain these things through religion, and I agree with most of your points, except the one about NATO killing more Albanians than the Serbs have done. I think that assertion takes the facts out of their proportions. As a matter of fact I have tried to make the same logical point as you have -Islam has not much to do with the atrocities that have been committed by some of the Islamic nations throughout history, and these things are rather of cultural, political and other character. [ July 14, 2001: Message edited by: MJ ]

Mayja, Mayja, Why such misinformation? There has never been any such treaty between USSR and USA. USA has never had anything to do with Lithuania. What you are perhaps referring to is the Ribentrop-Molotov treaty between Germany and USSR.

Dear Thoth, I don’t fool myself. But I don’t necessarily agree with you that the treaties you mentioned are designated to benefit particular corporations. As a rule, in countries where the labor environment is very lax the productivity is also low, and the political and other stability is also questionable, the currency problems are rampant, the credit problems are rampant (thus the cost of financing is high), etc. These are tings that corporations don’t like. I agree that nations have to have the choice of which elements of their culture they abolish and which ones they preserve. However, cultures are also dynamic phenomena. They evolve and change. But nobody can forcefully change any culture, at least over a short time horizon. In particular, I don’t see how, for example, the US may change the culture in Mexico, as much as Mexico may be economically dependent on the US, today. I don’t think that the Mega-conglomerates need to destroy the local businesses. If things are done properly (and each country has a government to regulate this process), the local businesses may still be a big part of the overall national economy based on the value that they generate. The market economy, unless there are artificial levers, puts everything in its right context. To the contrary of what you allege, I think the local businesses may significantly benefit from the mentioned above conglomerates. And the competition should not be eliminated. It has to be maximally encouraged. On the other hand, if the native business is unable to grow and claim market share, produce the necessary products, provide people with jobs on its own, what’s the use of it? Speaking of the Noble Prize, I think it is one of the most corrupt prizes on its own, along with the Oscar. So feel free to reveal to me your plan, please. You say above: I am totally in the opposite camp - our environment - our earth - our home - once destroyed will (likely) never be the same. We only have a limited insight into the true damage(s) we are doing....If it is a religion...it is one that is tangible and "correct" (LOL)...mankind has had and is having enormous (negative) impact... I am with you on the subject of cherishing the earth and preserving its soil, atmosphere, pristinely, etc. However, I don’t see much of an evidence, other than some isolated episodes, where the modern corporate world has threatened the environment. In fact, I think the opposite. The current technological advances only reduce such possibility. The dangers of environmental damage are more of an actual issue in technologically less fortunate countries. The implementation of modern technologies produces or frees up cash reserves which would allow greater emphasis on the cleanness of the industry. Additionally, the growing “white color” lifestyle and the army of its representatives are becoming increasingly more aware of the importance of the environment. But the resources of the earth have to be exploited, have they not? Only they have to be exploited in a reasonable manner. Be it in Russia, India or the US. Maybe our political system doesn’t indeed encouraged the system you advocate. But it is resulted from the hijacking of the political process by the left and right-wing extremists, including the environmentalists (sorry ). Basically, the moderate, reasonable, thinking, constructive people are driven out of the political system, or are simply disgusted by it. The politics is sort of being left to one-issue extremists. Not exactly. Certainly we have seen manufacturing shifts...but with increased demand there is need for increased production…and once again shifted away from nations with stricter controls/oversite for labor/environment etc. I don't want to say to developing nations - "no you can't" - but in order for our earth to sustain such on the grand scale we must revise many practices ("or else"...I beleive...) Be more specific, please. I am not following you. On the environment … Actually, I didn’t have a doubt that the evidence you allege exists in Science Fiction/Science book. On a serious note, however, there is no such evidence contrary to your claims. There is only a hypothesis, and the scholars of the field are divided on the issue. As a person of scholastic training, I cannot take any statement of the kind at its face value. After all, the burden of proof on the existence of an “overwhelming approaching environmental Armageddon” is on the alleging side. It sounds much like the Armageddon at the end of each millennium. Again I disagree. There were only so many ancient trees & the like to produce our carbon based fuels - evidence is that we may run out within our lifetimes....(heavy shit...). We need responsible usage (restrictive to what can't be done other ways...and huge investment in alternative energy research & production....NOW!) There we go about energy again. What projections and what sources of information is this statement based on? Or is it based on a feeling? Or what is the time horizon you are talking about? 1000 years? Maybe you are right in that case. However, such projections are meaningless. And what do you mean by alternative sources of energy? Is the nuclear source one of them or not? Do you know that significant research in the area of alternative sources of energy has been done in the last 20 years? Why do you want more research in this area rather than implementing what is already known. And why are you not skeptical about the alternative sources of energy (bio-mass, etc). Nobody knows their impact on human health, either, if it is exploited in large proportions, right? If your comment regarding me being Republican mean a Republican party member, then you are wrong. However, I embrace most of their agenda with some substitutes from the Libertarians. But in some very broad sense, I am indeed very “Republican” (I think a true Republican ). In that sense Libertarians are closer to being true Republicans. But this doesn’t qualify me for abomination, does it? P.S. BTW, we are deviating strongly from the original topic, even though the original topic had no merits in the first place. Do you want to open a special thread, perhaps under the International forum, and move this discussion there?

So all that gives a mandate to the Serbs to wipe out the Albanians and to commit despicable atrocities against them?

I found some info on St. Nicolas at http://www.seanet.com/~eldrbarry/rabb/folk/stnick.htm . Turns out that he impersonates another well known Saint: " Lots of people think that St. Nicholas is just another name for Santa Claus. After all, Santa is also called Father Christmas, and Kris Kringle, and other names. Actually, Santa Claus is itself a mispronunciation of the Dutch SinterKlass which was their way of saying St. Nicholas." This leads me to believe that there may be another alternative hypothesis - what if this Church is built by Catholic Armenians. Sure there have been Catolic Armenians in Eastern Turkey.

An interesting observation.. However, one question I have is when has the Russian Czar Nikolai I lived? Do the rest of the Churches in this region and the era of 1794 belong to the Constantinople Patriarchate? When has the first Russian-Turkish war taken place, by the way? Do you know who they refer to when speaking of St. Nicholas? Is there such Saint in the cannons of the Greek Orthodox Church or the Russian Orthodox Church, for that matter?

This is an attempt to transfer here the unrelated to the original topic of the thread discussions of the thread at http://armenians.com/cgi-bin/forum/ultimat...c&f=11&t=000015 . So, go on guys, make my day. [ July 14, 2001: Message edited by: MJ ]

But why should one oppose that somebody makes profits? This is my fundamental question. If the other side benefits from it (I mean the poor), if the rest of the world benefits from it, what is wrong with someone making profits (even large). After all, they also take large risks, don’t they? Let the nations of the world perpetuate whatever traditions they want. If these traditions don’t hamper their growth, they will preserve them. Otherwise they will abandon them sooner or later. We (my family) live in the US, but we don’t eat fast food or genetically altered food (to the best of our knowledge). I am sure, French will also eat whatever they want. I am not aware of the economist you mentioned. Btw, yes, I am a US citizen – you were asking me about it in your previous note. There is plenty of evidence - retreating glaciers and warming of oceans are clear (in a very short timeframe)nand measured. Forests & Jungle are being lost - desertification is occuring...our climate is changing - rapidly...I have recently seen reports where certain scientists indicate global warming seems to be happening more rapidly/severely than earlier predicted. While I may agree the "proof/causation" may not be 100% ironclad - it seems very likely (IMO) that we are the cause - and the consequences will be most severe...do you really think we can ignore such? Sure developing countries without controls are high risk pollutors. Don't think that the developed nations are all sqweeky clean however - and we are polluting in more ways than we even know/acknowledge (related issue of potential dangers of genetic manipulation of foodstuffs etc....promiss as well of course...but...) I am not sure if it constitutes evidence. True, it is observed that that some glaciers are retreating and there is a slight warming of the oceans (I think by 1 degree F in 100 years?). However, there is no evidence that the climate is changing rapidly. Significant numbers of climatologists claim that these observed effects are due to the warming cycle in the climate, which supposedly would be followed by similar cooling one – apparently that’s what the cliamte does – it varies. I don’t have a position on this issue. I am not climatologist, and when I see that reputable scientists disagree on this issue (by the way the academicians as a rule are left-wingers), I feel that I have to be more carefull with taking sides. I, myself, have studied the daily maximum temperature patterns of 200 cities in the US for the last 50 years for a specific purpose, lately. I can report to you (as much as my report may sound credible in your eyes) that I don’t see a shred of evidence of global warming. But it is evident that there is some 10-year cyclicity pattern. The meterologists also claim it. However, rather than claiming that there is no such thing as Global Warming, I would only claim that I don’t see an evidence of Global Warming. See the difference? If there is one, however, I would readily embrace it. But the real issue, in my view, is not whether the phenomenon exists or not. This is rather esoteric and, perhaps, rhetoric issue. The issue is what do we reasonably and rationally do for taking better care of our environment regardless of the rhetorics. As far as the demand and supply are concerned, I believe that the supply would not grow if the demand is not able to consume the output. It is more likely to have deficit than oversupply in a non-totalitarian system, which the world has a tendency to become. But I have no problems with encouraging mitigating technologies and practices, as you put it. Why not? However, separation of the reality from the fiction, and maintaining balance is an important issue. Cheap shot. Great book BTW - particularly for those of scientific/scholarly backgroud. It is based on some very real science (with of course some [potential] projections) - it will cause you to think a bit...Again - I strogly disagree that there is no evidence for such phenomenon... Sorry that you feel that way. It was meant to be a joke. But if you say there is a strong evidence supporting the phenomenon of Global Warming, I would like to see it. Then I would stand next to you. It is my understanding that we are about to exhaust our known petroleum reserves within the next century (at current usage). Certainly you would agree that the supply is finite - no? thus our way of life - as currently envisioned - is not sustainable. Alternative energy research and implementation is underfunded and undersupported in general - IMO. Yes I include nuclear (you must) in this - however there are mitigating issues with safety and waste disposal...doesn't necessarily mean "no" - but must be implemented better. I am not aware of such projections that the petroleum reserves would end in the next century. But let’s assume so, for a moment. The question is what is its implication? Does it mean that we have to give up its exploration and extraction now, and throw all the resources at the developing of the alternative sources of fuel? I don’t think it would be a good management practice. In fact, it would be a very bad practice affecting the world economy and the wellbeing of the people. I think that the existing resources have to be explored and materialized at a steadily growing rate, but the environmental issues have to be given a sufficiently high priority. The issue is where is the threshold. The issue is whether we are trying to impose restrictions on the exploration and extraction of traditional sources of energy out of environmental considerations, or out of one of the most fundamental features of human essence – the envy (vs. greed). I am glad that you embrace the nuclear energy. That is an irreplaceable source of energy. Sure a special attention has to be given to its safety. But do you think anybody would be ready to disregard that issue? I can give you one example. When the Chernobyl catastrophe took place in Ukraine, most of the radiation was damped in Belorussia, and some of it was dumped in Northern Europe, which means that nobody can guarantee that the nuclear accident would have only local implications. Therefore, it would be a high priority for any non-totalitarian system to do its best to guarantee the ssafety of such facilities. As far as the waste is concerned, the issue is that even if we contain the wastes in safe (for now) containers, it is not clear what would happen to them in 500 years, per se. Which means that this issue, being an academic one for the time being, also deserves a special attention, but there is enough time to do something about it. Further, I disagree with you about the pessimism you express regarding the inadequate moral development of the humanity. I think that development (if we look at it from a historic perspective) is overwhelming. Sure, there is long way to go yet, but the world is a better place in our era than it has ever been in any respect. It is just darn fast. That’s the burden. To the contrary of what you say, I see a great deal of wisdom in the Republican social agenda. There are some wings of Republicans and some issues which tend to be out of the mainstream, in my view. However, I have no questions about their motives. I think they have the most noble motives. But if you know something – let me know, please. If I have to choose between two extremes/evils (assuming no alternatives), I definitely would chose the right-wing over the left-wing.

i see this topic is worth of attention... but why do u only state facts without touching their reasons? U say that America is even friendly to Arab states. Of course, they are friendly to Kuwait - because of their economical capital there- to Saudi - because that Saudi has almost the main role in the Arab World in religious and political sides...I don’t support Iraq's claims to have Kuwait, no way... Dear Mayja, Probably you are right. But Arabs are not Americans’ cousins, right? Isn’t it the case that beyond each type of interstate ‘friendship’ there is some reason? But the main reason of the encounter of USA and Iraq is that of Sadam's wish to have the bomb and USA's resistance of that. Probably so, again. But hasn’t Sadam demonstrated that he cannot be trusted with the possession of nuclear arsenals? There is no place for democracy and human rights principles which America claims to support. They are only pretext... Probably you are right to some degree, again. But isn’t it how the world spins around. Aren’t the Arab states the same way (only not on the grounds of Human Rights but other issues) with the rest of the world? If you meant the recent bombings of Libya, I have already said that it was a shameful action by a shameful President. If it is about earlier bombings more than a decade ago, I don’t know all the facts. But I know that by the order of Kadaffi an American airplane was bombed, and hundreds of innocent people have died. You want to say that we dont know facts when America's FBI commited crimes with purposes" of better future"? e.g. J.F. Kennedy’s assassination? But why everybody is silent about that? Cos somebody don’t allow to know that to the World. You longed towards Ivan Susanin, again, don’t you? How do you know that? What evidence do you have? Why would it be FBI committing such assassination, and not the organized crime, for example? How much do you know about this assassination, which is considered to be the most mysterious one of the past century? Sorry, dear Mayja, but I cannot give the Palestinians any advice, and they wouldn’t take it from me, anyway. But I have to say that I understand your frustration. I know that if the Palestinians had guided missiles of high precision, they would’ve used them, rather than the suicide bombing. And then, they might’ve shined perhaps under a better light. But unfortunately, the world is not a fairs place, and the life is as a rule unfair. But in any case, the current tactics of Palestinians doesn’t lead to victory, anyway. Maybe they have to take an example from Gandhi? I don’t know. But the fact is that even the Israeli hardliners (such as Sharon) understand and declare that the Palestinian independence is immanent. It is a matter of time. But I have a question to you. If Palestinians are given the independence, and acquire the necessary sovereignty to acquire modern arms, what would be their attitude towards Israel? Would they be ready to peacefully coexist with the Israelits? The fact is that the state of Israel has been created based on the consent of the Palestinian side in 1948. It is a different issue that Israel has expended its borders since. But I don’t know all the facts and the accurate chronology of the events. Maybe you can help us to learn them? But I do think that Israel has a legitimate right to exist on whatever territories, and it has a legitimate right for security. As an extra note I have to remind you, too, that the last three US administrations have brought enormous pressure on Israel to make substantial concessions to the Arab world. I understand your sore, but nevertheless it doesn’t help to cure neither Palestine’s problems, nor inspires optimism to the Israelites. Therefore, it takes the relations of the two sides to another level of violence and growing hatred and antagonism. What do you expect to gain from it for Palestine, for example, or for yourself, personally? I am more optimistic about the new American foreign policy because this administration’s foreign policy team is most competent, first of all, and it has a vision of minimal interference in the affairs of other countries. This wing of the American political thought claims that America is not the police of the world, and should not be, unless American vital interests are at jeopardy. This is a very reasonable vision, I would say. And where do you think the next American target may be? Not Vilnuse, I presume?

I agree. But who knows. In that era the Russians were already in the region. There may have been something related to some Russian Czar or Prince Nikolai.

That would be a real torture for me with my keyboard. But I got the message, Hmaik, though would pretend the opposite.

Actually, she was the inspiration to me for writing the previous reply to your question.

My pleasure, Steve.

Hmaik, I also think we need to move this thread under the forum Language. Hope it is OK with you.

There you go.

quote:Originally posted by Aaron: MJ "vos desirs sont des ordres" I don't mind at all. Please translate.

Aaron, If you don't mind I'll move this thread under the Republic of Armenia forum. We also have similar topics there.

Thoth, No, I haven’t seen the movie. But I think I know the Wall Street from personal acquaintances. Don’t have a positive or negative attitude towards it. Both exist there, I think. Regarding corporations. The way I understand is not preferential access but equal access. That’s what the free trade and the other provisions associated with NAFTA and other treaties are about. Even in the US, with its market traditions, the system is not purely economy based. The government fulfills regulatory function. The regulations have to be directed at preventing and prosecuting the unfair and harmful practices. I think the issues regarding the environment are taken way out of proportions. The environmentalism on its own has become sort of a religion and a way of making living (for the environmentalists). The fact is that the market driven countries are environmentally more conscious then the state controlled economies. Nobody has polluted the way USSR has done, or China has done. I do agree with your statement “but we need leadership with vision, humanity and incentive for long term thinking.” I don’t think that there is a negative impact from increasing population/nations producing & consuming & wasting at US/European levels. Primarily because if other nations would approach producing at US/European levels, that would automatically reduce the production levels in US and Europe. As far as the Global Warming goes, I am not aware of such evidence. There is such hypothesis, which needs to be confirmed, first, before crying “wolf,” I think. Few decades ago, similar scientists (to those supporting the notion of Global Warming) were claiming that the earth temperature is going down, and a new ice age is arriving. I remember these theories. The fact is that the world climate goes in cycles. There are daily, seasonal, yearly cycles. But there are also cycles of somewhat like 10-year duration. Understanding of the patterns of the climate is undoubtedly a high priority issue, and it has to be encouraged by all means. I don’t think that the oil will run out soon. Clearly, the existing oil wells and refineries don’t have adequate for our times capacity. But there is ample oil in the world, which needs to be extracted. It is a different issue that it needs to be extracted in a responsible manner. I think we certainly should care about what the world is turning into. However, I think it is turning to a better place than it has been in the past. P.S. I have taught for a while at a university level (math).

Good girl!

It’s also a nice etude. Do you write on a regular basis?

THOTH, I don’t see the current corporate expansionism as a greed based phenomenon. I think it is a rather positive thing for the world population. There is obviously a disproportionate concentration of wealth in the world (what’s new about it, right?). However, most of the world lives under misery. Such a picture is resulted from the segmentation of the world economy. Under the scenario of the elimination of such barriers I think the wealth may and ill propagate to the most disadvantageous corners of the world. Would this mean that the current owners of wealth would become wealthier? I think so. But so what? Why should it bother one? The issue is not that they would become wealthier, but that the devastated from poverty regions of the world would be lifted up much like Taiwan, Thailand, South Korea , etc, have done. Armenia is not an exception in this sense. It has two choices – to accept the foreign corporations on its soil or to continue the current status quo. In my view, the only party who shouldn’t be interested in allowing the corporations in should be that 5% of the population who enriches itself at the expense of the misery of the nation. Obviously, under the conditions of open competition a large portion of that 5% may be diminished in terms of its viability since it cannot operate in such conditions and contribute to the growth. For the rest of the population I don’t see alternatives, and I don’t see what else they may lose. To address your other question, yes, in the past I have held academic positions, including teaching.

Nope, unless some Russian cosmonaut’s great-great-grandmother's neighbor's uncle's girlfriend's cat's first owner's godfather's employee's grocer's wife's brother would turn out to be Armenian.

Excellent, Hmaik. Keep doing it! And share them with us by all means, please.

Dear Mayja, I am not supportive of the American policy towards Iraq in the post Golf war era, even though I do think that Saddam is a “devil’s friend,” as you put it. There are great many Americans who don’t approve the American policy towards Iraq, in general, and among them such American nationalists as Pat Buchanan. However, it is not just American policy. The US and UK are unanimous in that regard, but I don’t hear you complaining about the UK. We have to also not forget that only less than two decades ago US was a supporter of Iraq, and it used to even arm Iraq. The relations went sore when Iraq occupied Kuwait. We also now that Iraq has committed crimes, including environmental crimes, against Kuwait, other than just occupying it. Iraq has committed also a lot of crimes against Iran. Do you have any feelings about it? We also have to remember that the US has fought Iraq during the Golf war with the full blessing of the most of the Arab nations, and the mission, by in large, has been financed by the Arab nations. The recent bombing of Sudan was a shameful act by the previous President (seen as an act of diverting the public attention from some internal scandals), and it has been condemned by most of the thinking people in the US. However, Sudan indeed is a criminal regime. In general, in the past eight years, the US foreign policy has been most incompetent and incoherent. There are reasons to believe that things are changing to the better in that arena. The Palestinian issue is more complex. Indeed the US media is very biased against them. Most frequently, it doesn’t provide a full and honest information. It is a shame. I can report to you that the US media has also shown bias against Armenia in the past 8 years. That is very unfortunate. However, there are always programs and media outlets in the US, which provide impartial information. The problem is that they are outnumbered by the opposite camp. Therefore, the issue here is not that the US government doesn’t allow honest information about the Palestinians, but just the opposite stream of information is more powerful. I am sympathetic to the Palestinians in terms of feeling pity for their misery, their living conditions, etc. In the past, I have had many Arab students, including Palestinians. I have loved them. They were good people. However, in my view, the Palestinian side has to take responsibility for a large portion of the formation of stereotypes against them. By in large, the media doesn’t invent their image. They make their image themselves. And a lot of things are judged by the image, unfortunately. Ordinary people don’t study or understand politics or history. They judge by the image that one makes about himself/herself. Additionally, the Palestinian side (along with some Arab countries) demonstrate great degree of unreasonableness in their attitude towards Israel by not recognizing the right of Israel to exist. By doing so, they basically declare war to Israel which, subsequently, acts under the premise of conducting war. If that is the case, Palestinians should understand that to a large degree they inflict their troubles upon themselves. I am not in position to give advices neither to Israelites nor the Palestinians. But I think that the troubles of this scale are never resulted from the actions of one side. There are always at least two guilty parties in such conflicts. As far as your statement about America considering Arabs as its enemies, and being afraid of them is concerned, I think you “took your army to a wasteland” again. First of all, America is in more than friendly terms with many Arab nations, including the most fundamentalist Islamic Saudi Arabia. Second, I don’t see what is it that may make America afraid of Arab countries. You see, this is the problem with the Palestinians, too, in my view. While having strong basis for legitimate claims, due to the choice of their ways and means they put themselves in a disadvantageous position. You do act similarly in some respects. While some of the things that you say have merits, by expressing them through taking them to extremes your allegations lose credibility in the eyes of those, who might’ve been sympathetic to some of your thoughts. I couldn’t follow your statement about being “pleased that I think so about you.”

It’s a beautiful peace, Hmaik – very ”hmaiich.” I have an impression that I have read it long time ago. Cannot recall who is the author, however. Or am I way wrong? This peace is another demonstration of the power and the beauty of our language.