Rubo

Dear Thoth Arguments pro or against any faith is equally valid I agree with you and I am well familiar with Buddhism specially Zen tradition and consequently also familiar with Daoism. I have meditated and practiced Zen Buddhism .You are correct that we can imagine anything including god but that was not what I was talking about. Enlightenment in Zen tradition is a result of intense mediation to quiet the mind and get rid of fables, heavens, devils, and angels and to reach a subjective state of mind, which can only be experienced to know its validity. Christianity and Islam do also have similar traditions where the goal is to experience the God spirit instead of repeating fables. Rembrandt was asked why everything he drew seemed alive-his answer” everything is spirit”. I rather not dwell here deeply since the very subjective nature of this discussion will bare no fruit unless you will be happier simply consuming and enjoying the material world but that we all now is not sufficient which brings back to Christ “ thy shall not live bread alone” I also firmly believe that it is foolish to take pride in one’s intelligence, talents and so on since the ego is the very root of the problem of experiencing God. One must be willing to surrender…

Dear Sip, You are right God cannot be proven in basic scientific way but I will try my way. First, my idea of God is not an old man with a white beard in the sky as in Sistine chapel by Michelangelo. It is for me more of a force, call it anything you want, it does not matter but the heart of the matter which concurs with Descartes also is the very notion of searching for “higher meaning” “spirituality” “God” are the result of a need. If we did not posses the spark or the idea of God within us then that should not have even been discussed through centuries of human existence.Need is derived from a source deep within and that very subjective notion has produced multiple religions and believe systems.Its validity is not concrete but its ripple effect transforms us to much higher beings. Some thoughts that I often pondered in the past regarding this issue. When I hear Bach I feel the God consciousness in his music. When I look at Van Gogh I feel his soul and his spirit, which transcends in the real of God consciousness. What we value in our lives, love, giving, music, arts are all in the real of abstract that is we know its inherent importance but they are nevertheless abstract to prove concretely. I am a spirit or what drives my engine is God and everything else will decompose to dust in due time.

In basic logic there is the promise and the conclusion. My promise was: “Descartes, Tolstoy, Gurdjieff, Gandhi, Mother Theresa, St. Augustine, Plato, Krishnamurti, Dalai Lama, etc. all believed the existence of God.” My conclusion is: “Could all these people and millions others be stupid in believing in God and some of our forum members be super geniuses and that they’re reasoning stands on much superior grounds? Being cynical is easier since it requires minimal mental activity.” Now since I am a kind generous loving husband (according to my wife ) then I will say that you are correct that men have not treated women equally through centuries in most cultures but that in itselve has no relationship to this thread or my argument.

quote:Originally posted by Stormy: quote:Originally posted by Rubo:Descartes, Tolstoy, Gurdjieff, Gandhi, Mother Theresa, St. Augustine, Plato, Krishnamurti, Dalai Lama, etc. all believed the existence of God. Irrelevant. Geniuses and non-geniuses alike also have treated, treat, and will treat women differently from men because of traditions. Now, are billions of people right and we a handful wrong? smilies/eek.gif smilies/shocked.gifSince you mention Irrelevance then your argument has no point since you are off to totally different subject therefore it is an irrelevant argument.

Descartes, Tolstoy, Gurdjieff, Gandhi, Mother Theresa, St. Augustine, Plato, Krishnamurti, Dalai Lama, etc. all believed the existence of God. Could all these people and millions others be stupid in believing in God and some of our forum members be super geniuses and that they’re reasoning stands on much superior grounds? Being cynical is easier since it requires minimal mental activity.

Jesus never said pay for my services Jesus never said Catholic, Mormon, and Baptist, orthodox, evangelical He said simply through me you might find God Question might is plausible, doable, humane I question the truth of what Jesus really said Since I know gossip like history accumulates In the minds of believers til they kill the very spirit Which they proclaim to believe I am a Christian in spirit Although I never read the bible more then a page Shall I follow a doctrine? Each to his own I say Like the wise men always say “search and you shall find”

[ December 24, 2002, 08:20 AM: Message edited by: Rubo ]

Dear ES Interesting article however I have an open question about the content discussed in these meetings. If no reporters are allowed and no member leaked info then how can this reporter say- The Group selects political figures whom the Bilderberg determines should become rulers, and targets those whom it wants removed from power. Rather than pursuing an agenda which would work to solve global health, energy, environmental and agricultural problems, the Group pursues an agenda which guarantees the propagation of its own power and the enrichment of its members, at the expense of human rights and environmental degradation worldwide. Although one can surly and confidently say that they are not there to discuss which doughnuts they like best to eat in the morning. Regards Ruben

Hi Stormy,welcome “It is an Atom bomb of an accusation: The Turks were responsible for the genocide of more than a million Armenians in 1915, turning their Ottoman Empire into a killing field of revenge and refutation of Armenians' rights.” It is sad that after all these years fighting for recognition internationally and in United States some journalists still find the Armenian Genocide “as a Atom bomb of an accusation” I thought naively perhaps that those educated would already passed the stage of accusation to that stage of a historical fact.

Dear forum members, this post is important to me for many reasons but most importantly we often accuse others of promoting conspiracies or making claims in this effect. I believe it is prudent that we understand the subject more thoroughly. Please have patience reading all of it. I am sorry, it is a bit long but I feel it is worth reading. 'Conspiracy Theories' and Clandestine Politics by Jeffrey M. Bale Very few notions generate as much intellectual resistance, hostility, and derision within academic circles as a belief in the historical importance or efficacy of political conspiracies. Even when this belief is expressed in a very cautious manner, limited to specific and restricted contexts, supported by reliable evidence, and hedged about with all sort of qualifications, it still manages to transcend the boundaries of acceptable discourse and violate unspoken academic taboos. The idea that particular groups of people meet together secretly or in private to plan various courses of action, and that some of these plans actually exert a significant influence on particular historical developments, is typically rejected out of hand and assumed to be the figment of a paranoid imagination. The mere mention of the word 'conspiracy' seems to set off an internal alarm bell which causes scholars to close their minds in order to avoid cognitive dissonance and possible unpleasantness, since the popular image of conspiracy both fundamentally challenges the conception most educated, sophisticated people have about how the world operates and reminds them of the horrible persecutions that absurd and unfounded conspiracy theories have precipitated or sustained in the past. So strong is this prejudice among academics that even when clear evidence of a plot is inadvertently discovered in the course of their own research, they frequently feel compelled, either out of a sense of embarrassment or a desire to defuse anticipated criticism, to preface their account of it by ostentatiously disclaiming a belief in conspiracies. (1) They then often attempt to downplay the significance of the plotting they have uncovered. To do otherwise, that is, to make a serious effort to incorporate the documented activities of conspiratorial groups into their general political or historical analyses, would force them to stretch their mental horizons beyond customary bounds and, not infrequently, delve even further into certain sordid and politically sensitive topics. Most academic researchers clearly prefer to ignore the implications of conspiratorial politics altogether rather than deal directly with such controversial matters. A number of complex cultural and historical factors contribute to this reflexive and unwarranted reaction, but it is perhaps most often the direct result of a simple failure to distinguish between 'conspiracy theories' in the strict sense of the term, which are essentially elaborate fables even though they may well be based upon a kernel of truth, and the activities of actual clandestine and covert political groups, which are a common feature of modern politics. For this and other reasons, serious research into genuine conspiratorial networks has at worst been suppressed, as a rule been discouraged, and at best been looked upon with condescension by the academic community. (2) An entire dimension of political history and contemporary politics has thus been consistently neglected. (3) For decades scholars interested in politics have directed their attention toward explicating and evaluating the merits of various political theories, or toward analyzing the more conventional, formal, and overt aspects of practical politics. Even a cursory examination of standard social science bibliographies reveals that tens of thousands of books and articles have been written about staple subjects such as the structure and functioning of government bureaucracies, voting patterns and electoral results, parliamentary procedures and activities, party organizations and factions, the impact of constitutional provisions or laws, and the like. In marked contrast, only a handful of scholarly publications have been devoted to the general theme of political conspiracies--as opposed to popular anti-conspiracy treatises, which are very numerous, and specific case studies of events in which conspiratorial groups have played some role -- and virtually all of these concern themselves with the deleterious social impact of the 'paranoid style' of thought manifested in classic conspiracy theories rather than the characteristic features of real conspiratorial politics. (4) Only the academic literature dealing with specialized topics like espionage, covert action, political corruption, terrorism, and revolutionary warfare touches upon clandestine and covert political activities on a more or less regular basis, probably because such activities cannot be avoided when dealing with these topics. But the analyses and information contained therein are rarely incorporated into standard works of history and social science, and much of that specialized literature is itself unsatisfactory. Hence there is an obvious need to place the study of conspiratorial politics on a sound theoretical, methodological, and empirical footing, since ignoring the influence of such politics can lead to severe errors of historical interpretation. This situation can only be remedied when a clear-cut analytical distinction has been made between classic conspiracy theories and the more limited conspiratorial activities that are a regular feature of politics. 'Conspiracy theories' share a number of distinguishing characteristics, but in all of them the essential element is a belief in the existence of a 'vast, insidious, preternaturally effective international conspiratorial network designed to perpetrate acts of the most fiendish character', acts which aim to 'undermine and destroy a way of life.' (5) Although this apocalyptic conception is generally regarded nowadays as the fantastic product of a paranoid mindset, in the past it was often accepted as an accurate description of reality by large numbers of people from all social strata, including intellectuals and heads of state. (6) The fact that a belief in sinister, all-powerful conspiratorial forces has not been restricted to small groups of clinical paranoids and mental defectives suggests that it fulfills certain important social functions and psychological needs.(7) First of all, like many other intellectual constructs, conspiracy theories help to make complex patterns of cause-and-effect in human affairs more comprehensible by means of reductionism and oversimplification. Secondly, they purport to identify the underlying source of misery and injustice in the world, thereby accounting for current crises and upheavals and explaining why bad things are happening to good people or vice versa. Thirdly, by personifying that source they paradoxically help people to reaffirm their own potential ability to control the course of future historical developments. After all, if evil conspirators are consciously causing undesirable changes, the implication is that others, perhaps through the adoption of similar techniques, may also consciously intervene to protect a threatened way of life or otherwise alter the historical process. In short, a belief in conspiracy theories helps people to make sense out of a confusing, inhospitable reality, rationalize their present difficulties, and partially assuage their feelings of powerlessness. In this sense, it is no different than any number of religious, social, or political beliefs, and is deserving of the same serious study. The image of conspiracies promoted by conspiracy theorists needs to be further illuminated before it can be contrasted with genuine conspiratorial politics. In the first place, conspiracy theorists consider the alleged conspirators to be Evil incarnate. They are not simply people with differing values or run-of-the-mill political opponents, but inhuman, superhuman, and/or anti-human beings who regularly commit abominable acts and are implacably attempting to subvert and destroy everything that is decent and worth preserving in the existing world. Thus, according to John Robison, the Bavarian Illuminati were formed 'for the express purpose of ROOTING OUT ALL THE RELIGIOUS ESTABLISHMENTS, AND OVERTURNING ALL THE EXISTING GOVERNMENTS IN EUROPE.' (8) This grandiose claim is fairly representative, in the sense that most conspiracy theorists view the world in similarly Manichean and apocalyptic terms. Secondly, conspiracy theorists perceive the conspiratorial group as both monolithic and unerring in the pursuit of its goals. This group is directed from a single conspiratorial centre, acting as a sort of general staff, which plans and coordinates all of its activities down to the last detail. Note, for example, Prince Clemens von Metternich's claim that a 'directing committee' of the radicals from all over Europe had been established in Paris to pursue their insidious plotting against established governments. (9) Given that presumption, it is no accident that many conspiracy theorists refer to 'the Conspiracy' rather than (lower case)conspiracies or conspiratorial factions, since they perceive no internal divisions among the conspirators. Rather, as a group the conspirators are believed to possess an extraordinary degree of internal solidarity, which produces a corresponding degree of counter solidarity vis-a-vis society at large, and indeed it is this very cohesion and singleness of purpose which enables them to effectively execute their plans to destroy existing institutions, seize power, and eliminate all opposition. Thirdly, conspiracy theorists believe that the conspiratorial group is omnipresent, at least within its own sphere of operations. While some conspiracy theories postulate a relatively localized group of conspirators, most depict this group as both international in its spatial dimensions and continuous in its temporal dimensions. '[T]he conspirators planned and carried out evil in the past, they are successfully active in the present, and they will triumph in the future if they are not disturbed in their plans by those with information about their sinister designs.'(10) The conspiratorial group is therefore capable of operating virtually everywhere. As a consequence of this ubiquitousness, anything that occurs which has a broadly negative impact or seems in anyway related to the purported aims of the conspirators can thus be plausibly attributed to them. Fourthly, the conspiratorial group is viewed by conspiracy theorists as virtually omnipotent. In the past this group has successfully overthrown empires and nations, corrupted whole societies, and destroyed entire civilizations and cultures, and it is said to be in the process of accomplishing the same thing at this very moment. Its members are secretly working in every nook and cranny of society, and are making use of every subversive technique known to mankind to achieve their nefarious purposes. Nothing appears to be able to stand in their way--unless the warnings of the conspiracy theorists are heeded and acted upon at once. Even then there is no guarantee of ultimate victory against such powerful forces, but a failure to recognize the danger and take immediate countervailing action assures the success of those forces in the near future. Finally, for conspiracy theorists conspiracies are not simply a regular feature of politics whose importance varies in different historical contexts, but rather the motive force of all historical change and development. The conspiratorial group can and does continually alter the course of history, invariably in negative and destructive ways, through conscious planning and direct intervention. Its members are not buffeted about by structural forces beyond their control and understanding, like everyone else, but are themselves capable of controlling events more or less at will. This supposed ability is usually attributed to some combination of demonic influence or sponsorship, the possession of arcane knowledge, the mastery of devilish techniques, and/or the creation of a preternaturally effective clandestine organization. As a result, unpleasant occurrences which are perceived by others to be the products of coincidence or chance are viewed by conspiracy theorists as further evidence of the secret workings of the conspiratorial group. For them, nothing that happens occurs by accident. Everything is the result of secret plotting in accordance with some sinister design. This central characteristic of conspiracy theories has been aptly summed up by Donna Kossy in a popular book on fringe ideas: Conspiracy theories are like black holes--they suck in everything that comes their way, regardless of content or origin...Everything you've ever known or experienced, no matter how 'meaningless', once it contacts the conspiratorial universe, is enveloped by and cloaked in sinister significance. Once inside, the vortex gains in size and strength, sucking in everything you touch. (11) As an example of this sort of mechanism, one has only to mention the so-called 'umbrella man', a man who opened up an umbrella on a sunny day in Dealey Plaza just as President John F. Kennedy's motorcade was passing. A number of 'conspiracy theorists' have assumed that this man was signalling to the assassins, thus tying a seemingly trivial and inconsequential act into the alleged plot to kill Kennedy. It is precisely this totalistic, all-encompassing quality that distinguishes 'conspiracy theories' from the secret but often mundane political planning that is carried out on a daily basis by all sorts of groups, both within and outside of government. It should, however, be pointed out that even if the 'umbrella man' was wholly innocent of any involvement in a plot, as he almost certainly was, this does not mean that the Warren Commission's reconstruction of the assassination is accurate. However that may be, real covert politics, although by definition hidden or disguised and often deleterious in their impact, simply do not correspond to the bleak, simplistic image propounded by conspiracy theorists. Far from embodying metaphysical evil, they are perfectly and recognizably human, with all the positive and negative characteristics and potentialities which that implies. At the most basic level, all the efforts of individuals to privately plan and secretly initiate actions for their own perceived mutual benefit --insofar as these are intentionally withheld from outsiders and require the maintenance of secrecy for their success--are conspiracies. Moreover, in contrast to the claims of conspiracy theorists, covert politics are anything but monolithic. At any given point in time, there are dozens if not thousands of competitive political and economic groups engaging in secret planning and activities, and most are doing so in an effort to gain some advantage over their rivals among the others. Such behind-the-scene operations are present on every level, from the mundane efforts of small-scale retailers to gain competitive advantage by being the first to develop new product lines to the crucially important attempts by rival secret services to penetrate and manipulate each other. Sometimes the patterns of these covert rivalries and struggles are relatively stable over time, whereas at other times they appear fluid and kaleidoscopic, as different groups secretly shift alliances and change tactics in accordance with their perceived interests. Even internally, within particular groups operating clandestinely, there are typically bitter disagreements between various factions over the specific courses of action to be adopted. Unanimity of opinioon historical judgements. There is probably no way to prevent this sort of unconscious reaction in the current intellectual climate, but the least that can be expected of serious scholars is that they carefully examine the available evidence before dismissing these matters out of hand.

quote:Originally posted by hagarag:Someone approached me at work yesterday and asked me if I was a terrorist. I was born in America and am as American as apple pie. I don't even look very Armenian at all. The Bush Administration did this at the bequest of Turkey. At least you, Hovsep, understand that this was done to neutralize the effects of the Ararat movie. Hi HagaragYou already know how I feel about the Republican Party…they suck! Turks influence about the latest fiasco because of “Ararat”? Little stretched but possible. Ohh here we go again about people screaming conspiracy and total impossibility of it. My feeling about conspiracies is that they do happen on more regular bases then we think and more often it is called lobbing! If one does not know the answer either way conspiracy or not then how one can jump the gun and point the finger and start the morality sermons.

The Black Cat By Hakob Karapents (1925-1994) From Return & Tiger and Other Short Stories (Translated from Armenian by Tatul Sonentz-Papazian) Sam had never met Mac. They lived on the same street for almost three years yet they hadn't exchanged three words. Their acquaintance was tenuous. Driving by, Sam sometimes saw Mac working in the garden or the yard. They waved at each other and returned to the inner rhythm of their lives. Period. Mac's residence was on the crossing point of summer and Winter streets, in the north corner, opening its wings on both streets. Compared to the other homes built in contemporary style, Mac's house bore a turn-of-the century stamp. A pyramid shaped wooden structure with three floors settling on each other's shoulders, it left impression of crumbling battleship, with tall rods rising on the left and right and a white pole between them where for twelve months of the year flew the American flag. Mac had been a Navy man. He had served in the ranks of the U.S. Marines for twenty-one years. He had come ashore a long time ago. but he had brought the strict routine of the sailor to Summer street. To Sam, it seemed as though Mac continued to serve on his home-ship. It was one those beautiful autumn mornings, a Saturday. Sam decided to put his teaching chored aside and to walk around the pathways along the Charles river.. He walked to the corner of Summer Street and as he about to turn right towards the nearby woods, he heard his name. He turned around Mac at the far end of his driveway. "Greetings, Mac," he answered from afar. "I know your name, but I don't know you," said Mac. "I'm happy for this acquaintance," said Sam, approaching and squeezing Mac's iron hand, feeling at the same time the sally of his blue eyes. Mac was a head taller Sam, Husky and muscled, paticularly in the neck. "I often see you drive by," said Mac, "but this is the first time I had a chance to talk to you. The strange thing is, that we live on the same street until today there was no occasion to get to know each other." "That's true You're busy, I'm busy, we're all running around," answered Sam, He looked around for a second then added "Mac, is it true you're in the military?" "I was in the military," said Mac "Now I'm a doorman." "Where?" inquired Sam. "At the Boston Central Bank," answered Mac. "It takes care of extra expenses. My wife works too. That way, with my retirement pay we live comfortably. I know you're a teacher, Sam." "Yes, I'm a high school teacher," said Sam and expressed his admiration for the meticulously kept garden that surrounded the house. Everywhere, the yellow orange and white chrysanthemum bushes were in bloom. All around the house, the wooden deck looked like it belonged on a sea going vessel. Where the ship's prow would be, the 50mm barrel of a naval gun was set on immobile wheels. There were two benches on the front deck. one bore the inscription "Mac," the other, "Mary". Sam noticed, that at every turn and corner of the house, there were small signs nailed to the walls bearing various inscriptions, such as "Exit", "Entrance," "Stairs," "To Reception," "South," North," "East," "Storage" and similar other messages. "Yes," said Mac, "I have to maintain order, otherwise I end up with chaos. I keep a log, where the daily chores are written down. Do you know how old this house is?" "No, I don't. Maybe forty?" "My wife is 50 years old, and she was born in this house Mary's grandfather built this house in the year 1898" "I didn't know that," replied Sam. "The house has seven bedrooms. We change bedbrooms every week" "Really?" "That way we have a different bridge", said Mac. "What bridge...?" "Captain's bridge, said Mac with a far away look in his eyes. His gaze landed on Sam's balding head. "Would you like to take a walk on the lower deck?" "Why not?" replied Sam, swallowing hard, "I'm very impressed with these orderly surroundings." In the middle of the garden, a sundial was set on a marble pedestal. A the four corners of the hung glass tubes of various size, meteorological gauges, a new, green painted weather vane, two marine telescopes mounted on tripods, a bell with a cord, as well as lifeboat hanging on the the east wall. "I trim the lawn with pair of scissors, declared Mac. "Why?" asked Sam. "That way, I can cut deeper and the grass looks like a carpet. Isn't that is so, Mac." "And here is Mary's garden," announced Mac, basking in the victory of still blooming rosebushes. "Why that small cross?" asked Sam, walking towards a mound rising between two bushes. "That's the black cat's grave," answered Mac solemnly. "Which black cat...?" "I found its carcass today, in the street," said Mac. "Looks like it was run over by a car." "Poor kitten!" "I brought it home, wrapped it in canvas, dug a hole, buried it and put a cross on the mound." "Poor kitten! Sam's sympathy deepend. " Whose cat was it?" "I don't know," know said Mac. "I found the carcass right in the middle of the road." "Apparently it belonged to one of the neighbors. You say was a black cat?" "Yes. it was a small black cat." Sam couldn't imagine how, person as strict Mac could have such a soft heart. They're right, when they say that a person's appearance is deceiving, you expect one thing and something else turns else up. "do you own a cat, Mac?" "Once I had two cats, now I don't have any. To tell you the truth. I prefer dogs." "I've never seen a dog in your yard." said Sam, "Where do you keep it?" "I don't have a dog. Years ago, I owned German shepherd, now it's just me and Mary." "I have a black cat, called Manhattan," said Sam. "Manhattan...?" "Yes, Manhattan. I found it on Madison Avenue, in New York, abandoned, sick, emaciated. I bought it home, Betty fed it, took care of it, now it's become the apple of her eye ." "Animals are like that, said Mac putting his hand on Sam's shoulder. "One gets so atrracted to them, you'd think they're member of the family." "What are you going to do now, Mac?" "How do you mean?" "I mean, how are you going to let the owners of the black cat know what happened?" "I haven't given it a thought, a thought," said Mac "They are going to worry, start looking." "If they do worry, " said Mac seriously, "why did they leave that cat unattended?" "Sam felt a gradual complexity emerge in his assessment of Mac, he found himself faced with new revelations every step of the way. Every time he felt that things followed a normal course, he was faced with an outlandish, uncharted inner world. Automatically, Mac took off his naval cap, put it back on and said: "Man and beast are the same." "How so?" said Sam surprised. "I mean, they have the same right to live. Man is a latecomer. They were all here when man appeared and became a menace to all. If we continue this way, someday we'll wake up alone on this planet." The apocalyptic image was shocking. Stunned for moment, Sam, feeling his loneliness in the world, decided on the spot to walk in such a way no ant or insect would be trampled. When Sam looked up, Mac's were digging into him. "What do you teach in school, Sam?" "Physics" "Then you must have a better understanding of the importance of the coexistence of human and animal worlds. Has it ever occured to you, that you and I could have been born a cat or a lizard?" said Mac, jowls drooping like an aging lion's." "No, never crossed my mind ." "Let's drop it," commanded Mac. He pulled down his cap and took leave of his neigbor. That evening, Betty returned at five o'clock and discovered that Manhattan had not come back from his daily escapades. She came out on the balcony, half leaning on the railing, and yelled "Hey kitty-kitty-kitty, hey kitty-kitty..." several times in a sharp voice, then turned to her husband. "This is the first time, that Manhattan is late for its meal." "It's not the first time," answered Sam. "He's often late Right now, he's probably at a gathering with other cats." I am the one who feeds the cat," said Betty. "I know that he's never late for a meal. something must have happened to him." "What could possibly happen? Sam tried to disperse the dark clouds in his wife's mind. " It's a cat. When it starves, it will come home. "Manhattan isn't just a cat !" retorted Betty. "What is it then?" "He's a member of our family! "affirmed Betty. Sam immediately recalled Mac's words and the dead cat's grave between the rosebushes. A black shadow passed across his mind. With a brisk motion of his hand, he pushed aside that dark thought and returned to Betty. "Why are you worrying yourself needlessly? I'll go right out, find Manhattan and bring him home." Sam walked back and forth; from Summer Street, he entered Winter, from there he took Main Street, then kept looking around the wooded areas next to the Charles River. Gradually, doubt pemeated the shadowy recesses of his subconscious, brooding on the navel of an impenetrable darkness. He thought of going and speaking to Mac, to hear details about the black cat lying beneath the mound among the rosebushes, but he couldn't muster the necessary gumption to ring his doorbell. Besides, what guarantees were there? The neighborhood was full of black cats. Sam returned home, told Betty about his meeting with Mac and the black cat buried in his gaden. Betty's gray eyes opened wide; she collapsed in the armchair, her frail shouldeers shaking. Dusk had turned into darkness, when Sam And Betty came out of the house. They walked down the street to Mac's house, entered his garden, and stood over the small mound rising among the rosebushes. Betty stroked the cross and the grave, murmured a prayer, and returned home. Sam and Betty couldn't sleep all night. Betty's crying kept Sam up. His efforts to relieve the woman's pain proved futile. "My poor Manhattan, my innocent little black kitten," wept Betty, mentally reconstructing Manhattan's last minutes, the ferocious onslaught of the tires and the poor cat's screech of terror on the stone-cold pavement. Betty put the entire blame on Mac for the tragedy. "He was the one chasing after Manhattan, endangering his life," she accused in between sobs. "What are you talking about, Betty? Mac is a very decent fellow, he would never do a thing like that!" "He's the one who killed Manhattan, and buried him in the garden to fertilize his stupid rosebushes!" Betty, what are you saying?" repeated Sam, not believing his ears. The night had descended on them like a nightmare. Betty was inconsolable. So was Sam. His wife's sorrow hurt Sam. The house had lost its joy of yesterday. Shadows had settled on the furnishing and their souls. Sam approached the window and looked outside. The darkness was impenetrable. He tried to console his wife, somehow. At dawn, when Sam and betty stared at the wall with sleepless eyes, they heard some scratching. They rushed downstairs, opened the front door. It was Manhattan, with his tail between his legs. November 1993, Boston

You are not permitted to send private messages. A board leader has elected to deactivate this option for you. Domino,this is what I get when trying to send PM.I guess what I say in private is more dengerous!

Dear Domino, I know you very much care about this movie and I was interested to read how other people or none Armenians see it. Roger’s take is disappointing or may be it is not his fault. I will highlight the important comments.BY ROGER EBERT FILM CRITIC Atom Egoyan has something he wants us to know. In 1915, he tells us in his new film "Ararat," Turkey committed genocide against its Armenian population, massacring two-thirds of its 1.5 million citizens of Armenian descent. This crime, denied to this day by Turkey, has largely been wiped from the pages of history. Egoyan is one of Canada's best and most respected directors. He and his wife, the actress Arsinee Khanjian, are Canadians of Armenian descent. When he told his children of the massacre, he has said in interviews, they wanted to know if Turkey had ever apologized. His answer is contained in "Ararat." Unfortunately, it is couched in such a needlessly confusing film that most people will leave the theater impressed, not by the crime, but by the film's difficulty. Egoyan's work often elegantly considers various levels of reality and uses shifting points of view, but here he has constructed a film so labyrinthine that it defeats his larger purpose. The story has three central strands: (1) A film is being made about the atrocity; (2) some of the scenes of this film-within-the-film re-create historical incidents, for our information; (3) there is a web of connections between the people working on the film and other characters in the story. We meet an art historian named Ani (Khanjian) who lectures on the Armenian artist Arshile Gorky, whose mother was one of the Turkish victims. Ani's husband died in an attempt to assassinate a Turkish official some 15 years earlier. She has a son named Raffi (David Alpay) from her first marriage, and a stepdaughter named Celia (Marie-Josee Croze) from a second marriage with a man who, Celia believes, was driven to suicide by Ani. When Ani lectures on Gorky, Celia often attends in order to heckle her with questions about her dead father. Further complicating this emotional tangle, Raffi and Celia are sleeping with each other. There is another sexual-political connection. When Raffi attempts to pass through a Canadian customs post with several film cans from Europe, he is questioned at length by a customs inspector named David (Christopher Plummer), who is on his last day on the job. Raffi says the cans contain unexposed documentary footage needed for the movie. We know, because of a scene at breakfast that day, that Plummer's son Philip (Brent Carver) is the lover of an actor named Ali (Elias Koteas), who plays the barbaric Turkish general Jevdet Bey in the film. Thus David is in a position to know that the film being brought in by Raffi may not be needed for the project. We meet the director of the film, named Edward (Charles Aznavour), and see him on the set, filming scenes that are often presented as reality before the camera pulls back to reveal another camera. And we meet the screenwriter, Rouben (Eric Bogosian). Both Aznavour and Bogosian, who are of Armenian ancestry, are used to provide more information about the atrocities, as is the character of Clarence Ussher (Bruce Greenwood), a character in Aznavour's film. He was an American physician who was an eyewitness to the massacres and wrote a book about them. The questioning at the customs station goes on, apparently, for hours, because David, on his last day on the job, is trying to determine through sheer skill whether the cans contain film or heroin. He could open them (in a dark room to avoid spoiling the film), but that would be too simple, and perhaps he thinks that by understanding the young man before him, he can gain a better insight into his own son. The scenes in the movie-within-a-movie document horrendous acts by the Turks against the Armenians, including one sequence in which women are burned alive. The film also shows Gorky as a young boy, shouldering arms against the Turks. There are flashbacks to show the adult Gorky painting in exile in New York. And discussion of the relative truth of two portraits: one a photo of Gorky with his mother, the other the painting he has based on this portrait. It is the same painting we have heard Ani lecturing about. You may be feeling some impatience at the complexity of this plot. It is too much, too heavily layered, too needlessly difficult, too opaque. Individual scenes leap out and have a life of their own; Khanjian makes the difficulties of her own character very affecting; the Plummer episode is like a small, perfect character study, and I remember the re-created atrocities as if from another film, which is indeed how they are presented. "Ararat" clearly comes from Egoyan's heart, and it conveys a message he urgently wants to be heard: that the world should acknowledge and be shamed that a great crime was committed against his people. The message I receive from the movie, however, is a different one: that it is difficult to know the truth of historical events, and that all reports depend on the point of view of the witness and the state of mind of those who listen to the witness. That second message is conveyed by the film, but I am not sure it presents Egoyan's intention. Perhaps this movie was so close to his heart that he was never able to stand back and get a good perspective on it--that he is as conflicted as his characters, and as confused in the face of shifting points of view. Note: In the film, Adolf Hitler is quoted discussing his plans for genocide and asking, "Who remembers the extermination of the Armenians?" The film presents this as fact, although there is enormous controversy over whether Hitler actually ever said it. note either Roger is naive or playing the part.Hitler's quote is well documanted and there is no "enormous controversy"

It was exactly twelve years ego when I had my first one-man show in America of all places at the Armenian center in Watertown. The opening went well. Few older Armenian women objected my nude paintings but I did not take offence since I knew where they were coming from. Towards the end of the evening they’re walked in a strikingly handsome man with eagle nose, white hair, rosy cheeks and a big smile. He introduced himself as Hakob Karapents and shook my hand firmly. He loved my works and proceeded to express himself why. His animated gestures were all the signs of someone who was truly alive and not inhibited in any way. He proceeded to turn off the lights and view the paintings in semi dark, which he found was more dramatic. Needles to say we became good acquaintances and he hand autographed few of his published books of short stories to me. At the time the Karabagh war was raging and I often shared my fears and anxieties with him but during the whole time he was always confident about Artsagh’s independence almost unconscious firm conviction. He was a true patriot from heart to soul. It is sad that he died rather abruptly from cancer and before his death he often mentioned that he was just beginning to enjoy life… His work deals mainly with Diaspora contemporary life with added philosophical twists. I greatly enjoined reading him and recommend others as well. He is very little known among Armenian public at large but well known among literary circles.

Takavor, good post-pretty gutsy article.I like journalists with balls. Regards

quote:Originally posted by MJ: But, hey, Karabagh is our revenge against the Turks, after all. If, meanwhile, we need to sacrifice Armenia for such a holly purpose, so be it. The important thing is that we feel we have shown our 'might' to these darn Turks. It is sad that our cynics rather make generalizations on the blood of those young man who died for Karabagh independence. Anybody who fallowed the Karabagh movement in up close knows that that situation was created and brought forward by Azerbaijan. It is really pathetically disdainful that we can’t even enjoy small victories! (it is not nationalistic hysteria!)Who has the victim mentality here? When our people were fighting against the Azeri oppressors with outdated weapons early on, we did not hear the cynics cry wolf in the name of Armenia.To conclude those who preach optimism, pragmatism should understand also that independence is a process therefore quick generalizations make the situation seem hopeless. American revolution and subsequent independence was also a process. Karabagh people deserve our support and not our premature lamenting, defeatist comments which hardly inspires anybody. PS Vulgar responses only reinforce the utter weaknesses of one’s character that have difficulty understanding words such as democracy, tolerance and unity or does it mean unity on this forum unison conformity?

MJ>Dick Cheney has been an elective official or a holder of executive position all his life, and until he has retired he has never had anything to do with energy. After his retirement, he has held an executive position in an energy service company and not an energy company, i.e. a company which manufactures supplies for energy companies such us pipelines, valves, etc. This has lasted eight years. Now he is qualified as "sellout" to Oil Industry This observation is obviously tainted by partisan motivations therefore worthless!let’s do read who Chaney is-note no conspiracie theories here! Cheney's Black Gold:Oil Interests May Drive US Foreign Policy by Marjorie Cohn What do the Persian Gulf, the Caspian Sea and the Balkans have in common? U.S. domination in these areas serves the interests of corporate multimillionaires such as Dick Cheney. As George Bush's secretary of defense, Cheney was chief prosecutor of Operation Desert Storm in 1991. Humanitarian rhetoric notwithstanding, the bombing of Iraq--which continues to this day--was primarily aimed at keeping the Persian Gulf safe for U.S. oil interests. Shortly after Desert Storm, the Associated Press reported Cheney's desire to broaden the United States' military role in the region to hedge future threats to gulf oil resources. Cheney is CEO of Dallas-based Halliburton Co., the biggest oil-services company in the world. Because of the instability in the Persian Gulf, Cheney and his fellow oilmen have zeroed in on the world's other major source of oil--the Caspian Sea. Its rich oil and gas resources are estimated at $4 trillion by U.S. News and World Report. The Washington-based American Petroleum Institute, voice of the major U.S. oil companies, called the Caspian region, "the area of greatest resource potential outside of the Middle East." Cheney told a gaggle of oil industry executives in 1998, "I can't think of a time when we've had a region emerge as suddenly to become as strategically significant as the Caspian." But Caspian oil presents formidable obstacles. Landlocked between Russia, Iran and a group of former Soviet republics, the Caspian's "black gold" raises a transportation dilemma. Russia wants Caspian oil to run through its territory to the Black Sea. The United States, however, favors pipelines through its ally, Turkey. Although the cheapest route would traverse Iran to the Persian Gulf, U.S. sanctions against Iran block this alternative. Cheney has lobbied long and hard, as recently as June, for the lifting of those sanctions, to lubricate the Iran-Caspian connection. This is consistent with his position, described in a 1997 article in The Oil and Gas Journal, that oil and gas companies must do business in countries with policies unpalatable to the U.S. Cheney also favors the repeal of section 907 of the 1992 Freedom Support Act, which severely restricts U.S. aid to Azerbaijan because of its ethnic cleansing of the Armenians in Nagorno Artsax, a mountainous enclave in Azerbaijan. Why would Cheney choose to ignore Azerbaijan's human-rights violations? Because Azerbaijan, key to the richest Caspian oil deposits, is, according to the Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists, "in fact, the focal point of the next round in the Great Game of Nations, a dangerous, hot-headed place with a Klondike of wealth beneath it. It is Bosnia with oil." Cheney's oily fingerprints are all over the Balkans as well. Last year, Halliburton's Brown & Root Division was awarded a $180 million a year contract to supply U.S. forces in the Balkans. Cheney also sits on the board of directors of Lockheed Martin, the world's largest defense contractor. Replacing munitions used in the Balkans could result in $1 billion in new contracts. War is big business and Dick Cheney is right in the middle of it. Meanwhile, our energy and gasoline prices continue to soar in many parts of the United States. OPEC controls the oil production in the Persian Gulf. Cheney, worried about a falloff in investment, spoke in favor of OPEC cutting oil production so oil and gasoline prices could rise. Cheney is ineluctably invested in keeping the world safe for his investments. Although he stepped down as CEO of Halliburton, he still owns shares of stock in the conglomerate and his financial interests in the Persian Gulf, the Caspian region and the Balkans will invariably continue. Chosen by George W. Bush to bring foreign-policy expertise to the GOP presidential ticket, we can expect a Republic administration to increase U.S. intervention in regions when it suits Dick Cheney's oil and other corporate concerns. Marjorie Cohn, a professor at Thomas Jefferson School of Law in San Diego. According to the Financial Times of London, between September 1988 and last winter, Cheney, as CEO of Halliburton, oversaw $23.8 million of business contracts for the sale of oil-industry equipment and services to Iraq through two of its subsidiaries, Dresser Rand and Ingersoll-Dresser Pump, which helped rebuild Iraq's war-damaged petroleum-production infrastructure. The combined value of these contracts exceeded those of any other U.S. company doing business with Baghdad. Halliburton was among more than a dozen American firms that supplied Iraq's petroleum industry with spare parts and retooled its oil rigs when U.N. sanctions were eased in 1998. Cheney's company utilized subsidiaries in France, Italy, Germany, and Austria so as not to draw undue attention to controversial business arrangements that might embarrass Washington and jeopardize lucrative ties to Iraq, which will pump $24 billion of petrol under the U.N.-administered oil-for-food program this year. Assisted by Halliburton, Hussein's government will earn another $1 billion by illegally exporting oil through black-market channels. With Cheney at the helm since 1995, Halliburton quickly grew into America's number-one oil-services company, the fifth-largest military contractor, and the biggest nonunion employer in the nation. Although Cheney claimed that the U.S. government "had absolutely nothing to do" with his firm's meteoric financial success, State Department documents obtained by the Los Angeles Times indicate that U.S. officials helped Halliburton secure major contracts in Asia and Africa. Halliburton now does business in 130 countries and employs more than 100,000 workers worldwide. Its 1999 income was a cool $15 billion. In addition to Iraq, Halliburton counts among its business partners several brutal dictatorships that have committed egregious human rights abuses, including the hated military regime in Burma (Myanmar). EarthRights, a Washington, D.C.-based human rights watchdog, condemned Halliburton for two energy-pipeline projects in Burma that led to the forced relocation of villages, rape, murder, indentured labor, and other crimes against humanity. A full report (this is a 45 page pdf file - there is also a brief summary) on the Burma connection, "Halliburton's Destructive Engagement," can be accessed on EarthRights' Web site, www.earthrights.org

quote:Originally posted by Mher:[qb]Rubo, I wouldn’t put to much importance to a republican or a democrat move (stratige) as far as the issue concerns (recent stand on Armenians). Remember back in 1991 when Bush the Sr. could not get reelected with a 92% approval rating? The only thing (so important) at that time (and as usual) for American president have a working, humble, understanding, caring, pampering, relations with Israeli government oh, and spiritual visits taken to Israel prior to running for president of USA. However Dick (plain old dick) Chaney is, was, and always will be anti-Armenian, this guy never nor he ever will serve to the interest(s) of the US, nor any other country besides Israel So I’m not a bit surprised about this latest stand on Armenians, and sure more will fallow! [qb] Mher,I agree with you on republicans and democrats.I actually voted for third party on the last election.Having said this I do belive and Supported by facts that as long as republicans control the white house the oil interests will dominate the agenda. That means pro Azerbaijan and Turkey polices. We can already see the effects of this on recent move by state department requiring Armenians to register.Regards Ruben (sorry Rubo, i just deleted the section that you had quoted that did not belong on this thread) [ December 15, 2002, 01:46 PM: Message edited by: Azat ]

Every Armenian on this forum is morally responsible to send a protest letter. Chatting is fine but this is serious! Protest Bush Administration Regulation Requiring Registration of Armenian Citizens Send a Free ANCA WebFax to President Bush Today! http://www.anca.org/anca/anca_home.asp

quote:Originally posted by WhiteHorse:Look at the issues and vote for issues, not the person (a person is an another tool). If they do not act upon their promises (khapen mez), kick that person out by electing next one. Are you saying there is no honest Armenian in the world, then why we are here? Dear WH,power corrupts not just Armenia but most Economically impoverished countries. Favoritism, cronyism is the real sad fact about corruption and human nature naturally gravitates towards those values unless there were a real check and balance system was in placed.

quote:Originally posted by gamavor:Check out this:http://antiwar.com/justin/j062102.html Thanks for the link,very iteresting site.I made no secret that I am Against the war on Iraq since it is not about “MWOD” but mainly about oil. US media has been playing in concert with white house and they scarcely cover growing large anti-war movement. There were large demonstrations against the war on Iraq recently in Boston and other major cities but as usual media hardly mentioned.

I forgat to add that I strongly dislike republicans and I feel sorry for the Armenian brainwashed types who bought the republican platform.

Some observation on this thread, the” positive and empowering” massages reflected. We are Xenophobic, we are losers, and we are weak “share them with your kids”. If our intellectuals find nothing good to say about Armenians then I rather hang out and drink beer with our fanatics at least they are not confused as whom they are. Yes I did think about the xenophobic part and if you take The French, Italians, Germans, Jews, and Arabs etc. it can apply as well. Nothing-new here. No R e v e l a t I o n s [ December 14, 2002, 10:00 AM: Message edited by: Rubo ]