Happy New Year to Bush too

[takavor]

That’s the US ambassador’s message to us for New Year and Christmas:

 

Quoted from ArmenPress, as is:

 

************************************

US AMBASSADOR CONGRATULATES ARMENIANS FOR NEW YEAR AND CHRISTMAS

YEREVAN, DECEMBER 27, ARMENPRESS: US ambassador to Armenia John Ordway congratulated today the Armenian people on the occasion of New Year. A message by the ambassador reads as follows.

"On behalf of President Bush and the American people I would like to wish you a happy New Year and Christmas. This is a time when, bidding farewell to the past year, people reflect on what has happened in the past and look forward to future activities.

I would like to note with pleasure that during the past year at post in Armenia I have had the opportunity to enjoy the beauty of Armenia and get acquainted with the ancient history and cultural heritage of your country.

In terms of the partnership between our two countries, 2002 was a fruitful year. We have worked with the Armenian government to develop the economy of Armenia. We have worked to strengthen the rule of law, to establish civil society and to improve the investment climate.

Armenia's membership in WTO has been advanced to the final stage. many activities were successfully accomplished; however, there is still a long way to go. We want to strengthen Armenia's democracy in all aspects. The economic development should create equal opportunities for all citizens. We want to reduce poverty and establish security and stability throughout the region. With our Minsk group partners we will continue efforts to seek a just and mutually acceptable solution to the Nagorno Karabagh dispute. We will continue to fight international terrorism with joint efforts. And finally, we will continue to further the traditional ties that link Armenia and the United States.

So again, I congratulate you for a Happy New Year and Merry Christmas and wish you all the best in the coming year."

 

*********************************

 

This message has been delivered with such an earnest feeling that I can hardly believe the ambassador means a single word of it.

 

So, I couldn’t help doing some translating work.

 

Original: “however, there is still a long way to go.”

Translation: “Armenia is not ripe to our coming in and taking direct control of your country yet.”

 

Original: “We want to strengthen Armenia's democracy in all aspects.”

Translation: “We want to use the many weaknesses of a true democratic regime to put our own people (the ones we can buy) in power.

 

Original: “we will continue efforts to seek a just and mutually acceptable solution to the Nagorno Karabagh dispute.”

Translation: “We will continue to defend Azerbaidjan’s so called territorial integrity because there’s so much oil there that we want to get our hands on, and make sure Artsakh is not recognized as a independent and democratic country.”

 

Original: “We will continue to fight international terrorism with joint efforts.”

Transaltion: “We will continue to rob countries of their natural resources throughout the world (like oil in Angola, Irak…) using the usual terrorism bullshit.

 

Original: “I would like to note with pleasure that during the past year at post in Armenia I have had the opportunity to enjoy the beauty of Armenia and get acquainted with the ancient history and cultural heritage of your country.”

Translation: “Let me praise you and give you this free bullshit so you feel proud and happy”.

 

Original: “And finally, we will continue to further the traditional ties that link Armenia and the United States.”

 

I can’t translate that, for there are no traditional ties of any kind with the US. In terms of tradition and culture, the US is as bare as desert can be. In terms of history and political development, the US is a newborn baby in human-civilization history that is trying to bully around to look like a grown up.

 

Sorry to spoil your Christmas guys and destroy your fake ideals about America. Sometimes, the truth is hard to face.

[Stormig]

Happy new year to Bush, Jr. May he fall on his head and realize he has at least one promise to keep, a life to live as do we, and no sympathy from the rest of the world for what he represents.

[Loreley]

I strongly believe that the ideals for which suppossedly the U.S. stands for are nothing more than hypocrisy. The Constitution of United States of America (and the people) proclaims to symbolize the principles of justice, opportunity, equality, and freedom for all the people. However, ideals and policies of liberty and justice apply only to certain privileged groups (White male elite). I don't agree with the part about putting U.S. culture and history down because then we are doing to them the same thing that they are doing to us.

[Loreley]

Takavor: I loved your translation.

[vava]

When I read the ambassadors comments, I nearly gagged. What blatant hypocrisy! Is this what diplomacy has come to mean?? Or, are we all a bunch of (hardcore) cynics with no faith in the infrstructure of international politics?

[Azat]

I hope you were only joking about this part. Maybe you can read about the CEOs of HP and American Express and CEO of iCast, a little about Condoleezza Rice. I can list more minority and female CEOs if you would like

[Stormig]

Actually, there is a Yahoo group that deals specifically for that - found it when searching for "genocide."

http://groups.yahoo.com/group/A_place_for_...ale_Christians/

[Azat]

I don't think that there is a genocide against while males, but the idea that only white men get advances is simply BS. Business in general advances the most appropriate person for the job. If there are two candidates a female and male equally educated and hard working I do not think they will discriminate against one or the other, however the facts of life are such that women(in general) put in less hours at work and take more sick days than men. They feel that business should allow them time to go and pick up their kids after work. When little Johnny is sick in school they leave work to pick him up and stay at home many times when the kids are ill. Why should I as the business owner absorb that additional burden? If all is equal, I have no problem hiring and promoting women, but if they have a family and kids and I have an equally qualified man for the same position it is a no brainer to hire the male.

 

[ December 28, 2002, 11:06 AM: Message edited by: Azat ]

[Loreley]

Azat: I was not saying that only White men are privelege, but that statistically speaking, White elite men are in more powerful positions than women, people of color, and poor and working class White people. In some cases, White women have more privileges than men of color. Have you look at statistics as far as income and educational opportunities across gender and race lines?

The fact that women take more sick leave is due to taking of her children. That is true. However, the fact that it is women (not men) who do most of the childcare is a societal demand, and consequently, you will have more men working full time, better paying jobs, and more financially independent.

[Sip]

Sorry to butt in but that sounded like a tautology to me and therefore, of course it's "true". It's like saying statistically, rich people have more money than poor people (note that "elite" by itself means "priviledged minority").

[Loreley]

Azat: You stated,"Yes I have and I also have worked enough in large corporations and in public sector to realize why certain groups get ahead in life and some do not. 2 words: harder workers."

A lot of Mexicans come to the U.S. from rural places because they are displaced from their lands when U.S. and other countries corporations

build companies in those lands. Those people who are forced to leave because of their financial situation come to U.S. without legal papers and without knowing the language. Once they are here, they work in extremely low paying jobs, for so many hours a day, are not elegible for health insurance or anything, don't have time to go to school and are treated like sh.... They do work hard, but of course, they will never end up working in a corporation. It is always easier to blame the invidual so when we make it to the top (have a good job, a degree), we feel so proud of ourselves, and we can say that we are different than those who don't make it because they must be lazy.

[Loreley]

The ideology that women are expected to do most of the childcare is not a choice, but it is a socially created belief based on traditional and patriarchal ideas.

[Sip]

Loreley, I totally agree with you that being a "hard worker" does NOT mean one will get ahead in life. It is a strong requirement in many cases, but it's certainly NOT the ONLY factor. So although Azat is probably very right that the "hard worker" in the corporate setting gets ahead in life, it does NOT mean that every hard worker will get ahead in life. The corporate environment is usually set up such that hard work is usually valued and encouraged... at least in the more successful corporations (I personally have high tech ones such as intel and microsoft in mind as those I am quite familiar with).

 

I don't think society has created the belief that women bear children and give them milk! That is a factor I would say dictated by nature. So at least in the VERY early childhood, the female who gives birth SHOULD take care of the child. Now if you are talking about later on in life, again, I think a female presence is much more beneficial to a child due to the softer, caring, and more emotional connection that there exists between the mother and her child. Now if you are going to tell me that males can be just as squeeshy and feely and warm and caring towards children, don't bother, cause I don't buy it!!!! ... and don't tell me that's what society has taught me cause I won't buy that either

 

HOWEVER in a loving relationship, I think the partners should do all they can and more to support and help their partners. So although I think the female has the major burden of caring for the young, this does NOT mean that the male should just go and work! No ... depending on the situation and what's best for the family, all chores and "burdens" must be shared ... if not equally, at least in the "best interests" of the children.

 

[ December 28, 2002, 04:55 PM: Message edited by: Sip ]

[THOTH]

I disagree.

[Sip]

Neither do I.

 

[ December 28, 2002, 04:47 PM: Message edited by: Sip ]

[Azat]

Dear Loreley, no need to bring the example of the Mexican as there are many Armenians as well who are in the same situation. But I do not understand why and how society is keeping that Armenian/Mexican down and not their knowledge/hard work at that time. Do you think that we should be in a socialistic world where people like Sip who spend years and years in school and get a PhD earn as much as the "hard working" Mexican?

 

If you were the CEO of IBM and you had Sip as a candidate and another Armenian who does not speak English and a female who is as smart as Sip, but has kids and is going to call in sick 10 days more than Sip and has to always leave work at 5:30 to be able to pick up the kids, who do you hire?

 

Even with your example I am 110% sure that the hard working Mexican will advance faster than the not hard working white in the same corporation/company.

 

Dear Thoth, what do you disagree with?

[Sip]

Azat jan, you are making me but let's also not forget that I have been VERY priviledged to have had Armenian parents who put me and my 2 other brothers as their highest priority in life. I will NOT claim for a second that I am where I am due to MY own hard work alone. If it weren't for them, I'd probably be flipping burgers somewhere right now and we wouldn't be having this conversation. I really don't know what I have done to deserve all this great things that I have in life, but all I can do is to take 100% advantage of it to try to give a little back to my parents who sacrificed EVERYTHING for me. They could have had a very comfortable life in Iran ... they were both respected immensely ... but they gave it all up just for us 3 brothers. We may say as many bad things as we want about "Armanians" but that kind of sacrifice is rare in the "westernized" world.

[Azat]

Sip jan, your story is very similar to mine. My parents gave up everything to see their 2 kids turn out good. Except in our case, my sister did and I turned out to be a bonehead.

 

But you have gone beyond a masters degree and I have not. And we both had the support of our parents to continue further. Thus you have worked harder than I have and I believe you should be paid better than I.(i know we are talking about individuals in this example, but my comments are meant for the general public)

 

The main point that I am trying to make is that a white manager/ceo/owner/whoever MAJORITY of the time is going to hire the most qualified person for the job.

[Loreley]

Azat: To your question,"Do you think that we should be in a socialistic world where people like Sip who spend years and years in school and get a PhD earn as much as the "hard working" Mexican?"

I sincerely admire Sip for his dedication, hard work, knowledge, and for everything he has accomplished and will continue to do so. I think that he deserves recognition for his work and the best job. I also believe that people that work in the farms, sweatshops, construction, etc, who work for 12 hours per day, under poor working conditions, no benefits, who will not receive social security (because are undocumented)also deserve the best quality of life. They might have not spend years in school, but they have spend most of their lives working in sweatshops and are not rewarded in any way. I volunteer for the Garment Worker Center and my heart goes to those workers in the garment industry because some people get paid $10 -$15 per day for working like 10 hours per day in the U.S. and they feel powerless because how are they going to complain if they are illegaly here. This center helps them a lot. So, I think that both individuals as Sip and individuals as the farmers, etc. should be rewarded for their work.

[Loreley]

Sip: I agree with you that women should be the main caregivers for their children for the first years because we can breast feed them, etc. I think that once a couple makes a commitment to have children, then the responsability should be shared by both of them. I think that both, the woman and the man, should be willing to make sacrificies for the children. Azat was saying that women most of the time need to leave the jobs because the children are sick or she has to pick them up from school. What I was trying to say was that those responsibilities can be shared by the mother and the father. I have been wondering for a long time if women are more naturally bonded to their children than men because I feel that men are loving, nurturing, and have the ability to care for their children in the same way. It could be my experience but my father has always been more nurturing than my mother. To be honest, I feel that when I have my children, I will be spend of most time caring for them than for anything else.

[THOTH]

quote:

---

Originally posted by Azat:

The main point that I am trying to make is that a white manager/ceo/owner/whoever MAJORITY of the time is going to hire the most qualified person for the job.

---

This is a true statement - but it is a subjective assessment. The person hiring will - the majority of the time hire someone that they are comfortable with /think they understand/and who they think are like them etc (ie white male perhaps...[unless practically forced otherwise])...and this may factor in a great deal toward any hiring decision - as a subjective factor feeding ones idea of who is most qualified. I have witnessed this inumerable times...

 

Another point was made about not hiring a women with children because of potential (time) comitments outside of work (for her family) - well this is a common misperception - believe me. But it falls down flat when faced with the evidence. 20+ years ago I was doing some investigative work for a Congressional Commitee (House or Senate Armed Services - I have forgotten which) who had got wind of a plan by the US Army to seperate (fire) all single parents (though it was women that they were really after) with children (can you imagine?) based on such (sexist/speculative) claims as yours. Yes, the Army had a study (disavowed once I cut it to shreds) that claimed these women missed too much time and were unreliable etc etc ...in fact I was able to prove the opposite. On average, these parents (women and men) were more responsible, missed less time, and performed better then the young (frequently drunk or otherwise unavailable - etc etc) single men...think about it - this job was/is all they have to feed their family with - etc. So don't jump to conclusions (though I know that many do concerning just these sort of issues). Another funny thing was that it turned out that (20 years ago, and perhaps still today...don't know) there were many more single fathers then mothers in the Army (not surprising) - and the Army was planning to cut all single parents - turned out they would really have fouled things up...(and were just so without a clue in general...)

 

Another point made by someone earlier - women being more nurturing or more fit to be THE parent - etc - BS. Sure some of this is perhaps undeniable (& biological) - but if you are an inteligent person you should realize that generalizations just don't cut it. People are individuals and defy such. I can give a great many examples of men more nurturing (or whatever - better at being a parent) then a great many women. I am a great parent BTW - and often have and do take care of my children (alone) - sometimes for weeks at a time (my wife works and travels a lot). So I dispute this claim as a generalization that cannot be used to make such proclimations as only women should stay home and do the parenting etc. In fact though i think there are many things that women do quite a bit better then men - why aren't you (& others) so quick to push aside the men who are more frequently doing these jobs in society? And unfortunatly - most anyone can become a parent - there is no qualifying exam or such - and there are many (of both sexes) that really suck at it.

 

And data shows that women are not compensated (on average) nearly the same as men for comparable work (accross all job sectors)....just why is this one may wonder? (a great many factors for this - but I will leave that for your immagination as this post is already quite long enough).

 

So - wouldn't you just rather that I just post "I disagree"? Much less painful/time consuming - no?

[Sip]

No! Cause as usual, this thread went from Armenia and the embassador, to the evil US, to how poorly the "constitution" is implemented, to the always under attack "white male" who is usually grouped to be in the "elite" while most of the time the "elite" is quite small in numbers, to parental roles, hard work and advancement in society, and a few other things. A simple "I disagree" adds a lot more to our confusion because you certainly couldn't have been disagreeing with everything (since some points were contradicting each other)

 

As far as making generalizations, I agree 100% that one should NEVER use generalizations to judge an individual. However, generalizations, on their own, when making statements about a certain group can be ok and provide valuable information (or opinion). So I don't think generalizations on their own are evil ... they are only evil if used to judge or form an opinion of an individual (as Thoth stated).

 

So once again, I think in GENERAL, women are much better care givers and more qualified to raise young than the males. Although any intelligent male can certainly make up for those personal defficiencies with thought and effort, that generalization still holds in my opinion. Of course it cannot be used to form an opinion on a "thoth", "Azat", "Sip", or "Loreley" as each of those are individuals.

[Rubo]

I feel slight philosophical about this whole socio political arguments. Having lived under communism then capitalism and Reaganomics and libertarianism I feel certain things in life are just the way it is “NOT FAIR” is a common motto or a conviction, which comes from the mindset that life somehow must be fair. Nature does not recognize that at all. Is it fair that the hyena pack tears away buffalo to pieces?

I have no problem having any elite group controlling anything as long as I have my democracy and freedom to choose weather I want to play the game or create my life as I see it. When I was young I used to disrespect the rich, sneer at them but now I realize those rich people can afford to buy paintings, sculptures, support the ballet and symphony and generate buying power etc and often those people are the white elite gray hair executives that most everyone loath…

 

I guess I agree with everyone

[Azat]

Yes I have and I also have worked enough in large corporations and in public sector to realize why certain groups get ahead in life and some do not. 2 words: harder workers.

 

I think(I know many disagree with me) that it is not societal demand. It is a choice that people make. Having kids is a choice. I have chosen never to have kids myself. Does that mean I am willing to devote more of my time to work? Yes, most likely.

 

Also it is not society that puts the burden on the woman in the family to take care of the child, it is the the family deciding to do that because most likely she will be a better parent.

 

I really do think that the people of minority(sex or race) who read these statistics and blame the while men are doing more harm to themselves. It only takes hard work to get advanced. Nothing more. I think it is time to stop blaming society for everything and we need to start looking in the mirror for our own deficiencies.

[Azat]

My dear friend Thoth, I agree with the points that you made about men being nurturing and all that. I (even though I am not a father) am a very caring person and would have NO problem taking care of day to day problems with raising a child if I had one. I am sure I can be as good as my wife(I don't have a wife either)

 

However I disagree with you on the other aspects somewhat. True there is lots of subjective things involved when one hires a person, but I still believe that corporations have one very important goal and that is to make as much money as they can and they hire the right person for a given job.

 

Now as far as the false(yes it a completely false) statistic that you mentioned about women earning less money than men. The stat released by some governmental agency says something like equally qualified women earn 76.5 cents to that of a dollar of men on average in this country. What a bunch of BS. If this was true, and I was running a shop I would fire all the men in the shop and hire all women. After all that would mean a savings of some 23-24%. Just think how brilliant I would be to be able to cut my costs by 25%.

 

The bottom line, the governments assertion that women earn 76.5 cents is absurd. When one compares apples to apples women with the same experience, same number of years on the job, without time off for having kids and raising them earn the same as men.

 

American Enterprise Institute wrote that "No serious academic study claims that equally qualified women earn 73 cents to a man's dollar." They sited a Univ of Michigan study showing that a correct comparison shows that women earn 94 percent that of men earn. Studies by the Federal Reserve Bank of New York, National Science Foundation said the same thing.

 

Now you are going to ask me or tell me that you were right, women do earn less than men. Yes by 6% on Average for the same job, but there is a reason for that as well. According to the Independent Women's Forum, "The average wages of women are lower than those of men because the average woman has less work experience and is more likely to choose a lower-paying job that provides flexibility to combine work and family responsibilities." Now I think that that is a great thing. I am not putting women down for this at all. We should celebrate all this.

 

That 6 cent difference can also be attributed to many of the government programs that we have for women. Like maternity leave. After all you can't expect business to absorb these costs, they have to somehow pay for the short(yes I said short) period of time that women take off when they have kids.