By Garen Yegparian
We all hope that Tuesday November 2 will mark the end of this election season–but the prognosticators say both sides of the Republocrat duopoly will be going after one another in the courts.
Anyone reading my writings clearly knows how vile I deem the current US regime to be. However–let’s look at it from an Armenian perspective–simply–rationally. Let’s also throw in the minor consideration that Armenia’s are human too. Then factor in the concern that any citizen has for his/her country’s well being.
Let’s get one thing out of the way. I’m no Kerry worshipper. I proudly supported Nader four years ago. The current Green Party candidate and its presidential nominee–David Cobb–have articulated a very intelligent position. In so-called safe states–vote FOR your choice–not AGAINST what you dread. Thus–it’s very sensible for Libertarians in Texas to vote for their candidate and Greens–theirs. Similarly in California–New York–most Southern states–etc.
However–one thing gives me pause about the wisdom of this approach. If indeed George is as bad as I claim–then it pays to have as many votes appear in his main opponent’s column to have a perceptibly resounding trouncing. This demonstrates the public’s disgust with Cheney and his puppet’s policies.
But back to whom Armenia’s should vote for. Bush–with his oil connections to Azerbaijan and desire to control the European Union through Turkey’s membership therein–is firmly in the Turkic camp. His genocide recognition avoidance–Armenia/Artzakh aid cutting–and rapid patching up of differences with Turkey after the latter’s denial of pre-Iraq-invasion access are just manifestations of this reality.
Has he done anything for us? Nope! nada–zip–vocheench–abadan–rien–heech–nichivo.
Even some of his big Armenian supporters from 2000 have been tepid towards the man they energetically supported before. What’s that tell you?
So why should any Armenian vote for this guy who stole an election four years ago?
Conversely–Kerry has a long record of supporting us during his tenure in office.
Clearly from an Armenian perspective–Kerry’s the choice. The ANC has made this endorsement.
More broadly–Bush/Cheney constitute a threat to the existence of our species. This regime’s environmental policies–warmongering–and blithe disregard of the adage "With great power comes great responsibility" have placed the course of human affairs on a dangerous track.
This whorehouse–er White House–has been nothing but a great big feedbag to the extremely wealthy sector of the country’s elite that implanted the neoconservatives in power. Everything is for sale. Nothing matters more than money–wealth–and property. The examples are legion. A so-called Clear Skies initiative that lets polluters off the hook. A Healthy Forests program that chops them down to save them. A presidency marked by a net loss of jobs for the first time since the Great Depression. Continued sale of lands with extractable minerals at 1870s prices. Underfunding its own No Child Left Behind program. And most of this was done duplicitously–sneakily–as the above named programs suggest. Cheney refuses to release the names of those he met with to develop energy policy. What’s he got to hide? Hundreds of anti-environmental regulations were implemented by this regime. They were usually announced on late Friday afternoons so no one–particularly the media–would notice. The much touted Medicare prescription changes that were supposed to provide seniors medication at lower cost has resulted in higher prices–as predicted by independent sources. Why would a citizen vote for someone who solemnly lies to him/her on a regular basis.
A major drive to have the people’s needs guide policy must be undertaken. The first step is to break the power of the extreme right wing. Vote for Democrats except for those Republicans who have supported Armenian issues. Then we’ll take on a revamping and clean the Democrats’ arrogant clock as well.
And–regardless of everything else–DO VOTE!
Since no one else is doing it–I’ve given myself the right to make recommendations to our community as to how to vote on the California initiatives–and a brief rationale as to why.
The more visible government operations are to the citizenry–the safer we are from abusive government–and this measure does so.
60 YES (see also 62)
This safeguards the right of voters affiliated with a political party to choose who will represent them.
Common sense–don’t waste money that doesn’t come from a recurring source. Use it for maximum benefit.
61 NO (see also 67)
This transfers the burden of public needs dispropor-tionately onto those who can least afford it. It’s a good idea done the wrong way. The issue probably wouldn’t even exist if the so-called "tax revolts" of the last quarter century hadn’t emasculated state government’s ability to provide for the common good.
62 NO (see also 60)
Imagine if Hunchags could choose to vote for who will represent Tashnags–Tashnags for Ramgavars–Ramgavars for Hunchags–and vice versa. Each party has it’s own ideology–why should an outsider have a say in who represents a member of an organization? Apply the same logic to members of the Sierra Club and NRA. This was done once and overturned by the courts. Why is it here again?
This properly places expectations for meeting a public need on the segment of society best able to afford it.
This effectively eliminates your right to sue when someone or a company is breaking the law or harming you indirectly. It is another example of attempting to kill a fly with a sledgehammer. Some abuses of existing law should be cracked down on–not the whole beneficial law repealed.
1A YES/65 NO
This safeguards the ability of cities and counties to provide the services their residents need and expect by preventing the state from not giving it to these jurisdictions. It is supported by the local authorities and the governor. It replaces 65–which the same forces initially wanted to implement.
This refines the roughest edges of an arguably bad law. It eliminates the specter of someone getting a life term in prison for stealing a loaf of bread!
67 NO (Same as 61)
An example: $13 billion of the $15 billion shortfall in state revenue last year could have been made up simply by reintro-ducing the 11% tax bracket eliminated less than ten years ago when the states coffer’s were fuller.
68 NO (see also 70)
Native Americans have suffered so much loss and usurpation of land and rights (much as Armenia’s have) that nothing which proposes to constrain them in any way is appropriate to enact. Besides–many of the tribes are recognized through treaties with the United States as sovereign. Passing this measure would be like trying to tell Canada what to do.
This measure looks good on the surface–but ends up giving far too much information about innocent citizens to government police agencies.
70 NO(Same as 68)
Due to the policies of the current US regime–the research this measure would pay for is now leaving the country. Once it comes to fruition–it will be a tremendous economic benefit to whatever jurisdiction has hosted it and a health benefit to all humanity.
Sometimes you can understand a measure by seeing who opposes it. Walmart recently gave $500,000 to the campaign opposing this measure. McDonalds has behaved similarly. These are among the most egregious abusers of low wage labor. All the measure does is oblige them to provide health coverage for their full time employees–which hardly seems unreasonable. And small businesses (less than 50 employees) will not be impacted by this measure despite the Inaccurate portrayals of the opposition.