Month: October 2008

  • Russia Hopes To Host Key Armenian-Azeri Summit

    Russia Hopes To Host Key Armenian-Azeri Summit

     

     

     

     

     

    By Ruzanna Stepanian

    Russian President Dmitry Medvedev on Tuesday publicly offered to host the next meeting between his Armenian and Azerbaijani counterparts which international mediators hope will produce a breakthrough in their protracted efforts to resolve the Nagorno-Karabakh conflict.

    “I hope that we are at an advanced stage,” Medvedev said during an official visit to Yerevan, commenting on the current state of the Karabakh peace process spearheaded by Russia, the United States and France.

    “I hope that the three presidents will meet very soon to continue discussions on this theme,” he said. “I hope that the meeting will take place in Russia.”

    The American, French and Russian co-chairs of the OSCE Minsk Group have been pressing the presidents of Armenia and Azerbaijan to meet in the coming weeks and iron out their remaining differences on a framework peace accord proposed by them last year. “Our understanding is that such meetings will take place shortly after the forthcoming [October 15] presidential elections in Azerbaijan,” Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov said earlier this month.

    Speaking at a joint news conference with Medvedev after their talks, President Serzh Sarkisian reiterated that the proposed peace deal is on the whole acceptable to the Armenian side because it upholds the Karabakh Armenians’ right to self-determination. “The main thing is that we believe the conflict can be resolved by mutual compromise and by means of negotiations,” he said.

    Medvedev said he and Sarkisian discussed the Karabakh conflict “in detail” but did not comment on chances of its near-term resolution, saying only that “both sides are ready to look for solutions.”

    The two leaders also discussed the broader security situation in the region in the aftermath of Russia’s recent war in Georgia as well as Russian-Armenian economic relations. The latter issue was the main theme of a separate Medvedev-Sarkisian session that was attended by members of the Russian-Armenian inter-governmental commission on economic cooperation.

    The commission met in Yerevan on Monday. Medvedev noted the fact that Russia remains Armenia’s number one trading partner.

    According to Armenia’s National Statistical Service, the volume of Russian-Armenian trade rose by almost 20 percent year-on-year to $482.4 million in the first eight months of this year. The figure is equivalent to 14.65 percent of Armenia’s overall foreign trade turnover registered in this period.

    “Our current economic relations are impressive but tend to lag behind our political relations,” Sarkisian said, calling for the launch “large-scale joint projects.” He said he and Medvedev discussed potential Russian involvement in two such projects: the planned construction of a new Armenian nuclear plant and an Armenia-Iran railway.

    Medvedev said Moscow “will do everything to strengthen and develop our strategic partnership” with Armenia as he and Sarkisian inaugurated a square in central Yerevan named after Russia earlier in the day. “I am convinced that coordinated actions in the international arena is a serious factor of security and strengthening of our positions both in the Caucasus region and the world,” he said.

    “Today this square is becoming yet another symbol of loyalty to the traditions of centuries-old brotherhood and spiritual kinship between our peoples,” Sarkisian said during the ceremony.

  • 86 on Trial in Turkish Coup Case

    86 on Trial in Turkish Coup Case

    By SABRINA TAVERNISE and SEBNEM ARSU
    Published: October 20, 2008

    SILIVRI, Turkey — One of the most sensational public trials in Turkish history began Monday, as a court started hearing a case against 86 people — among them retired army generals, journalists and a former university rector — charged with assassinations, bomb attacks and trying to topple the government.

    The focus of the case is a secret, ultranationalist group named Ergenekon, a word that refers to a legend about the genesis of the Turkish people. Prosecutors say the defendants worked together, using violence to try to create chaos in society and weaken public support for the government in order to pave the way for a coup.

    The charges, unveiled this summer in a 2,455-page indictment, include the murders of a judge, priest, journalist and three Christian publishing house employees, as well as the bombing of a newspaper. The group is also charged with plotting to kill public figures, including Orhan Pamuk, a Turkish novelist who won the Nobel Prize in Literature in 2006.

    Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdogan, whose governing party, Justice and Development, is said to have been a prominent target in the plots, has been accused of using the case to silence critics who say his party has an Islamist agenda.

    One of the defendants, Tuncay Ozkan, a journalist and the founder of a television network, Kanalturk, was a principal organizer of antigovernment rallies that drew hundreds of thousands into the streets last year.

    Turkey is a democracy with an elected government, but a powerful elite of military officers, judges and senior bureaucrats has helped steer the country since its inception in 1923, carrying out four coups. This trial is the first real attempt in Turkish history to prosecute the leaders of this country’s violent nationalist fringe, who prosecutors say have had links to the elite.

    The case has riveted Turkish society because public criticism of the military, a vaunted institution in Turkey, is extremely rare. The military has denied any role in the plots; the officers identified in the indictment are all retired.

    Prosecutors say the Ergenekon organization is the Turkish equivalent of the Italian Gladio network, a code name for operatives who infiltrated Italian society after World War II to counter Communism and who were responsible for a series of political assassinations and bombings in the 1970s. Turkey, according to the indictment, has allowed Ergenekon “to turn our country into a mafia and terror haven.”

    Lawyers for the defendants questioned the extent of the connections that prosecutors seemed to be drawing among people from different, often opposing, backgrounds.

    Vahdettin Erdem, a lawyer for Dogu Perincek, the leader of a nationalist political party and one of the accused, said in an interview that the case was more about politics than law and that it contained many irrelevant and unfounded accusations. One of the documents prosecutors are using to charge Mr. Perincek is from part of his party platform calling for changes in the way the Turkish state is organized, which has been public for years, Mr. Erdem said.

    “This indictment is a work of people who cannot bear political opposition,” he said.

    The trial opened in a chaotic, crowded courtroom in a prison complex 50 miles west of Istanbul. A noisy throng of the suspects’ supporters waved flags outside the entrance to the prison, hurling insults at Mr. Erdogan’s party. The government has put 19 witnesses under protection.

    Prosecutors began investigating last year, when the police, acting on a telephone tip, raided an apartment in Istanbul and found a cache of hand grenades that had the same identifying number as those used in a bomb attack on the offices of Cumhuriyet, a pro-military newspaper, in 2006. Authorities believe the attack was a provocation not aimed at the military but intended to discredit its opponents.

    The police later arrested several suspects, including Veli Kucuk, a retired general, who is accused of having been the mastermind behind several recent political murders, including that of a judge last year.

    Other defendants include Ilhan Selcuk, the top columnist at Cumhuriyet; Kemal Kerincsiz, an ultranationalist lawyer; Kemal Yalcin Alemdaroglu, a former Istanbul University rector; and Adil Sacan, the former chief of Istanbul’s organized crime unit.

    Most of the evidence is from hours of tapped phone conversations, as well as classified documents taken from suspects, including ones that include plans for attacks on Turkey’s Supreme Court and NATO buildings.

    A document in a laptop computer found during a raid on a nationalist group outlined what to do if anyone from Mr. Erdogan’s party were to take the presidency. The indictment said the plan was for “shock assassinations” of Greek and Armenian religious leaders in Turkey, as well as a prominent Jewish businessman, Ishak Alaton.

    But there was no violence after Abdullah Gul, a party member, became president in 2007, and it was unclear whether there was ever any attempt to attack members of his party.

    Turkey has had glimpses of state ties to the criminal underworld in the past. In 1996, a former police chief and a mob boss who were sworn enemies in public died together when their Mercedes crashed on a highway. In 2006, two undercover military officers were caught after planting a bomb in a Kurdish-owned bookstore that killed one person.

    NYTimes

  • On Turkish Liberals

    On Turkish Liberals

    Ahmet Ergelen

    Sabrina Tavernise’s article with the title In Turkey, Bitter Feud Has Roots in History in the June 22, 2008 issue of New York Times immediately fueled the existing debate in Turkey over the country’s political future. From the whole article alone the quote from Dengir Mir Firat, the Vice-President of the ruling AKP that ‘the Turkish society has been traumatized’ by Mustafa Kemal Ataturk’s social reforms made it to the headlines, which is hardly surprising as Mr.Firat has been a front-runner in provoking discussions on the foundations of the Turkish Republic.

    On the whole the article seems to be all too quick a wrap-up of an otherwise quite ambitious title and too brief an account of things it appears to have insight into; very typical of most western media channels which don’t seem to have time for adequately analyzing the roots of socio-political phenomena outside their borders. Ms. Tavernise’s report relies heavily on the viewpoint of the ‘liberals’ of Turkey who actually belong to some of the most privileged socio-economic tiers of society themselves. Ironically she looks at the very elite of Turkey who benefits immensely from supporting unquestioningly the roles the western capitalist world would like to assign to their country. This self-righteous group of intellectuals has had the best and most direct access among their fellow citizens to the societies of the West. Many of them graduated from its universities or attended foreign private high schools in Turkey. There is a strong bond between the Western policy-makers and Turkish liberals. It is therefore hardly surprising that many reviews from the West on Turkey quote them often to vindicate their pre-formed opinions.

    Turkish liberals are convinced that the political tug-of-war is between the ‘secular’ elite of the country (i.e. the state bureaucrats and the armed forces) who has actually run the country for decades and the ‘democratic’ representatives of the ordinary people who happen to have always been conservatives across the board. Jounalists from abroad tend to accept this explanation without giving it a second thought.

    Such an effort to simplify matters and make the issue digestible to the foreign public opinion leaves a considerable part of the electorate out of the equation. After all, 53% did not vote for AKP in the July 22 elections of last year. Among the 53% were also the white-collar and middle-class tax payers, many of them women, for example, who appeared in millions in pro-republic demonstrations in the spring of 2007 against the move by the governing AKP to appoint either the prime minister himself or one of the other two leading members of the party to presidency – thus removing another leg of the checks and balances of the system. So there is more than ‘the old guard’ rhetoric to be taken into account when millions of people are alarmed by the acts of the AKP government which steer the country toward a climate reminiscent of the final dark years of the Ottoman Empire in the beginning of the 20th Century: ‘The sick man on the Bosporus’ up for grabs by the interventionist foreign capital.

    With roughly 70% of the market stocks in the hands of foreign nationals, a soaring foreign debt and very high interest rates (just under 20%) one can hardly speak of a country’s sovereignty in economic terms. While the outlook for EU membership is much more bleak than before the signing of agreements by Mr. Erdogan as the head of the AKP cabinet to start accession negotiations, the ‘Islamisation’ of society has gained momentum, making it drift further from its European objectives. Who could argue that the leading EU member states will not capitalize on this fact to use it as a pretext to block Turkey’s membership?

    What the liberals mean by AKP’s policies being too ‘rushed’ or ‘fast’ remains unclear in the article: Does it mean that they fully support the social transition towards a dogmatic way of life –starting with the schools- and fear that a large portion of the population will wake up in time to provide opposition? Whatever they think the state prosecutor’s office had no choice but to submit its indictment against AKP to the Constitutional Court on the grounds that one of the inalterable paragraphs of the constitution defining the Turkish Republic as a secular state had been violated by the AKParty. In the end the judges did convict the party of the prosecutor’s charges with an overwhelming majority vote of 10 to 1. The punishment fell short of closing the party altogether, but included withholding half of this year’s state funds allocated to it for election campaigns.

    Upon the appeal to the high court the Western spokesmen and spokeswomen had in general acted swiftly in support of AKP against the Turkish Judiciary. They did not seem to be as moved, though, by anti-democratic actions of the AKP government itself such as the labor demonstration which was crushed by violent police action in Istanbul as recently as May 1st, 2008. The divisive ‘you are either with us or against us’ philosophy of the party has also been conveniently overlooked by the media of the developed world. Party loyalty and affiliation to religious groups alone have been the qualifications sought in the appointment of almost every critical position in the state structure. An Islamic version of every interest group whether labor unions or businessmen’s association has been created as an alternative to directly support the party. Not only the Sabah group, but over half of the media force in Turkey is firmly in the hands of AKP-affiliated businesses. Most of the ‘liberal’ journalists are embedded in those channels with fat salaries. Maybe the conflict should actually be characterized as being between Turkey’s liberal elite in alliance with the West and those who stand up for the original values of the republic.

    Furthermore other critical ‘peculiarities’ about Turkish democracy remain to be reported: There is still a 10% threshold in the election system, unparalleled by any other European democracy, which not only keeps minority representation out of the parliament, but also bolsters especially the front runner with undeserved additional seats. The law on the formation of political parties also exhibits fundamental flaws such as allowing a party leadership to do away with primaries: The current MPs were all hand-picked by their leaders prior to the elections.

    Going back to Mr. Firat’s comments that the country was traumatized by the reforms of the Republic: What exactly were these reforms and why are they currently being relentlessly attacked by Turkish liberals who are the foremost beneficiaries of them? They were basically related to, but far more extensive than the modernization attempts made during the late Ottoman era. At the right time (victory over the invading armies of the West) and under the right leadership (Mustafa Kemal, a master strategist and statesman) the time was ripe to take every bold step toward equality with developed societies of the world.

    Turkish reforms took place roughly between right before the proclamation of the republic in 1923 and and the second half of the thirties before Ataturk’s death in 1938. The push for development in education contiued well into World WarII. Not necessarily overnight as the trauma theorists claim. Moreover the whole process was overseen by the elected members of the Turkish parliament.

    Thanks to them the idea of the individual as the citizen of the country was secured with equal rights and responsibilities against the law regardless of sex, race, religion or ethnic origin. Consequently the civil code brought women and men to an equal position for the first time. Women also enjoyed the right to vote in elections as well as the right to be elected to the parliament. Being in the heart of the transformation the legislation toward a comprehensive emancipation of the woman may well have caused a ‘trauma’ among those who did not want to relinquish their privileged status in society especially against the female sex which had remained inferior in the traditional Ottoman social structure for centuries!

    When the Arabic script was abandoned for Latin in 1928 there were special schools established to re-educate the adults as well as children. If the criticism is directed at people’s being rendered unable to read the holy Koran in its original Arabic, one has to ask himself what percent of the population was literate at the end of the Ottoman Centuries (roughly 7% according to Turgut Özakman, a popular playwright and researcher of Turkish history in the last century). How many of the literates could really understand the holy script when they read it? Besides, as far as Turkish was concerned, the Arabic alphabet did not support many sounds in the language. The reader had to tell from the context alone to make out the true meaning of the word. The Latin alphabet as employed by the reformists provided, on the other hand, a truly phonetic script for the language. The pros and cons of the change were weighed against each other before any action was taken.

    The reforms of the early republican era did create the favorable conditions for the emergence of a generation of educated minds who catapulted the country from the verge of oblivion to the doorstep of united Europe. If a similar climate had existed during the Ottoman years, it could have helped rejuvenate the Sultan’s state. But it did not. The founding generation of the Turkish Republic was, after all, brought up in the late Ottoman Society. Its members learned their lesson from decades of wars, lost territories and human trajedy. They had the courage to transform themselves into a modern nation deserving to stand on its own feet. In practice, the reformist steps taken were not without shortcomings or disillusionments, of course.

    The fault, then, must lie with the following generations of intellectuals who did not have their parents’ resolve to overcome these shortcomings of their regime. Instead, particularly after world War II, they chose the apparent comfort of leaning against a superpower and receiving aid in wherever there was a shortage. The latest generation of Turkey’s actual (economic) elite therefore, could not have acted any other way than live on in such convenience that is reserved for them in return for inactivity when the rest of the population is kept in the dark.

    If Ms. Tavernise had really looked into history carefully, she could have found other aspects of the Turkish experience which may have provided a more comprehensive picture of today’s events than served by her fellow liberals of Turkey.

    Ahmet Ergelen, September 2008

  • As Talks with Azeris/Turks Falter, Armenia Expands Access to Georgia/Iran

    As Talks with Azeris/Turks Falter, Armenia Expands Access to Georgia/Iran



    Publisher, The California Courier
    Senior Contributor, USA Armenian Life Magazine
    The budding relationship between Armenia and Turkey, which started with last month’s “football diplomacy” with much fanfare and high expectations, is facing serious difficulties.
    While no one expected a quick resolution of the long-standing issues stemming from the Genocide and its persistent denial by Turkey, few anticipated that the nascent rapprochement would falter so quickly.
    After a very friendly and hopeful first meeting between the presidents and foreign ministers of Armenia and Turkey, occasioned by the unprecedented soccer match between their national teams on September 6 in Yerevan, it appears that the Artsakh (Karabagh) conflict is the main reason for the sudden rift.
    To begin with, it was strange that the presidents of Armenia and Turkey did not hold a follow-up meeting during their attendance of the U.N. General Assembly sessions in New York in late September. When Pres. Gul was asked by Turkish journalists why no meeting was scheduled with the Armenian President, he first said he was not aware that Pres. Sargsyan was coming to New York and then assured them that they would run into each other during one of many diplomatic receptions. Despite such optimistic talk, the two presidents never meet. They may have been waiting for the outcome of discussions between the foreign ministers of Armenia, Azerbaijan and Turkey who met on the last day of their stay in New York.
    On September 28, two days after Pres. Sargsyan left New York, he told reporters that there were “no concrete results yet” from the foreign ministers’ meeting and that he had not expected much from their encounter.
    On the same day, Pres. Gul confirmed that there had not been any significant movement to merit the lifting of the blockade of Armenia. Taking a tough stand, he told a Turkish group that “no talks on border opening are possible before Armenia’s liberation of Azerbaijani territories,” according to the AzeriTaj news agency. Thus, Pres. Gul was reverting to Turkey’s previous preconditions that had been long rejected by the Armenian side. A senior aide to Azerbaijan’s president, in his turn, confirmed this week that several serious issues remain unresolved on the Artsakh issue.
    Ankara and Baku assumed that since the Georgian-Russian conflict had temporarily deprived Armenia of the opportunity to import more than 70% of its vital supplies from Georgia’s Black Sea ports, this was the ideal time to force Yerevan into making serious concessions on the Genocide issue and the Artsakh conflict.
    Whether it was coincidence or not, several major initiatives announced by Pres. Sargsyan last week had the effect of countering the hard-line taken by Ankara and Baku in their recent negotiations with Armenia, and dispelling the false impression that Yerevan is desperately seeking to reopen the border with Turkey at any cost.
    Pres. Sargsyan announced during his last week’s visit to Tbilisi that he had reached an agreement with Pres. Saakashvili to jointly build a modern highway that would considerably shorten the transport time between the Georgian Port of Batumi and Yerevan.
    In a nationally televised speech delivered for the first time in the Armenian Parliament — akin to the State of the Union address by American presidents before the U.S. Congress — Pres. Sargsyan announced that a new railway would be constructed to link Iran with Armenia, to facilitate and expand trade between the two countries. He also said that Armenia would build a new nuclear power plant to ensure that the country remains energy self-sufficient when its aging plant is shut down. Finally, he stated that a Pan-Armenian Bank and an investment fund would be established in Yerevan to finance these projects. He said that these “large and daring initiatives” would solve Armenia’s important strategic and economic problems.
    Along with these major programs, Armenia just formed a new Diaspora Ministry to streamline and strengthen its relations with millions of Armenians living abroad. On September 24, during a major banquet in New York, Pres. Sargsyan gave the 700 Armenian guests an uplifting message of unity, urging them to join forces for the betterment of Armenia and the Diaspora. He also thanked all those assisting in the resolution of the Artsakh conflict, “the condemnation of the Armenian Genocide, and the restoration of historical justice.”
    These new initiatives are bound to improve Armenia’s bargaining hand and help negotiate with Turkey and Azerbaijan from a position of strength. The expansion of Armenia’s alternate land routes through Georgia and Iran would considerably diminish the utility of opening the border with Turkey and circumvent more effectively the blockades imposed by Ankara and Baku.
    While Armenian officials do want to improve relations with all of their neighbors, they are not so desperate as to make unacceptable concessions on the Genocide and Artsakh issues.
  • how to reach a decision on voting for one candidate over another.

    how to reach a decision on voting for one candidate over another.

    While Obama Adopts Sound Position on Crucial Issues, McCain Beats Around the “Bush” 
    By Appo Jabarian
    Executive Publisher & Managing Editor
    Friday, October 10, 2008

    During this presidential election season, many readers have asked me how to reach a decision on voting for one candidate over another.

    The process that I have adopted during this and many other election seasons has enabled me to reach a decision that I can live with.

    The determining factor is the candidates’ position on the most important issues for me as an Armenian American. Each candidate’s intellectual preparedness, honesty, courage, sense of initiative, overall presence and manner are also important.

    In my opinion, the most important issues are:

    1. Armenian Cause/The Armenian Genocide;
    2. Economy;
    3. Foreign Policy;
    4. War In Iraq;
    5. Tax Policy;
    6. Healthcare Policy;
    7. Corruption/Greed in government and major corporations.

    During the past several weeks, the two major parties’ presidential candidates, Sen. John McCain (R-AZ), and Sen. Barack Obama (D-IL) have expressed their opinion and position. On Tuesday October 7, they have reiterated their ideas during the second presidential debate in Nashville, TN.

    Below is the compilation of their position on each of the issues:

    1. Armenian Genocide
    Sen. McCain sparked controversy on Tuesday, February 29, 2008 when he said that he would not support a congressional resolution calling on the government of Turkey to acknowledge the 1915 Armenian Genocide.
    Sen. Obama wrote in June 2008: “The United States must recognize the events of 1915 to 1923, carried out by the Ottoman Empire, as genocide…. We must recognize this tragic reality. The Bush Administration’s refusal to do so is inexcusable, and I will continue to speak out in an effort to move the Administration to change its position.”

    2. Economy
    Sen. McCain misguidedly said on Sept. 15 that the “fundamentals” of the U.S. economy were “strong.” During the primary election season, he has admitted that the economy is not his expertise. Although he has promised reform and expressed optimism about its future, most Americans remain skeptical about his ability to lead America into better economic times.
    Sen. Obama has continuously shown deep understanding of the economic woes faced by the majority of fellow Americans, and has genuinely vowed to take bold initiatives to make life more bearable for the Main Street, and not let Wall Street get away with greed and corruption.

    3. Foreign Policy
    Sen. McCain’s foreign policy statements sound similar to the current Republican Pres. George W. Bush’s positions on crucial issues ranging from the war in Iraq to confrontation/cooperation with Russia. Many independent observers rate the current U.S. foreign policy as the poorest in many decades. They also agree that it was under Bush that the United States experienced the greatest loss of prestige in the international political arena.

    Sen. Obama offers a high level of understanding of the international issues affecting the United States. On many occasions, he has illustrated that he has the ability to launch a fresh and insightful beginning, bringing this country out of its current confrontational modus operandi. Under Pres. Obama, the United States would offer to its potential adversaries both diplomacy and decisiveness backed by military firmness.

    4. War In Iraq
    Sen. McCain has shown poor judgment in claiming that the war in Iraq would be “swift and short” and that the American soldiers would be welcomed as “liberators.” He was wrong. Pres. Bush’s claims for “Weapons of Mass Destruction” proved to be Words of Mass Distraction. During a town hall meeting in Derry, New Hampshire on Jan. 3, Sen. McCain told a crowd of roughly two hundred people that it “would be fine with” him if the U.S. military stayed in Iraq for “a hundred years!”
    Sen. Obama stresses that it was a mistake to send U.S. troops to Iraq when in fact they were direly needed for a more effective military campaign to confront and root out Al-Qaeda and the other anti-U.S. militants in Afghanistan and Pakistan. He offers a responsible and gradual deployment of U.S. troops out of Iraq, and encouragement of firm increase of Iraqi responsibility in running that country. Obama stresses the fact that the U.S. taxpayers should be relieved from the $10 billion a month burden of financing that misguided war, and that the Iraqi government which has a surplus of nearly $80 billion, should spend its own money in governing its people.

    5. Tax Policy
    Sen. McCain offers to reduce taxes for the top 5-7% of the taxpayers, namely the oil companies and other major corporations and their executives.
    Sen. Obama vows to oppose such elitist taxation policy pursued by Sen. McCain. He considers McCain’s lavish tax breaks for the super rich an increase of federal spending costing the taxpayers over $350 billion. Instead, he proposes tax reduction for 95% of the taxpayers. He offers tax reduction to those who make $200,000/year or less.

    6. Healthcare Policy
    Sen. McCain offers $5,000 tax rebate to every citizen. He offers them to go out and buy their own insurance. Yet the recipients of such rebates would have to pay additional taxes and won’t be able to buy health insurance at that price.
    While Sen. McCain thinks that healthcare is a “responsibility” without making it clear as whose responsibility, Sen. Obama underlines that healthcare is a “right” which should be enjoyed by every citizen. He insists on healthcare for everyone fostered by the federal government.

    7. Corruption/Greed in government and major corporations
    Sen. McCain, a 26-year veteran member of the Washington establishment, and a longtime ally of major business circles, is closely connected with special interests that have “demanded” and received deregulation of the financial industry. As a direct result of the deregulation policies championed by elected officials like Sen. McCain, corruption and greed has infested the U.S. financial markets. During the second debate, he proposed further bailout of the abusive mortgage lenders by way of buying bad loans costing an additional $300 billion above and beyond the recent $700 billion bailout promoted by Pres. Bush.

    Sen. Obama criticized the corruption and greed on Wall Street and in the corridors of corporate America. He even called for apprehending those corrupt corporate executives and getting the U.S. taxpayers’ monies back. He stressed the importance of re-establishing the federal regulations for the purpose of taming the uncontrollable financial appetites and of taking away the “golden parachutes” of certain corporate officials.
    I hope the above facts can be instrumental in helping our readers reach a healthy decision. As for my decision, my choice is clear between the 20th century candidate Sen. McCain and the 21st century candidate Sen. Obama.

    My support and vote go to Sen. Barack Obama.

  • AMERIKADA SECIM HILELERI VE OBAMA – A Mighty Hoax from ACORN Grows

    AMERIKADA SECIM HILELERI VE OBAMA – A Mighty Hoax from ACORN Grows

    by Michael Winship

    ACORN and election fraud. Hang on. As soon as I can get the alligator that crawled out of my toilet back into the New York City sewers where it belongs, I can turn my attention to this very important topic.

    You see, the ACORN “election fraud” story is one of those urban legends, like fake moon landings and alligators in the sewers, and it appears three or four weeks before every recent national election with the regularity of the swallows returning to Capistrano.

    First, the basics: ACORN, which stands for the Association of Community Organizations for Reform Now, is an activist group working with low and moderate income families that, among many other things, registers voters. To do this they hire people to go around signing up the unregistered, killing two birds with one stone — giving employment to people who need it (some with criminal records) and providing the opportunity to vote to members of minority communities whose voices all too often go unheard.

    What happens is that some of those hired to do the registering, who are paid by the name, make people up. As a result, you’ll discover that among the registrants are such obvious fakes as Mickey Mouse and the starting line-up of the Dallas Cowboys, among others.

    This is where the Republican meme kicks in. As they have in past elections (although now louder and more angrily than ever), the GOP has made ACORN the red flag du jour as the party tries to mobilize its conservative base and, allegedly, attempts to suppress the vote and distract attention from accusations of election tampering made against them, too.

    The charge is that these fake registrations will create havoc at the polls. On Tuesday morning, former Republican Senators John Danforth and Warren Rudman, chairs of Senator McCain’s Honest and Open Elections Committee, held a press conference and described the results of the bad seeds in ACORN’s registration program as “a potential nightmare.” Danforth said he was concerned “that this election night and the days that follow will be a rerun of 2000, and even worse than 2000.”

    John McCain raised it at Wednesday night’s final debate and went further, adding, “We need to know the full extent of Senator Obama’s relationship with ACORN, who [sic] is now on the verge of maybe perpetrating one of the greatest frauds in voter history in this country, maybe destroying the fabric of democracy…”

    Obama replied, “ACORN is a community organization. Apparently, what they have done is they were paying people to go out and register folks. And apparently, some of the people who were out there didn’t really register people; they just filled out a bunch of names. Had nothing to do with us. We were not involved.”

    Which is not to say Obama has not been associated with ACORN in the recent past. He has. As he said in the debate, as a lawyer, he joined with the group in partnership with the US Justice Department to implement a motor voter registration law in Illinois — allowing folks to register to vote at their local DMV. His work as a community organizer bought him into contact with ACORN, the organization received money from the Woods Fund while he was a board member there and his presidential campaign gave ACORN more than $800,000 to help with get out the vote campaigns during the primary season — but not, apparently, for registration drives.

    All of this distracts from several important points. ACORN has registered 1.3 million voters, and maintains that in virtually every instance they are the ones who have reported the incidents of fraud.

    As the organization asserted in a response to Senator McCain, “ACORN hired 13,000 field workers to register people to vote. In any endeavor of this size, some people will engage in inappropriate conduct. ACORN has a zero tolerance policy and terminated any field workers caught engaging in questionable activity. At the end of the day, as ACORN is paying these people to register voters, it is ACORN that is defrauded.” Arrests have been made, as well they should be.

    Add to this the simple fact that registration fraud is not election fraud. Seventy-five, made-up people who are registered as, say, “Brad Pitt,” are not likely going to show up at some polling place on November 4 to vote in the election. Because they don’t exist. (Besides, Angelina would never give them time off from babysitting duties.)

    Granted, there are ways to mail in an absentee ballot under a fake name and, too, from time to time some joker is going to come to the polls and try to bluff his or her way in. But despite the charge that thousands and thousands of fakes will flood the machines and throw the count, it does not happen very often. And according to ACORN, “Even RNC [Republican National Committee] General Counsel Sean Cairncross has recently acknowledged he is not aware of a single improper vote cast as a result of bad cards submitted in the course of an organized voter registration effort.”

    Not that this has stopped the GOP from banging the same drum every national election. And amnesiac members of the media and some government agencies from buying into it every time. Last year, The New York Times reported that the federal Election Assistance Commission, created by the Help America Vote Act, legislation enacted after the Florida debacle, was told by a pair of experts — one Republican, the other described as having “liberal leanings” — that there was not that much fraud to be found. But their conclusions were downplayed.

    As per the Times, “Though the original report said that among experts ‘there is widespread but not unanimous agreement that there is little polling place fraud,’ the final version of the report released to the public concluded in its executive summary that ‘there is a great deal of debate on the pervasiveness of fraud.’”

    Which raises the ongoing investigation of the Justice Department’s firing of those eight US attorneys shortly after President Bush’s re-election. It shouldn’t be forgotten that despite official explanations, half of them were let go after refusing to prosecute vote fraud charges demanded by Republicans. The attorneys had determined there was little or no evidence of skullduggery; certainly not enough to prosecute.

    (In an interview with Talking Points Memo on Thursday, one of those fired, David Iglesias, reacted to reports that the FBI has launched an investigation of ACORN: “I’m astounded that this issue is being trotted out again. Based on what I saw in 2004 and 2006, it’s a scare tactic.”)

    What’s equally if not more scary are continued allegations of Republican attempts at “caging” minority voters — making challenge lists of African- and Hispanic-Americans registered in heavily Democratic districts. Just this week, a Federal judge in Michigan ruled that voters could not be purged from the rolls in that state simply because their mailing address was invalid — this followed a failed attempt by a Michigan Republican county chairman to use a list of foreclosed homes as the basis of voter challenges.

    This comes on the heels of a recent report from the Brennan Center at New York University documenting how state officials — often with the best of intentions — purge huge numbers of perfectly legal voters from the rolls.

    As my colleague Bill Moyers reported, “Hundreds of thousands of legal voters may have been dumped in recent years, many without ever being notified.” The report describes a “process that is shrouded in secrecy, prone to error, and vulnerable to manipulation.”

    Hardly reassuring words if you want democracy to work, and sadly, not an urban legend, but the simple truth.

    Michael Winship is senior writer of the weekly public affairs program Bill Moyers Journal, which airs Friday night on PBS. Check local airtimes or comment at The Moyers Blog at www.pbs.org/moyers.