To the editor:
The term “transpartisanship” represents an emerging field in political thought distinct from bipartisanship, which aims to negotiate between “right” and “left.” This is the definition that I discovered on Google after I read Erin Neff’s Thursday column on the topic.
Of course, this idea of negotiation sounds good to many. But sounding good and being good for the country are completely different.
In her column, Ms. Neff pointed out the disgusting environment in Washington, D.C. I realize that Ms. Neff was not taking a position one way or another on this emerging movement, so I will.
Being a business major, I understand the need for negotiation. But in the business world, negotiation does not ever lead to any utopia. There always has to be a give and take on both sides and neither side ever gets everything it wants. Mike McCurry seems to paint a pretty picture in which if we negotiate enough between the right and left we can solve every problem in the world. Just remember every time you negotiate you give up something.
Just how much are we as a nation willing to give up to create this world utopia? Liberals such as Mr. McCurry do not want us sacrificing the lives of our bravest Americans in Iraq to help the oppressed Muslims, but have no problem asking younger voters, particularly those in the 25 to 45 range, to get behind this movement, which is nothing short of socialism.
The baby boomers have seen socialism fail, but members of the target group for this movement have not — and that is what’s scary.
To the editor:
I’m not sure if it was the headline of Fred Hyatt’s op-ed piece in Wednesday’s Review-Journal (“Armenians hardly champions of human rights”) or the content of the commentary that was more offensive and equally inaccurate.
First of all, the nonbinding congressional resolution regarding genocide is a moral issue that has been relegated to political expediency for decades — because Turkey, which refuses to acknowledge its direct role in the deportation and massacre of more than 1 million Armenians, is viewed as a strategic ally. To not speak out against the “alleged” atrocities that have been clearly and carefully documented over the years would be to allow, once again, politics as usual to trump what is clearly right.
Second, I was in Armenia in 1996 during a sabbatical from the Community College of Southern Nevada, teaching English at the American University of Armenia. I had the opportunity to participate, through the offices of the Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe, in the first free elections in 70 years. Along with 80 other volunteers, including the U.S. ambassador to Armenia, I observed the election process from 6:30 a.m. until 3 a.m. the next day when all the ballots had been counted in all parts of the country.
Finally, Armenia, with few natural resources, has rebounded exceedingly well from the Soviet-imposed command economy; has not experienced turmoil within or with its neighbors, other than Azerbaijan; has installed a democratic-style government; and is assisted by not only the United States and other European nations, but by dozens of nongovernmental organizations, as well.
Peace will come to the conflict between Turks and Armenians when closure is finally allowed to occur, and closure will occur only when the debris is cleared from those truths history requires be acknowledged.