Re: 7291: Lauture (My last post on this topic) (fwd)

[Bob Corbett <corbetre@webster.edu>]

Anonymous
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

Dear defender of Lauture,

You write:
> 1. Old Haitian family means of Haitian origins >
preceding independence as opposed to recent(20th >
century) immigrants to Haiti ... 
I hate to belabor this point but just about 98% of all
Haitians can trace their lineage back to ancestors who
lived in Haiti before independence. Therefore, using
"old Haitian" as adjectives to define Gladys Lauture's
family does not mean anything to me. However, the
terminology you use implies another, very elitist
meaning, i.e. Lauture is of some "noble" extraction,
which is laughable at best.

You write:
> 2. Mrs. Lauture was associated with the Michelle
> Bennetts foundation when MBD 
> decided to try to do something positive.
You know, and I know, that Lauture's relationship with
MBD did NOT start with the Foundation. Without going
into details, Lauture was already involved in buying
sprees (at the expense of the Haitian treasury) on
behalf of MBD. And by the way, no one suggested that
the "accomplishments" of MBD be destroyed.
 
> 3. There are many people in Haiti who associate
> and/or flatter the current 
> government to protect their private or public
> entreprise, including their 
> charities.  ... Now that they've died they were
> great revolutionaries.  The 
> fact that Izmerys, Lauture and others (maybe Archim
> included) flatter the 
> powers does not make it right but it is common
> practice in Haiti. 

Just because something is common practice in Haiti
means that we have to accept it? My greatest
disappointment with Lavalas is that it was supposed to
do away (or at least minimize) this unfair access to
power that some people have had for decades. Was I
naive in believing that Aristide would somehow be able
to undo this "etat de choses"? In hindsight, probably.
But as a matter of principle, your defense of a
practice which you acknowledge to be unfair, is not
acceptable. 
 
> 4.  There is confirmation that half a million
> dollars was spent on dishes, 
> glasses, and utensils for the inauguration.

Thank you for confirming that, although once again the
exact amount was $569,000. At $711.25 per set of
Limoges, that's about twice the annual per capita
income of the average Haitian. Also, I simply do not
buy the argument that the National Palace needs 800
sets of Limoges, as you claim. Furthermore, you should
know that some of the wares were purchased after the
return of Aristide in 1994. The claim that the last
purchase goes back to Prosper Avril's days is simply
not true.
 

> ... If Lauture was in charge of
> the purchase it is 
> probably because Aristide thought that his poorer
> friends would use the money 
> for opening a foreign bank account and leave his
> guests to eat with plastics.

Really? You are implying that Lauture is so rich that
she has no need to steal. Where does that fortune come
from, once again?

Also why was she put in charge of such a purchase in
the first place? She has no official title in the
government or at the palace. Furthermore, the National
Palace has an ADMINISTRATOR (Jacques Debrosse) whose
responsibility it is to handle such purchases. Why go
through a middle person when he can contact suppliers
directly? I can assure you that Gladys did not do it
for free.

Finally, why should Aristide's FRIENDS be involved in
matters that should be left to professionals? You seem
to know a LOT more than what you let on. Is it the
habit of Aristide to bypass the administration and
give to third parties assignments that they should not
be given? Is it a way for him to reward his friends
(i.e. the friends place the purchase, add 10 to 25% on
top that they get to keep, and bill the government for
the marked-up amount?) If that is the case, then
Aristide has a lot of explaining to do to the Cour
Superieure des Comptes and to the Haitian people.

> ... The question of where
> these government place 
> their priorities remains, but should not fall on
> Gladys Lauture exclusively.

I agree.

> 6.  Finally I would like to add that people demonize
> women much more than 
> they do men.  Mrs.  Lauture is not an angel but she
> is well-known for being 
> devoted to Aristide since before he was well-known
> as she will go very far to 
> help others who she thinks are trying to do
> something positive.  She is now a 
> mythical figure in Haitian politics because she
> meddles in just about 
> everything.  When she asks that something be done by
> a government official, 
> it usually gets done.  She is very protective of
> Aristide and she is trying 
> to help what she perceives as a good cause.  Most
> educated Haitians hate to 
> see others accomplish anything while they sit around
> talking about what they 
> could do but do not understand the concept of work,
> particularly work that 
> gets their hands dirty .  Jealousy creates
> distruction.  Haitian Women get 
> things accomplished.  Haitian Men hate to admit that
> things can get 
> accomplished.

I decided to break one of the cardinal rules of the
Corbett list, and I have listed your point #6 in its
entirety. That's because it embodies all of what is
wrong with Lauture and people of her ilk. It is also a
remarkable admission by you that she probably has done
some, if not all, that she has been accused of in this
forum. (I would not want to have you as my lawyer.)

In particular:

a. Indeed there is quite a heavy dose of machismo in
Haiti, and I am sure that Lauture is being accused
more than the others because of her gender. In my case
(I am a man), however, gender has nothing to do with
it. As the most visible powerbroker at the moment
(male or female), it is natural that people would
focus on her. Had this list been in existence during
the JC Duvalier years, we would be talking instead of
Jean-Marie Chanoine, Frantz Merceron, Serge Fourcand,
Alix Cineas, etc. Lauture is a "victim" of
circumstances and technology, in this case.

b. You have gone from presenting a "saint" (in your
first post) to defending the controversial behavior of
Lauture, while acknowledging in the process that she
may have dabbled in improper actions. Quite a
turnaround in such a short period of time!

c. I learn from you that she gives orders to
government officials so that things can get done.
Again, this confirms my comments in my earlier posts
that she has many officials on a short leash. My
problem is that, last I checked, I did not vote for
Lauture on May 21st of last year. If Aristide has to
go through her to get things done, then he has a HUGE
problem. In fact we need to explore this
Aristide-Lauture relationship, as it does not make
sense to me. Is Aristide hostage of Lauture's deeds?
If yes, that means that he willingly approved of some
of the things she did. In that case, then maybe he
deserves to leave office as well for having betrayed
his own and for having participated in illegal
activities.

d. There is nothing to be jealous about when it comes
to Lauture. I am very content earning my living and
supporting my family working in an honest fashion,
rather than having to swim constantly in the cesspool
around Lauture to make millions. As far as I am
concerned, she and her cronies can keep their dirty
money. It is too bad that she had to make her real
fortune under a government that had set as an
objective to increase the standard of living of all
Haitians but has failed MISERABLY to do so. Instead,
we have seen a widening of the gap over the last 10
years. Is this the "good cause" that Lauture means to
support? Is this what Aristide really wanted after 10
years of Lavalas?


__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Auctions - Buy the things you want at great prices.
http://auctions.yahoo.com/