14157: Sanba: Re:14150: Pina replies to Chamberlain (fwd)

[Bob Corbett <corbetre@webster.edu>]

From: sanba@juno.com

Kevin,

I was waiting for your answer. Although it has been great I think that at least one point is still begging for clarification in it.
At least for the record,I was expecting one fundamental question from you: in what the truth if and when it is told can be clouded or transformed into lie by the mere fact of a salary the individual who speaks it may or may not receive? Is it that people are so venal that they must lose all sense of ethics, or worst that even those who are asking the question about it, expect a particular answer that first, gives in to a solemn fallacy proclaiming that all men and women have been discarding the notion of values, or second admits or condones that human being has only one way to deal with money, which is to bent to its power?
Fortunately we know that if it was the case, we would not experience cases in which workers of all veins across the whole spectrum of employment are being fired sometimes for insubordination. There would be no revolutionaries, no heros, no true leaders, no saints, no role models. It cannot be both.
In fact the issue here is not about salary, it is about character and truth. Telling the truth is first of all about the worldwide suffering and poverty to eradicate, and Haiti is part of the world with its army of exploited people, and their choice to accept and respect. Truth in Haiti is evolving around social justice to reach. One can blame President Aristide for whatever reason, right or wrong, but we must admit that the crowd of his supporters even being aware of his failure or incapacity to deliver, still are willing to defend him, and want him to stay. That is the fact that must puzzle even the strategists in Washington.
That is precisely what mut be a challenge to intellectuality that require humility. In fact the more intellectual we are, the more humble we must be and the more willing we must be to work hard towards finding rationale behind social facts. Tampering with them is counterproductive and condemn the whole nation to beat the bushes, a heavy charge against the priviledged.
The bottom line is -if we want to be truthful to democracy- there must be a democratic way to deal with a President weakness and flaws. And above all, we must stay away from the notion of Coup D'Etat. Money talking or not.
For extra credit: Would one like us to believe that for us to speak the truth it must be free of charge? Open ended question.