14540: Sanba: Re:14528: Dorce: Re: 14513: Chevalier: Re: 14504: (fwd)

[Bob Corbett <corbetre@webster.edu>]

From: sanba@juno.com

Putting aside the passion that characterizes Kathy arguments (by what I read from her lately both on Corbett and Windowsonhaiti)I would wish people to objectively analyze the content and the core of this post.
Personally, I have been wondering why is the opposition being stubborn into sterile believing that Aristide could not win his election (that is the implication of the term de facto used, referring to the President)instead of studying the making of his evident popularity. I have been amazed by the unability from a bunch of intellectuals and high profile professors to demonstrate the power of deep analysis in its reflection of results, instead of giving in to subtle or less subtle ideas and strategies of coup d'état.
We have been tought by serious school of thoughts that asking the question is finding the answer, we must be concerned that the top notch of our intellectuals presumably keeps on asking the wrong question that leads them to the wrong approach (taking into accounts the failure of even their strategies of conducting their oppositons)towards a serious problem, viz: how to implement participatory democracy in its phase of development, meaning the fair distribution of both wealth and opportunities in terms of living standards, while keeping imperialism and its panoply of tricky concepts at bay, instead of trusting it, and worse, by pure opportunism?