14596: Sanba: Re:14578: Louissaint: Re:14572: Sanba: Re:14566: Benodin: PRESS RELE ASE NO. 2 Of THE 184 INSTITUTIONS, ORGA NIZATIONS AND ASSOCIATIONS (fwd)

[Bob Corbett <corbetre@webster.edu>]

From: sanba@juno.com

I am wondering whether or not I am reading a direct reaction to my post. And second, assuming I am slow to understand, let’s look the following closely:

[I just read the second declaration of the 184 organizations and did not notice any specific attack against Aristide. They complained about "misery", "Destruction of our Country", "totalitarian underhand maneuvers".]

Should we only see what is written as if it evolves in a vacuum? Being serious, shouldn't we read between the lines and easily detect some fingers pointing at a usual culprit, which is WHICH, for the matter? We are experiencing here a classical double-edge case of propaganda. If you talk about it, the least you are guilty of is that you are jumping to conclusion; if you don't, as it's too often the case for President Aristide you get the blame and you get blemished.

The 184 from 822 may not ask that Aristide step down, but they did not denounce the trend either. On the contrary they are inadvertently (give them the benefit of a doubt) conveying the same discourse as those who want Aristide out.

They deserve some suggestions. I did produce some in case they are serious about overthrowing Aristide. The rest is true that we all are suffering because of the gas price hiking, but whose fault it is? If anything, the government spent more than expected to subsidize and delay the crisis. The opposition does not talk about that.

Yes, everybody has to voice opinions, but an analytical one; not one aiming at sacrificing a culprit for some short-term advantages, and through propaganda.