a1459: Re: a1446: Dorce to Lonbrit..... (fwd)

[Bob Corbett <corbetre@webster.edu>]

From: LAKAT47@aol.com

In a message dated 03/25/2002 2:34:53 PM Pacific Standard Time, Lonbrit
Ayisyen <lonbritayisyen@hotmail.com>writes:

<< Some of the  May elections were proven to be fraudulent (showing that the
majority did  not elect the Lavalas), and the "opposition" contested. These
elections were  stolen, which is unacceptable in a democracy. (Lavalas did
not win by a
 majority , according to the independent Organization of American States-some
 of the Lavalas Candidates, were not winners by the majority of the votes in
 their districts.) >>
,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,
I was not going to respond to this post, but upon further reading found I
couldn't help myself.  This is not a factual accounting of the events as they
happened.  It is such a severe "spin" that I am dizzy.  No one said that
Lavalas did not receive a majority of votes, what happened was that in
perhaps ten of the parliamentary offices the declared winner won a majority
of votes but since there were so many candidates, the winner did not receive
the required percentage to be awarded the office.  What the counters did was
take the top two finishers and calculated the percentage of only those two
instead of the entire list of candidates, some of whom only received a few
votes.  It is a loophole and most likely wouldn't have made any difference if
they had had a runoff vote.  It is expensive and the logistics of having a
runoff election are considerable.  That is hardly fraudulent.  It might be
cutting corners and perhaps in an election where people are looking for
ANYTHING to discredit them, methods should be ultra-conservative but to say
that "These elections were stolen" is false, libelous and borders on the
ridiculous.
,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,
<< I am convinced, that had they done so, it would have avoided the situation
we are now having to deal with on a national level, and the most well
organized of parties; being the Lavalas, would have probably won. The
Democratic process would have been respected, and there would have been no
Convergence to deal with.  In
retrospect, it would have been the right thing to do, and it would have
saved Haiti years of additional suffering.>>
,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,
You are dreaming if you think that Lavalas could have prevented what is
happening now.  No matter how perfectly the elections went, fraud or some
irregularity would have been fabricated to achieve the same results you see
today.  Aristide and a Lavalas parliament (which is what the majority of
Haitians want) will never be accepted by the International Community or the
opposition.....such as they are.  If they could have generated a coup without
the army, we would be hosting Aristide in the US again right now, no doubt.
,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,
<<( chad or no chad,it was a Republican win in Florida.)]>>
,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,
BS.
,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,
<<Now, as for my "chastising" you in reference to the use of the word
"normal", let me tell you, that in fact the correct opposite of the word is
"abnormal". >>
,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,
One of the definitions of normal may have abnormal as the opposite meaning.
The first defintion is sane......so the opposite might be insane or abnormal.
 However, Father Michael meant normal in the second definition:  standard,
typical, general, common, regular (even majority).  The opposite would be the
minority.....those who do not have the attributes of most Haitians.  Let's
take Father Michael to mean majority Haitians which takes out the emotional
judgement of those in the minority (who mostly deserve his wrath).
,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,
<>
,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,
I always love how intent to divide is somehow on the victim.  I am accused of
intent to divide when I chastise the minority Haitian for being socially
irresponsible.  I do not divide Haitians; Father Michael doesn't divide
Haitians and majority Haitians do not divide Haitians.  The only ones
dividing Haitians are those with the money.  It is a lovely Republican
technique to blame others for your sins.  M we ou. QQ
,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,
<>
,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,
If you believe in this necessity, then talk to the convergence because they
are the ones who refuse to talk.  If they have something to bring to the
table......that is helping Haiti.....they should come to the table.  I think
they do not want to talk; they want to be given power that is not theirs to
have.  The people do not want that.  If they did, they would have voted for
one of those empty suits.  Apparently they are smarter than you take them
for.  Imagine that, and without education and everything!
,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,
<<"What is important in all our sharing of opinions, is to find a way to
tolerate our differences in the hope of arriving at one end: A prosperous
Haiti.>>
,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,
What does that mean to you......a prosperous Haiti?  Does it mean a better
life for all Haitians or does it mean continued wealth for the few?  We don't
believe in the trickle down theory anymore.....it doesn't work, so a
prosperous Haiti better mean that destitution is not the norm (normal?)
anymore.

Kathy Dorce~