[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

6282: Kozyn responds to re: parallel government (fwd)




From: John Kozyn <jckozyn@hotmail.com>

From: Maxetluc@aol.com

>Actually, I only reacted to the shock you and others expressed at the 
>concept
>of the opposition setting up a parallel government, by pointing out that
>there are constitutionally accepted precedents, provided certain boundaries
>are maintained.
>I also noted that the Convergence group appears to want to exceed those
>bounds.

Well, I haven't reacted until now, but that's right, I think you did note 
that, Max & Luc.

But, I must say that when one exceeds those bounds, as you say, and - as DC 
has most certainly done - one shifts themselves from being a member of the 
"loyal opposition" to a disloyal one. This is critical.

A disloyal opposition willing to break a few constitutional rules, a 
disloyal opposition willing to call for the overthrow of a legitimate 
Government, a disloyal opposition with a miniscule political base... why are 
y'all empowering them anyway?

I've been following (reluctantly) a lot of the BS posts around here lately 
around this topic. I cannot fathom how y'all are even taking seriously DC's 
so-called Declaration. I think Reuters should urge Trenton Daniels to occupy 
himself with more serious reportage or else he might get the impression that 
what he writes is newsworthy or something. I'm happy to step up to the plate 
to remind him that this last missive was not. (I don't expect that to be a 
popular position amongst you 900+ lurkers, but I digress ;)

Such na´vetÚ! Truly, it amazes me how silly people really are. Honestly, I 
can't believe it.

>In your reaction to the concept of parellel government, you ignored my
>comparison of Convergence's hope to the "alternative government" set up by
>Irish Republicans between 1918 and 1921.   There the opposition held
>elections, performed municipal services, collected taxes and performed all
>the functions normally reserved to the constitutional (here the British
>colonial government).  They also worked tirelessly to overthrow that
>government.  That is something very different from a "shadow government."

Ahh, but the so-called "opposition" in Haiti has already made its own bed -- 
now let them lie in it. They will not collect taxes. They will not perform 
any functions except bodily ones. They may work tirelessly to overthrow the 
legitimate authorities, but they will never be a shadow government or a 
parallel government (jeezopeet - you people, I swear...) They cannot have it 
both ways. Either you are part of the "loyal opposition" or you are not. I 
must say, and I can't believe John Kozyn is saying this, but: Marc Bazin 
established himself in my eyes last week. He stood up for the Haitian 
people, recognized (duh, how can you miss it?) their political acuity and 
cut new ground insofar as I'm concerned - something that some people both in 
Haiti and its backyard ;) are going to notice.

>Perhaps the next time you pick apart one of my posts you might look at its
>entirety, rather than take a piece out of context.  Most folks on this 
>board
>seem deeply committed to, and knowledgeable about, the Haitian situation.  
>I
>very much enjoy a reasonable debate.  If we give each other our due, avoid
>piecemeal emotional reactions and personal attacks, we might just have one.

Well, you know.. debate is cool. But not if it's only a sterile intellectual 
enterprise (like most of y'all suppose it to be), just to argue and delve 
into words or semantics maybe. I think that's BS.

I much prefer organic intellectuals. Speaking of whom, I must say I enjoy 
reading what Hyppolite Pierre and Guy Antoine have to say. I also find it 
very interesting that no one seems to want to engage then in serious debate. 
Silence is, indeed, a strong reply.

N ap gade.

John Kozyn


_________________________________________________________________
Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com