J'ai adoré le premier commentaire :
"Pas que pour la Russie ?"
Et le second :
"Oui, grace au TAFTA ils vont bientôt nous bombarder de leur boeuf aux hormones et de leurs poulets javelisés.
On va creuver de mal bouffe."
Poulets javellisés et boeufs aux hormones sont déjà au menu des Haïtiens- ceux qui peuvent se permettre d'en acheter- c'est pour cela que la classe moyenne haïtienne ressemble de plus en plus aux Africains-Américains pauvres.
Regardez le surpoids de certains journalistes, mambo, ministre de la Santé, porte-parole de la présidence...
Il fut un temps où les Haïtiens et Haïtiennes étaient considérés comme les plus belles personnes de la Caraïbe. Les femmes avaient une dégaine pas possible: taille fine, poitrine haute, jambes fuselées derrière rond et ferme comme deux calebasses.
Tout ça c'est fini à cause de la mal bouffe.
Les patrons de l'import et pas de l'export submergent leurs supermarchés et les marchés de poulets, de fruits et de légumes presque plastifiés. On ne sait même pas généralement d'où viennent les produits et ce qu'ils contiennent, faute d'étiquetage.
Le ministère de la Santé dont une des fonctions aurait été de contrôler ces importations afin de protéger la santé des citoyens, s'en contrefout.
D'ailleurs, qui serait assez audacieux pour aller vérifier les produits importés par les gros patrons ?
La ministre serait immédiatement révoquée. Donc, elle fait semblant d'être en charge de la santé.
Pareil pour les médicaments.
Pareil pour l'Hôpital général. Il suffit de savoir qu'un journaliste qui y était allé faire sa dyalise est décédé le lendemain de sa sortie de l'hôpital, parce que l'un des appareils était en panne depuis plusieurs mois. Et que cette dyalise n'a pu être faite selon les normes.
Ca, c'est un cas relevé parce que le monsieur était plus ou moins connu.
Imaginez le nombre de gens qui décèdent suite à une infection généralisée, vu l'absence d'hygiène dans cet hôpital.
Ces chiffres-là, nous n'en saurons rien. La ministre trop occupée tèt kaleman à faire semblant d'être ministre.
Faire semblant, voici en quoi aura consisté la politique des roses pendant quatre ans.
Le rose est la couleur allouée aux petites filles qui font semblant d'être des princesses dans un monde fictif.
Mais pour les Haïtiens, ce monde rose n'aura pas été celui des princesses et des princes charmants.
Le rose -jolie couleur pourtant- restera le symbole d'un régime, qui associant l'ensemble des Haïtiens à des petites filles, aura "vendu " (Courtoisie V. Numa de Vision 2000) à la population, mensonges et prédation, comme vérités et "sollicitude", (Courtoise Duval du Nouvelliste)
Pour revenir au sujet, on se demande si les USA ne seraient pas les ennemis de leur population quand on lit cet article de l'économiste Krugman, paru hier dans le NY Times. Dont le titre est : Privilèges, Pathologie et Pouvoir.
On se rend compte que la population étatsunienne est soumise au même régime - à quelques nuances et degrés différents- que les populations du monde sous la dépendance de l'Empire US.
Que Mrs. Merten ou M. Mulrean et avant lui l'ambassadrice Mme White, n'éprouvent aucune empathie pour le peuple haïtien, en dehors de la politique spécifique des USA en Haïti et du racisme consubstantiel à leur idéologie, relève, comme nous l'explique Krugman, également d'une forme de pathologie.
Narcissisme et égotisme présents également chez les Haïtiens très riches et dans le microcosme duvaliériste et gnbiste de la classe moyenne qui les copie.
Privilege, Pathology and Power
Paul Krugman JAN. 1, 2016
Wealth can be bad for your soul. That’s not just a hoary piece of folk wisdom; it’s a conclusion from serious social science, confirmed by statistical analysis and experiment. The affluent are, on average, less likely to exhibit empathy, less likely to respect norms and even laws, more likely to cheat, than those occupying lower rungs on the economic ladder.
And it’s obvious, even if we don’t have statistical confirmation, that extreme wealth can do extreme spiritual damage. Take someone whose personality might have been merely disagreeable under normal circumstances, and give him the kind of wealth that lets him surround himself with sycophants and usually get whatever he wants. It’s not hard to see how he could become almost pathologically self-regarding and unconcerned with others.
So what happens to a nation that gives ever-growing political power to the superrich?
Paul Krugman
Macroeconomics, trade, health care, social policy and politics.
Modern America is a society in which a growing share of income and wealth is concentrated in the hands of a small number of people, and these people have huge political influence — in the early stages of the 2016 presidential campaign, around half the contributions came from fewer than 200 wealthy families. The usual concern about this march toward oligarchy is that the interests and policy preferences of the very rich are quite different from those of the population at large, and that is surely the biggest problem.
But it’s also true that those empowered by money-driven politics include a disproportionate number of spoiled egomaniacs. Which brings me to the current election cycle.
The most obvious illustration of the point I’ve been making is the man now leading the Republican field. Donald Trump would probably have been a blowhard and a bully whatever his social station. But his billions have insulated him from the external checks that limit most people’s ability to act out their narcissistic tendencies; nobody has ever been in a position to tell him, “You’re fired!” And the result is the face you keep seeing on your TV.
But Mr. Trump isn’t the only awesomely self-centered billionaire playing an outsized role in the 2016 campaign.
There have been some interesting news reports lately about Sheldon Adelson, the Las Vegas gambling magnate. Mr. Adelson has been involved in some fairly complex court proceedings, which revolve around claims of misconduct in his operations in Macau, including links to organized crime and prostitution. Given his business, this may not be all that surprising. What was surprising was his behavior in court, where he refused to answer routine questions and argued with the judge, Elizabeth Gonzales. That, as she rightly pointed out, isn’t something witnesses get to do.
Then Mr. Adelson bought Nevada’s largest newspaper. As the sale was being finalized, reporters at the paper were told to drop everything and start monitoring all activity of three judges, including Ms. Gonzales. And while the paper never published any results from that investigation, an attack on Judge Gonzales, with what looks like a fictitious byline, did appear in a small Connecticut newspaper owned by one of Mr. Adelson’s associates.
O.K., but why do we care? Because Mr. Adelson’s political spending has made him a huge player in Republican politics — so much so that reporters routinely talk about the “Adelson primary,” in which candidates trek to Las Vegas to pay obeisance.
Are there other cases? Yes indeed, even if the egomania doesn’t rise to Adelson levels. I find myself thinking, for example, of the hedge-fund billionaire Paul Singer, another big power in the G.O.P., who published an investor’s letter declaring that inflation was running rampant — he could tell from the prices of Hamptons real estate and high-end art. Economists got some laughs out of the incident, but think of the self-absorption required to write something like that without realizing how it would sound to non-billionaires.
Or think of the various billionaires who, a few years ago, were declaring with straight faces, and no sign of self-awareness, that President Obama was holding back the economy by suggesting that some businesspeople had misbehaved. You see, he was hurting their feelings.
Just to be clear, the biggest reason to oppose the power of money in politics is the way it lets the wealthy rig the system and distort policy priorities. And the biggest reason billionaires hate Mr. Obama is what he did to their taxes, not their feelings. The fact that some of those buying influence are also horrible people is secondary.
But it’s not trivial. Oligarchy, rule by the few, also tends to become rule by the monstrously self-centered. Narcisstocracy? Jerkigarchy? Anyway, it’s an ugly spectacle, and it’s probably going to get even uglier over the course of the year ahead.
A version of this op-ed appears in print on January 1, 2016, on page A23 of the New York edition with the headline: Privilege, Pathology And Power. Today's Paper|Subscribe
Commenter cet article