Email from a new reader

Thank you, I am so glad to see an independent view on the Honduras situation. I think of myself as a progressive, but I am at odds with how the liberal media made assumptions about the ousting of Zelaya. One of my closest friends is Honduran and she is there right now. She has shown me a side of Honduras that I simply can't find in the media. I've encouraged my friend to ask a Honduran lawyer to write about the legalities (as you have) and put together a press release to major media outlets. I don't know what else I can do. Thanks again,

It's clear that the vast majority of English-speaking Hondurans support the change in government.

I'm not so sure that a real "progressive" would use the term "liberal media," unless this incident suddenly opened her eyes.

Comments

[Ned]

The MSM reporting hasn't been entirely one-sided. Consider this, from the WSJ's Mary Anastasia O'Grady, who does some of the best reporting on Latin America:

Hugo Chávez's coalition-building efforts suffered a setback yesterday when the Honduran military sent its president packing for abusing the nation's constitution.

It seems that President Mel Zelaya miscalculated when he tried to emulate the success of his good friend Hugo in reshaping the Honduran Constitution to his liking.

But Honduras is not out of the Venezuelan woods yet. Yesterday the Central American country was being pressured to restore the authoritarian Mr. Zelaya by the likes of Fidel Castro, Daniel Ortega, Hillary Clinton and, of course, Hugo himself. The Organization of American States, having ignored Mr. Zelaya's abuses, also wants him back in power. It will be a miracle if Honduran patriots can hold their ground.

That Mr. Zelaya acted as if he were above the law, there is no doubt. While Honduran law allows for a constitutional rewrite, the power to open that door does not lie with the president. A constituent assembly can only be called through a national referendum approved by its Congress.

But Mr. Zelaya declared the vote on his own and had Mr. Chávez ship him the necessary ballots from Venezuela. The Supreme Court ruled his referendum unconstitutional, and it instructed the military not to carry out the logistics of the vote as it normally would do.

...

It appears that the military has acted to uphold, rather than destroy, the constitution and rule of law in Honduras.

[Ric Locke]

Sidelight: there are words in any language that can't be simply translated into another one, but require longwinded specifications and circumlocutions to get the sense across. Trying to translate Spanish poder into English is one of them.

The word in Spanish that comes closest to English "power" is fuerza -- the Mexico City electric company is Luz y Fuerza. Poder means something related, but different and complex. A Spanish to English dictionary will give "power", followed by a half-page of examples trying to clarify. The power it denotes is political, social, or economic. It is almost always used with an adjective defining which realm it applies to.

Which brings us to Article 239 of the Honduran Constitution. It uses the phrase "poder Ejecutivo" without an article. That makes it general, applying to anyone exercising executive power. I don't know how the Hondurans interpret that, but I'd bet a good bit that you could easily find a Constitutional lawyer who would argue that it applies to anyone in the Executive Branch, including the Vice President and Ministers (or Cabinet Secretaries, in our terms).

Confirmation that that's at least a valid theory comes from the fact that, having deposed the President, the Hondurans didn't let the Vice President succeed, but went to the Legislature for a temporary successor.

Regards,
Ric

[Peter A]

"Liberal Media" is a misleading oversimplification. The media generally reflects the bias of its elite owners - it's very liberal on social issues the elite care about (immigration, abortion, gay rights, anti HBD, global warming etc.), it's centrist verging towards right-wing on foreign policy (always anti-Russia, hawkish on foreign intervention, afraid to question the military, reliably pro-Israel, purity of US motives abroad is never questioned), and centrist-right on economics (show me where the mainstream media has aggressively questioned the Hank Paulson-Goldman link or really attacked Wall Street for its role in creating the current depression. The media is generally anti-union and pro business. Yes, the media is arguably left of center on taxation but that's because of the desire to appear "socially aware" not because of any real understanding of Keynesian economics.) Real lower class liberals rarely find their views reflected in the NYT or the Washington Post, and the media has a lot of contempt for "hippies" and Noam Chomsky types. "Elite media" is a far more accurate term.

[Brutus]

Siggie

Any chance you can start a thread on how to fix the Supreme Court?

http://isteve.blogspot.com/

[Wade Nichols]

"Yesterday the Central American country was being pressured to restore the authoritarian Mr. Zelaya by the likes of Fidel Castro, Daniel Ortega, Hillary Clinton and, of course, Hugo himself."

Wow! Looks like Hillary Clinton has finally found a group of her peers that she can truly relate to!!!

[Richard Hoste hbdbooks.com]

"It's clear that the vast majority of English-speaking Hondurans support the change in government."

In Iran it seems that all English speakers support the liberal guy. I think that's how the media decides who's right.

" it's centrist verging towards right-wing on foreign policy (always anti-Russia, hawkish on foreign intervention, afraid to question the military, reliably pro-Israel, purity of US motives abroad is never questioned), and centrist-right on economics (show me where the mainstream media has aggressively questioned the Hank Paulson-Goldman link or really attacked Wall Street for its role in creating the current depression. The media is generally anti-union and pro business."

How is anti-Russia and pro-Israel right wing?

And "wall street greed" is basically the main stream message on why the economy collapsed. Do you think that they're out there peddling the diversity recession thesis?

[Richard Hoste hbdbooks.com]

Going back to Israel, it seems like support for the country is a mainstream vs. non-mainstream issue rather than a left vs. right one.

Those who support Israel:

Mainstream Conservatives

George W. Bush
Neo-Cons
Fox News
Wall Street Journal
Mit Romney
John McCain
National Review
The New York Post
All Republican Senators
Etc.

Mainstream Liberals:

The Clintons
Mainstream Media
The New Republic
Al Gore
Joe Biden
Barack Obama
All Democratic Senators
The New York Times
etc.

People who oppose Israel:

Non-Mainstream Rightists:

Pat Buchanan
Steve Sailer
Ron Paul
David Duke
Stormfront
National Vanguard
Etc.

Non-Mainstream Leftists:

Dennis Kucinich
Noam Chomsky
Cynthia McKinney
Jerimiah Wright
Louis Farakhan
European leftists
Etc.

What other issue is like this? If you had one question to find out if someone was "mainstream" or not, wouldn't it be "What do you think about Israel?"

[Peter A]

"How is anti-Russia and pro-Israel right wing?"

I said centrist shading towards right. Support for Israel and being anti-Russia is certainly mainstream, but I do sense the media cares a little more about these issues than most of the (non-Jewish) population. Arguably support for Israel is really a left-wing position philosophically even if the left has mostly abandoned it.

[Jack]

Barack Obama is not pro-Israel.