Chile Forum

JHyre wrote:Laura,

OK, first the less pleasant part:

I have oft stated that the US press tends to be very liberal. That is not the same as assuming that Puelche is liberal, which is why I have never stated such a thing... A generalization leads to a probability in a specific case (this journalist is probably liberal) that requires some extra facts to confirm or contradict the application of the trend (let’s read his articles and see if he is liberal).

I hope to make time tomorrow to address your view of Honduran constitution. For today….too much effort!


John Hyre - had a "feeling" that Castro, Chavez & Obama agreeing on something was a Bad Thing, now applying analysis to check that "feeling".

NOWHERE do I assert explicitly or implicitly that Puelche is a liberal. NOWHERE.

And the many ordinary people paying grocery bills and skyrocketing fuel bills can't argue with the facts of course-they only had "feelings" and thoughts. They thought "this just doesn't seem right-doesn't smell right-yet I see the "facts".

Correction of the Day

From the Wall Street Journal:

This article on Honduras reported the results of a poll by CID-Gallup that was commissioned by the Honduran newspaper La Prensa. The newspaper reported that 41% of Hondurans thought the ouster of President Manuel Zelaya was justified given the president's attempts to reform the constitution, while 28% didn't think so. However, the newspaper didn't publish the results of a second question that found that 46% objected to the action taken to remove Mr. Zelaya from power, while 41% agreed.

Turns out that relying on the junta's press corps gets you bad data. "Who knew"? (us). You're up, WaPo, Reuters, UPI & CSM.

UPDATE: Oh lord in lieu of a correction the Christian Science Monitor reflects on how complicated these Honduran polls can be. How very "Christian Science Monitor" of them.

But in the US, the media is being accused of being out of touch with Hondurans who support Zelaya.

Why?

Last week, many news organizations cited a public opinion poll done by CID-Gallup, which was published by the local Honduran newspaper, La Prensa. The poll showed 41 percent of Hondurans surveyed found Zelaya’s ouster “justifiable.”

A blog post by Robert Naiman, national coordinator of Just Foreign Policy, calls on the Monitor, the Washington Post, the Wall Street Journal, and Reuters to correct this information. And he provides links for readers to send corrections directly to the offending news organizations.

Did we get it wrong?

Yes, and no. We inadvertently got only half of the survey, according to the only blogger (bloggingsbyboz.com) who seems to have figured out what happened.

The first question: Was President Zelaya removal justified? Forty-one percent of those surveyed said that the removal was justified, while 28 percent disagreed. Thirty-one percent did not know or did not answer.

La Prensa published only this first question and these figures. So did The Christian Science Monitor and various other outlets.

The second question in the poll was: Did those surveyed agree with the actions to remove him? This time, 46 percent said they disagreed, and 41 percent agreed. Some news organizations, such as the New York Times, published these figures.

News outlets, including ours, were accused of publishing inaccurate figures or even falsifying numbers for ideological gain. I can assure readers that that is not the case … at least for the Monitor.

In retrospect, I wish I had seen both questions and both results, because they would have supported what I was hearing from Hondurans.

If there's an invasion against our country," he said, "we will see 7 and a half million Hondurans ready to defend our territory, our laws and our fatherland and government."

Honduras' population is roughly that figure.

Micheletti said he had not spoken to a single member of U.S. President Barack Obama's government or any president in Latin America, but he maintained that 80 percent of Hondurans support him.

Laura55llc wrote:. . . . And he repeated that over and over yet according to the poll, you can choose 41% or 46% but either is far from that chest-beating 80%. . . .

"Yes, we have no bananas
We have-a no bananas today.
Just try those coconuts
Those walnuts and doughnuts
There ain't many nuts like they.
We'll sell you two kinds of red herring,
Dark brown, and ball-bearing.
But yes, we have no bananas
We have no bananas today."

RWS wrote:

Laura55llc wrote:. . . . And he repeated that over and over yet according to the poll, you can choose 41% or 46% but either is far from that chest-beating 80%. . . .

Now, Laura, surely you understand something about the workings of politics! You must know perfectly well that this is not "either-or", but "both-and": and 87% certainly is something to beat one's chest about!

(Well, okay, that discrepancy of seven percent . . . but at least it's in our favor!)

Laura55llc wrote:

RWS wrote:

Laura55llc wrote:. . . . And he repeated that over and over yet according to the poll, you can choose 41% or 46% but either is far from that chest-beating 80%. . . .

Now, Laura, surely you understand something about the workings of politics! You must know perfectly well that this is not "either-or", but "both-and": and 87% certainly is something to beat one's chest about!
(Well, okay, that discrepancy of seven percent . . . but at least it's in our favor!)

87%? I see 41% agreed the removal was justified and the same 41% agreed with the actions to remove him...oh, I see-you add the same group together as if it's two separate groups

Facts are stubborn things, but statistics are more pliable.

RWS wrote:Well done! Until I saw your "smiley face", I thought/felt/believed (have I covered the major bases?) that you'd not recognized my joke -- good come-back!

cali_chile48 wrote:. . . . the military ouster of a sitting president was a bad precedent for the region. the fact that zelaya might be a crummy president isn't the issue. the legal mechanisms for moderating an extremist president (if that's what zelaya became) should be exhausted before the military steps in. . . .

]Vice President of Honduras is the second highest political position in Honduras. According to the current constitution, the President and Vice-President are elected in the same ticket. Previously, from 1957 to 2006 there were positions of first, second, and third Vice-President known as designados presidenciales. The position of "Vice President Commissioner" was created after that the Vice President Elvin Santos resigned in late 2008.

3.That the replacement of Zelaya with Roberto Micheletti (as acting president until the November elections) was also completely legitimate: Vice President Elvin Ernesto Santos Ordóñez had already resigned (to run next November for president); the newly-minted "Vice President Commissioner" (Arístides Mejía Carranza) — a position that had never before existed — was not in the line of succession; and that left Micheletti, as President of the National Congress, next at bat;

Code: Select all

Since Honduras had no Vice President at the time of the coup, Speaker of the House Roberto Micheletti became the interim President.  Vice President Elvin Ernesto Santos had resigned in December of 2008 because he had won the Liberal Party's nomination to run for President in the November 2009 general election.  Roberto Micheletti also ran for the Liberal Party nomination, but was defeated by Santos.  President Zelaya is also a member of the Liberal Party of Honduras.

A wrinkle.  Last November Rodolfo Padilla Sunseri was elected Mayor of Honduras' second largest city, San Pedro Sula, with 63% of the vote.  One opponent, William Hall Micheletti, lost with 16% of the vote.  William Hall Micheletti is Roberto Micheletti's nephew.

On July 2 the military moved against anti-coup demonstrators near San Pedro Sula's City Hall.  50 people were reportedly arrested.  No one has seen Mayor Padilla since.  Apparently on order of "President" Micheletti, William Hall Micheletti is now Mayor of San Pedro Sula.  Other rumors say that Sula has been detained, and still others say he was "removed from office."



But Estrada leaves us with one very curious mystery worthy of Perry Mason: Why was accused traitor Zelaya sent into immediate exile in Costa Rica instead of being prosecuted?