Monday, June 29, 2009

Another update.

Newflash to International Media:

A handful of Zelaya supporters yelling in front of the Presidential palace does NOT equal a "MOB". At most a hundred people does not mean "THOUSANDS". So please calm the fuck down and stop making us look like a bunch of savages.

I just went out to the supermarket. We live right by the Southern limit of the city. Everything is very, very calm. The cab driver says that while there are fewer people around--doubtless because people are getting freaked out by all these crazy reports coming from THE OUTSIDE--people are going back to work and not freaking out.

Zelaya has supporters, yes, but either they're not coming out or they were far, far fewer than Zelaya imagined or claimed.

The crowd (seriously, it was 200 people at most and they are ONLY protesting in that one place in this one city) has dispersed. I hate that they're making this look like a giant mob crowding around.

I love how both CNN channels are focusing only on Michael Jackson and Billy Mays. Good job, CNN. Good fucking job.


Guy from Boston said...

Thanks for blogging; we're glad to get the information. (You're posted on the Daily Dish, so you'll be getting traffic.)

Afterthought said...

So, as I track your thinking,

You were against Zeyala and wanted him gone.

The Miltary made it happen.

You were a little concerned about the method, but not the outcome.

The international community should mind it's own business.

Is that close?

Figgylicious said...


See, I don't think the International Community should ignore it. I strongly, heartily believe that it should get both sides of the story. With Zelaya having the only voice speaking about this, the international community is getting a very skewed view of the situation. I think the military coup WAS wrong, and it would've been more rational to go through a judicial system, but my point is that Zelaya is making it out to be that he was doing nothing wrong. And with reporters taking his word for it, and not interviewing Hondurans who are not black-or-white on the situation, it is giving Zelaya legitimacy on his actions.

CNN Spanish is talking to our Chancellor now. Good. He's not looking blameless, but at least people will hear from Congress.

Parvus said...

A question: did the supreme court ask the military to detain and expel Zelaya, or did the military act on its own? If it's the former, then it's not a military coup. If it's the latter, then it's certainly a coup, although it seems a "defensible" one given Zelaya's own illegal and unconstitutional actions, and the fact that the military left power in the hands of congress.

Figgylicious said...

Parvus: the supreme court ordered the military to act. I believe Zelaya has admitted to this as well, saying it was not a military coup but a political-military one.

gamus said...

So your country's president was disposed because he initiated a non-binding survey of the people's views on term limits? Is that correct?

Figgylicious said...

Not quite, gamus.

He wanted to conduct a survey that would ask people whether or not we wanted to have a "fourth urn" added to the November presidential elections. We usually have three urns, or three ballots to vote on: President, mayor and congressmen/congresswomen. The fourth urn would hold a vote on whether people wanted to convene a special assembly that would reform our current constitution. Zelaya never SAID what he wanted to change about the constitution, but it was largely assumed that what he wanted was to change term limits on the Presidency, and get himself re-elected.

What's really important to remember here is this: The President, by constitutional law, is not allowed to conduct a survey on his own. He can request Congress to do it. They did not accept. Congress must order the survey, and it must be supervised by the Electoral Tribunal. Zelaya hired his own firm to do it, distribute votes, count it, announce the results. All completely illegal.

gamus said...

Thanks very much for the info.

From an ignorant international perspective, the military response does seem very much out of line with Zeylaya's actions. As much as what he did was illegal it seems like deposing him was more politically related than anything to do with legality. What sort of urgency required kidnapping and exiling him? I'd be worried as to whose interests are really being represented here.

From an Australian's perspective as well, the idea of no term limits sounds completely uncontroversial! Our country has no term limits (like the UK) and one four year term sounds far too short a time to really achieve any lasting change.

Of course, all this is from a relatively ignorant international position! But thanks for the blogging. Your insight has been essential for a fairly confusing story.