Comments on: In the Honduran Election, the Role of Ronald Reagan Will be Played by Barack Obama

By: Jonathan McLeod

Jonathan McLeod — Sat, 05 Dec 2009 02:29:22 +0000

At the risk of hijacking my own comments thread, this is probably the best style guide.

By: Jonathan McLeod

Jonathan McLeod — Sat, 05 Dec 2009 02:27:15 +0000

Thanks for the link Richard. It’s always good to know when news organizations have an actual standard for these sorts of things.

Me, I’m pretentious enough to fall back on The Economist’s style guide.

By: Richard Albert

Richard Albert — Fri, 04 Dec 2009 22:59:55 +0000

Thanks for your thoughtful reply to my question, Jon.

I expected that your answer to my prefix question would be precisely what you said about respect. I can’t say that I disagree.

While I’m on the subject, here is an interesting article that illuminates the prefix question:

http://www.cbsnews.com/blogs/2.....5934.shtml

By: S. Van de Maele

S. Van de Maele — Fri, 04 Dec 2009 00:52:41 +0000

For several decades, the USA has imposed tens of bloodthirsty tyrants on the South-American continent. They have massacred thousands of their citizen and sold out their country to US’s political and economic interests. There are now 2 dictators, Castro and Chavez. Both have been acting for the well-being of the ordinary citizens of their country, and did not proceed with massacres.
To remove by military force a duly elected president is a coup. There are other means to prevent a president to act against the constitution. There is the parliament. That the CIA, with or without the knowledge of Obama, instigated the coup is almost certain.

By: Pissedoff

Pissedoff — Thu, 03 Dec 2009 16:04:14 +0000

You forgot to mention even his own party voted against reinstating him.

By: Jonathan McLeod

Jonathan McLeod — Thu, 03 Dec 2009 12:16:52 +0000

@What!?
Agreed. I was comparing Mr. Obama to Reagan because Hugo Chavez compared him to Reagan (and Nixon). Contempt from a dictator certainly doesn’t give him a pass on everything he did or said in the past.

@Richard
Similarly, I’m not delving too much into the stance of the U.S., but it seems like a good sign that it displeases Venezuela.

I had intended to link to your piece – that’s what the link on the word “coup” was supposed to do. But, alas, it was late and I was doing a few different things, and I got my links mixed up. I’ve now fixed it.

My intent was to use your piece as a nice backgrounder for the “coup” and much of the West’s reaction. I’m in agreement with what you wrote.

Regarding Mr. Obama vs. (non-Mr.) Zelaya, the reason for that is, again, that it was late and it was sloppy editing on my part. Generally, I tend to use an appropriate prefix when addressing people, Prof. Albert, but it’s easy to fall into the habit of just listing the last name. I’ll try to fix that when I have more time.

That being said, I’m not too worried about showing the same respect to a dictator that I show to everyone else.

By: Richard Albert

Richard Albert — Thu, 03 Dec 2009 05:54:23 +0000

You’re right–we haven’t seen much coverage about this. Thanks for shining some needed light on it.

Nonetheless, I’ll have to think a bit more about whether I interpret the American position the same way you do. I remember writing a piece about the change of government in Honduras earlier this summer. In that piece, I argued that the United States was wrong for calling it coup–precisely because the military action to remove Manuel Zelaya was not a coup, but instead legitimate action taken in defense of the constitution. So, having said that, I will think more about your point, and see if I can reconcile our views.

But the real reason for my post is to ask you a question about how you have chosen to refer to Manuel Zelaya and Barack Obama in your post.

Specifically, in the fourth paragraph, you refer to “Zelaya.” Later, in your last paragraph, you refer to “Mr. Obama.”

Why not say use the title “mister” for both Manuel Zelaya and Barack Obama, as in “Mr. Zelaya” and “Mr. Obama”? Or, alternatively, why not use the last names alone for both, as in “Zelaya” and “Obama”?

I have my own sense of why you may have referred to one but not the other as mister, but I’d be curious to read from you why.

By: What!?

What!? — Thu, 03 Dec 2009 04:49:41 +0000

Jon,

I think you need to look a little closer at the situation in Honduras.

Obama was against recognizing any non-Zelaya presidency before he was for it. His current position isn’t a stance of principle – it’s the result of months of wrangling. It’s certianly not deserving of a comparison to Reagan.

Obama had no problem calling it a coup when it was the ‘in’ thing to do.