tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2341954168256070610.post3439390578730679083..comments2023-09-12T01:15:08.356-07:00Comments on Honduras Coup 2009: And now, a word from your hosts...RAJhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/00097415587406899236noreply@blogger.comBlogger11125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2341954168256070610.post-34875218723407093822009-10-15T20:48:17.258-07:002009-10-15T20:48:17.258-07:00And we give rjnagle the last word on this thread. ...And we give rjnagle the last word on this thread. The issues raised are clearly worth thinking about; but it is time to return to the topic of the blog: contextualizing the reality of Honduras resulting from the coup. Thanks to everyone (and anyone else who wants to add to this thread, my apologies: it is truly time to move on).RAJhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00097415587406899236noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2341954168256070610.post-28176777783467471122009-10-15T19:40:08.859-07:002009-10-15T19:40:08.859-07:00I am glad my comment provoked a discussion. Again,...I am glad my comment provoked a discussion. Again, I recognize that this is sort of offtopic. <br /><br />I'm definitely fine with pseudonyms as long as you give a sense of why you're using a pseudonym. Also, it would help to provide some sort of context for why a blog came into existence and to provide some kind of label/category for your blog for the casual web surfer. <br /><br />The explanation RAJ provides is more than sufficient.Robert Naglehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09244278749337954786noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2341954168256070610.post-91906854580844961472009-10-15T16:28:33.284-07:002009-10-15T16:28:33.284-07:00RJNagle, I would point out that the reason that th...RJNagle, I would point out that the reason that the Law Library/LOC article doesn't smell right is that it relies very heavily on one oral source. One need not be a lawyer to understand that this is very dangerous ground: first, because the source is oral, the precise statements cannot be independently interrogated, and second, because the use of a single source to the exclusion of other sources of equal quality amounts to bias, even if it is not intentional. (It is also bias to elevate inferior sources to the level of superior ones purely so that one can seem balanced). Good analysis necessarily involves presenting two or more sides of an argument, explaining why each party holds the position it does, and then explaining why one position is superior. Alternatively, as in the natural sciences, it is possible that there are no significant opposing opinions, either because a topic is very new or because there's a wide consensus. In that case, presenting the history of the evolution of a position can serve. <br /><br />I would add a bit to RAJ's statement that every source has a viewpoint. First, very often eyewitnesses provide the worst testimony. The closer one is to the event, the more one's emotions and self-interest are engaged. Often historians or outsiders provide the accounts that are self-consistent and consistent with known facts.<br /><br />That's an important point. Many times accounts of events are not self-consistent. That guarantees that there are some errors. The golpistas own account of the coup contains internal contradictions. RAJ uncovered an important one in finding that the Supreme Court had begun the process of discovery directed toward the indictment of Zelaya when he was inexplicably-- and this remains unexplained-- seized by military forces and deported. <br /><br />Sometimes, accounts are not consistent with external facts. For example-- and this is a flaw ith the LOC report-- the entire international community, including many Honduran legal scholars, declared that this was an illegal coup. The people who commit the coup deny this, and mirabile dictu, so does a key researcher in the LOC. So, either the LOC researcher is a legal genius or she is terribly wrong. But the position that there was no coup is not consistent with external facts. <br /><br />Second, professional analysts can be terrible witnesses. In mid-20th century anthropology (and other social sciences) a pseudo-scientism gripped the professions. Everything had to be described by statistics and theories rather than by anecdote and experience. Granted, some of the greats of social science were very wrong. But pseudo-scientism was not an answer. The amorality inherent in that rationalizes what is now called <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_Terrain_System" rel="nofollow">"human terrain mapping:"</a> social science in the service of empire. <br /><br />Third, I do agree with the statement that every utterance contains a point of view. I would add, though, that the best students of rhetoric can explain to you their opponent's arguments in detail. <br /><br />Finally, neoboho raises the issue of what is called "confirmation bias." We all would like to be right, so we naturally look for reasons why our opponents might be wrong. We scrutinize their arguments more closely than we do our own. But there are plenty of people who take this to the extreme: they argue from the conclusion backwards to the facts. This is a flaw in the LOC report. Ms. Gutierrez took the point of view that the Congress must have acted lawfully and reasoned backward to figure out how they must have done so. She had no difficulty finding a supporter of the coup to help her do so. But the facts necessary to her desired conclusion do not square with what the Congress actually said at the time (a point excavated and carefully proven by RAJ). <br /><br />Oh--and thanks to Greg Weeks for reminding us of the most prominent American example of the use of pseudonyms. What the heck was it the anti-blog carpers were complaining about again? <br /><br />--CharlesAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2341954168256070610.post-39151195116327196702009-10-15T15:30:27.648-07:002009-10-15T15:30:27.648-07:00Amen.Amen.RAJhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00097415587406899236noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2341954168256070610.post-61218850488448212472009-10-15T13:12:31.428-07:002009-10-15T13:12:31.428-07:00The authors of the Federalist Papers did not discl...The authors of the Federalist Papers did not disclose their names, yet were immediately the center of debate over the constitution. They also pushed one point of view. That should not be seen as problematic.<br /><br />My point is just that a convincing argument (and, as RAJ argues for blogs, links to primary material as well) matters more than pinpointing an author. It is actually unfortunate that we would rate arguments higher simply if we know, for example, that the author is a professor. I say that even though I am professor...Greg Weekshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15765114859595124082noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2341954168256070610.post-29646233309925766932009-10-15T13:00:36.254-07:002009-10-15T13:00:36.254-07:00I think Charles and I agree that there is always a...I think Charles and I agree that there is <i>always</i> a point of view in every utterance. This Bakhtin, among many others, tells us. So for me, there is never such a thing as information without perspective. My main complaint about the mainstream media is the pretense of having no position. Blogs, blessedly, free me from this. I described blogging to a reporter on my campus as a form of teaching; I am trying to explain how I see things in the hope that you will see how my analysis works. If you agree, so much the better, but mainly, my hope is to help others clarify their way of speaking.<br /><br />And yes, anonymity/pseudonymy makes me uncomfortable. But only when, as often happens, people think I am using it to obscure a weakness. I want what I write to stand on its own. I think it does. I will make (have made) mistakes. But the work has its own autonomy.RAJhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00097415587406899236noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2341954168256070610.post-44750899782126803872009-10-15T12:56:04.457-07:002009-10-15T12:56:04.457-07:00My goodness. I didn't expect this amount of re...My goodness. I didn't expect this amount of reaction.<br /><br />Clarifications: I am not a law professor. I am an anthropologist. But I have read the legal analyses in Spanish and English, published in the US, Spain, and Honduras, and compared these to the actual contemporary law codes that can be downloaded by anyone from public sources. I lived in Honduras throughout the transition to the current Constitution (arriving on Dec. 31, 1981 and staying until August 1983 for my longest field season, having spent January-June 1981, June-July 1980, and June-July 1979 in the first phases of fieldwork; after being an undergraduate on an eight-week project in summer 1977 as my first time in the country). I have made a habit of keeping informed about changes in Honduran law and society, and worked with government agencies throughout my entire career. My knowledge of Honduran constitutional law at this point is good enough that I have been able to offer corrections to some of the published analyses (which missed more recent law), but overall, when I speak to the legal issues, I am drawing on Spanish language analyses by Honduran and Spanish constitutional law faculty whose work simply does not circulate in English.<br /><br />With deep respect for the emerging culture of the web and blogging, as a faculty affiliate of a program studying emergent digital media and digital cultures, I am less interested in using coded labels like IANAL, because (again drawing on my academic work using the analyses of Russian philosopher of language Mikhail Bakhtin), these usages, which are not transparent to those not already part of the community, are part of the way a group maintains its boundaries. As a teacher (I originally wrote award-winning teacher, then took it out, then questioned why I am loathe to self-promote, so: award-winning teacher) I have worked hard to move toward deliberate usage of common language whenever possible to lower the barriers to participation. Even more important in the present case because, with all due respect to everyone else here, my main goal is to represent views of Hondurans passionately resisting the destruction of constitutional order in their country.<br /><br />rjnagle raises a point with which I actually disagree, and with which I have had to wrestle multiple times, in his comments on positionality within a country or as from a country and the level of authority it does or should confer. In the first days of the Honduran coup, I was driven to question whether I was insulated from real Honduran opinion, when so much talk on the internet was so thoroughly pro-coup (even to the point of endorsing the idea that Honduras could not afford to follow the rule of law as a less-developed nation). Eventually, the CDI Gallup poll confirmed that there was a more diverse opinion in the country, and majority against the coup. But even before that, I resolved my dilemma by anthropological analysis: no country is a uniform social fabric. Internal diversity is irreducible. No person speaks for the whole of a country. The Hondurans who were writing to me protesting the breakdown of governance-- which as an adherent of the rule of law, I condemn on principle-- had a legitimate right to their opinion, even if it had been a minority one. More: since those individuals were educated elites, scholars and academics, the opinions I was echoing were informed ones. And the values they expressed: civil participation, respect for the law, respect for differences-- are those I, as a progressive, endorse everywhere.RAJhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00097415587406899236noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2341954168256070610.post-78398945910640387912009-10-15T11:53:11.834-07:002009-10-15T11:53:11.834-07:00Dear RAJ
I wrote a comment long ago and it was not...Dear RAJ<br />I wrote a comment long ago and it was not published.<br />But I am an avid reader of your blog and I just want to congratulate you on the precision and meticulousness of your writings.<br />I am a professor of Media in The Arab world. I am using this blog as an example of real work and information without distortion or newspeak as Chomsky might put it.<br />I am presenting a paper about alternative sources of information and your blog comes first for me as it provided me with lots of insights and important valuable information.<br />Thanks a lot<br />from an Egyptian scholar who was enlightened and informed by your work.<br />Ossama ElkaffashOssamahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01481256740800429421noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2341954168256070610.post-61927807390962749422009-10-15T11:48:46.904-07:002009-10-15T11:48:46.904-07:00RAJ, this debate regarding anonymity vs. full tran...RAJ, this debate regarding anonymity vs. full transparency in blogging is an old one. It's one that the corporate media raise to impugn the characters of people who blog anonymously.<br /><br />So, here are a few things in addition to what you said:<br /><br />1. Corporate reporters use anonymous sources all the time. The reader has to use his/her judgment on whether to believe what those sources allegedly claim. For that matter, named sources often lie (and are very rarely called on it).<br /><br />2. Pseudonymous writing is an ancient and well-respected form. Plato, Ecclesiastes, Mark Twain, Lewis Carroll, George Sand, O Henry, Dear Abby... pen names all. Nor is this limited to novelists, philosophers, and advice columnists. Mark Twain was a journalist. National security maven George Kennan wrote under a pen name. <br /><br />3. We live in such a brazen age that public figures, including journalists, often lie shamelessly. Merely placing one's name on public record is no guarantee of anything much except that the reader may not be so credulous the next time. But that is accomplished just as well by using a constant pen name. <br /><br />4. Nor are degrees or rank or honors a guarantee of reliability. John Yoo, war criminal, is a professor at a respectable university. Justice William Rehnquist, previously our senior-most jurist, almost certainly perjured himself in his Senate hearings. The Nobel laureate whose brilliant work on transistors won him fame, William Shockley, was notoriously racist. People who rely entirely on the visible signs of success of a speaker or writer to form an opinion are easily misled. <br /><br />I sense that you are not fully comfortable with pseudonymous writing. I have been writing under a pen name for 10 years, in my case for a purely selfish reason: I value my privacy. If people choose not to believe what I post, that's certainly their right. They are receiving free the benefit of my wisdom, which under other circumstances they might pay a lot of money to obtain. That's the case of a lot of stuff on the Internet. One can get the thoughts of Nobel laureates Paul Krugman and Joseph Stiglitz absolutely free. If one had to pay, such advice would come very dear. If people do not understand what wonderful deals are to be had for the canny shopper, then they are the losers. <br /><br />--CharlesAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2341954168256070610.post-57169738202918901212009-10-15T11:46:10.793-07:002009-10-15T11:46:10.793-07:00I can understand why to keep your identity, but it...I can understand why to keep your identity, but it does have its problems. I've been blogging regularly at TPMcafe under a pseudo <br />"neoboho" and I often circulate your material there.<br />http://tpmcafe.talkingpointsmemo.com/talk/blogs/neoboho/<br /><br />Sometimes the issue is raised about sources - one commenter named KGB rejected outright Adrienne Pine and Al Giordano because neither of them has tried to hide their political positions, and he also rejected your material on the grounds that "she only publishes material that she wants the reader to know." To compensate, he runs the golpista news and legal docs thru Google translator, and thus extracts his particular truth.<br /><br />I think you're doing an outstanding job - I check your web site several time a day. I deeply appreciate the unique material you publish. It's a lot of work for you, obviously. Thank you.<br /><br />And yes, I'm curious to know who you are - but I would never push it. My private email is eam@impix.com<br /><br />Erik MattilaAnonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16851739645543536362noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2341954168256070610.post-20174939325864875842009-10-15T11:24:14.788-07:002009-10-15T11:24:14.788-07:00Thanks for your explanation.
A person whose opin...Thanks for your explanation. <br /><br />A person whose opinion I respect forwarded an <a href="http://www.tnr.com/article/politics/ousting-zelaya" rel="nofollow">article by James Kirkich about the Library of Congress report </a> to me. That article didn't smell right, and after googling I came across the <a href="http://hondurascoup2009.blogspot.com/2009/09/grade-d-flawed-research-from-law.html" rel="nofollow">critique of the Law Library report </a> on your blog which seemed like a persuasive reply. (I could tell that you were probably an academic and were reasonably informed about the issue but wasn't sure if you had a background in law). In web parlance, people typically preface their statements with "IANAL" to denote their level of legal training (if any). <br /><br />Note that I don't discount opinions about law simply because someone lacks a law degree. For example, I frequently write about esoteric issues about copyright law and I think my analysis is generally sound. On the other hand, I would not want someone to be replying solely on my analysis to make business decisions. <br /><br />The Internet lets you access all kinds of knowledge, and with regard to international politics, no one can keep up with the different politics in each country. I once received a comment on my blog from someone defending Bill O'Reilly's politics. I was indignant until I learned he was a college student in Brazil watching the Oreilly Factor on Satellite TV. I know a lot about Albania (I taught at a university there for two years), but on the other hand, I would probably defer to a native Albanian currently in the country for most political questions. <br /><br />Like many other bloggers, I often have to scramble around the Net to learn more background about a topical event after it occurs. By definition, I have a superficial understanding about the special issue and have to make snap judgments about credibility (ironically, I've found that the blogs with less traffic and fewer comments can often be more credible). Even though PDF reports may be available, the typical blogger doesn't have time to go through <br />the complete report and must rely on secondary accounts of them (that is not to say that I don't consult the original source; but in most cases I don't take the time to do it). <br /><br />I realize you linked to many outside sources in previous posts, but at some point, people rely on a special interest blog less for links than analysis. At that point, the identity of the poster becomes relevant (especially if it's clear that the blogger is not linking to certain things). <br /><br />Finally, when I'm scouring the web, I'm trying to figure how actively partisan a website is. That is not always a bad thing. For example, the very partisan Electronic Intifada publishes/republishes many distinguished pieces about Middle Eastern politics. On the other hand, it would be naive for me to rely on just this one news source (even though EI links to a lot of external sources). As superficial as this sounds, sometimes it's hard to tell if the information on the blog reflects the blogger's opinion or was simply pasted from another news source. <br /><br />By the way, a few minutes after posting the cautious remark about the UN statement, I was able to find it through google. So thanks. <br /><br />I have written before about <a href="http://www.imaginaryplanet.net/weblogs/idiotprogrammer/?p=83399736" rel="nofollow">credibility issues facing journalists and bloggers </a>. As counterintuitive as it seems, I think independent bloggers can be trusted over mainstream media in many cases. MSM is often too cautious and late to the game unless there's good video footage for CNN. <br /><br />Finally, I wish to show support for your blog which I generally found informative and useful. Thanks.Robert Naglehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09244278749337954786noreply@blogger.com