I love my country, but that doesn't mean I always think we do the right thing. For example, I was deeply ashamed of our actions when George HW Walker (W's father) told Kurdish rebels to rise up against Saddam, and promised we'd support them. They did, we didn't, and they were slaughtered and tortured.

Today, we're once again on the wrong side of history; the people who say "we shouldn't interfere in other countries" are doing everything possible to make sure a wannabe dictator is reinstalled as leader of Honduras. For the crime of honoring their constitution and wanting democracy and rule of law, we've revoked Honduras's foreign aid, revoked their leaders' visas, and said we (Obama, Reid, and Pelosi, that is) won't recognize the results of any elections Hondurans will hold unless Chavez's puppet is in power, running the show, while they're conducted.

As you probably know, Zelaya, the ousted president, is back in Honduras, staying the Brazilian embassy. (Brazil's leader is close ally of Hugo Chavez, if you were unaware.) Meanwhile, La Gringa notes that, in addition to trying to circumvent the Honduran Constitution, evidence has emerged of 77 bank accounts, in the names of Zelaya's relatives, each containing millions of dollars. Nice.

And yet Obama is doing everything he can to make sure this man is reinstalled. He's not stupid, so I must conclude such things just don't matter as much as going along with our new friends: Chavez, Lula (nickname of Brazil's president), and the Castro brothers.

Meanwhile, right in sync, Lula demands the UN (who never met a dictator it didn't love) should meet to help Zelaya get reinstalled. And, also as usual, CNN tips its hands as to who they're backing:

Zelaya, a centrist whose politics took a strong turn to the left once in office, was ousted in a military-backed coup in June.

There are two ways of looking at everything, aren't there? CNN goes out of their way to assure us Zelaya was a centrist (that is, they knew his true internal disposition, and it was centrist) instead of more neutrally saying he "ran as" a centrist (which is indisputable), but "took a strong left turn" once given power. But that might make him look a bit calculating, no? (And a bit like someone currently in office here in the US?)

And his removal is uniformly termed a "coup", which carries overtones of illegality...

Micheletti maintains that Zelaya's removal was not a coup but a constitutional transfer of power, and Micheletti thwarted two public attempts by Zelaya to return to his homeland.

Journalists have a lot of latitude: they can report one fact (they like) as fact, writing it in as a given, for other facts (ones they don't like) they can report it as an allegation, and put it into a mouth the reader will find highly suspect.

Honduras has a Constitution, doesn't it? CNN could go read the Honduran Constitution and resolve the issue of whether this was a "constitutional transfer of power" or not. They're supposed to be reporters, no? Further, they could note that the Honduran Supreme Court, both branches of Congress, and even Zelaya's own VP also agreed the ouster was constitutional. And if they wanted to be balanced, they could note other evidence in favor of the ouster, such as the aforementioned bank accounts.

Instead they omit all evidence for the "it was constitutional" argument, only portraying it as a possibly rather convenient point of view argued by the man now holding power, prefixed with the pejorative "he maintained", a phrase journalists usually deploy in sentences like: "The embattled governor maintained he had never seen the bribe money before."

I've also learned, over time, you can always find the most crucial bit evidence (thus, the evidence the reporter likes least) mentioned four or so paragraphs from the end, squirreled away in the least-read section of the article. (Nobody will notice it, but they can still say they reported it.) In this case:

Soldiers removed Zelaya in a June 28 coup after he tried to hold an election that day on a measure to allow a president to run for a second consecutive term.

Why, yes, that would be important to understanding all this, wouldn't it? (Not to mention the role of the Supreme Court and Congress, and the fact the Constitution demands immediate removal of any president trying such.) So it's placed where no-one will see it, and followed by paragraphs which assure the reader: "... but Zelaya's action wouldn't have been a problem anyway, see?"