Tag Archives: USA

Immature on democracy in the US Senate

In a report by the ranking Republican, Senator Lugar, to the U.S. Senate committee on foreign relations, Multilateralism in the Americas: Let’s start by fixing the OAS, the Organization for American States is criticized for its failure in relation to the coups in Venezuela 2002 and Honduras 2009, as the report puts it. The OAS reacted when the military intervened, but not when the president violated the constitution. On page 10 it says: “In both Venezuela and Honduras, executive defiance of other government institutions provoked the breakdown of democratic rule.”

That sentence is very disturbing. It reveals a fundamental lack of understanding of the concept of separation of powers.

The Honduran Congress has shown a much higher degree of understanding of democracy than those staff writers in the U.S. Senate.

The Hondurans, unlike the Americans, understood that executive defiance of other government institutions constituted a breakdown of democratic rule – it didn’t provoke it, it was it.

I find it troubling that staff in the Congress of the United States of America have so little understanding for democracy. Then again, it does explain why they did not impeach president Bush XLIII, although there was prima facie evidence that he, just like Chávez and Zelaya, also violated his country’s constitution.

My recommendation would be to look at their own House first, so to say. How would the U.S. democratic institutions react if something similar were to happen here? If Obama would try to overthrow the Constitution, would you just sit idly by, Senator Lugar? Not that I think there is any risk, but it may be in order to contemplate the situation. The U.S. is a very young country and lacks domestic experience from these things. It is worth keeping this saying in mind: “You have to learn from other people’s mistakes, because you don’t live long enough to make them all yourself.”

Sweden has had some showdowns between the executive and the popularly elected parliament in its history. It should be perfectly clear that since no branch of government is above the other, a president who defies the other branches of government, beyond a certain point which reasonably would be the use of force against them, has lost any legitimacy and can be deposed as allowed for by the Constitution. This is precisely what Honduras did.

Once you can respond to how the U.S. would handle a crisis such as the one Honduras was faced with, then, Senator Lugar, you have the standing to make recommendations to the OAS, or to criticize Honduras.

USA is falling behind – I told you so…

Yesterday I heard on the Situation Room on CNN that the past decade has seen a tremendous economic decline of the US. The U.S. GDP’s stake in the global economy shrunk from 32% to 24% in the past decade. That is the worst decline of any nation except for the collapse of the Soviet Union, they said. Which brings to mind that the same professor who accurately predicted that the Soviet Union would collapse also has predicted that the US global empire will collapse. He moved up the year when G.W. Bush became president, to in the middle of the decade that is now starting.

When I moved to the US in 2002 I was surprised to find a country that was almost obsolete in terms of technology compared to Europe (GSM and SMS had almost no penetration, for instance), and which was very inefficient in many aspects in terms of how basic everyday things are done. Several sectors are totally dysfunctional in comparison to Europe, banking and health insurance being by far the worst. There seems to be no functioning competition (I later learned that health insurance as a business sector is actually allowed to fix prices by law, but they have no law that requires them to provide insurance). Also the government bureaucracy is inefficient. In comparison, Sweden – with a government bureaucracy that is known to be meticulous – appears as a miracle of speed and simplicity. While in Sweden you typically can file your taxes on a GSM mobile phone, in the U.S. it typically requires the assistance of a paid professional.

What shocked me was the discordance. At the same time as the U.S. had a GDP per capita that was one third higher than any other country, they seemed to be at least one third less efficient at what they were doing. Most things in the stores were imported from China, and the U.S. didn’t produce much that the rest of the world wanted to buy. Their insistence on using their own measurement system instead of the metric system pretty much disqualified their products from any application in which they have to be interfaced to anything else, or to be repaired abroad – a disadvantage that pretty much affects all manufactured goods. The Chinese have solved this by making a unique U.S. version for export using the U.S. measurement system instead of the metric one, but here in the U.S. it is so hard and costly to find metric raw materials for producing metric products for export, that it becomes totally impossible to produce items for export at competitive prices (keep in mind that the costs here already are the highest, even without this handicap).

Already in 2002 I thus predicted that the U.S. economy would collapse, for lack of competitiveness. Unfortunately, rather than realizing the situation and changing with the times, the Americans have been told by their leaders and media that the U.S. is the best country in the world. The impression they have got is that they are the best, and that they have something to teach the rest of the world rather than learn from it. And so the downfall has become inevitable.

The solution is of course to fix the systemic problems that caused this in the first time, as I have said to anybody who has cared to listen since 2002: Regulate banks so they have to provide good and timely services at a reasonable price, and ban immoral practices that are hurting the economy; regulate the health insurance so that every legal resident has access to health care, no exceptions, and so that everyone who is able to pitches in to pay for it; streamline the government, make different branches cooperate directly with each other, remove private consultants and build the competence within the government instead, and drastically reduce the number of politically appointed persons in favor of staff hired based on competence; switch to the metric system not just on paper but in reality as well; and finally, stop destroying money and other countries alike by wasting trillions on the military, and invest money instead in educating the young Americans, with free education all the way up to college level.

Those are 5 areas of action that I believe are essential for turning the country around. It includes giving up the Empire. The Bush notion that the U.S. can be a global empire has to be abandoned. It is possible for a time, but the price is that after this limited time, the homeland will be destroyed financially, and it will take a hundred years to come back. This is not guesswork, it is just a matter of using empirical data from history. The U.S. is far from the first country to try to turn into an almighty empire. It always ends the same way, even if the details differ.

The only thing that can keep the U.S. ahead is brains. The first step is to become aware of the reality. Given the horribly inadequate news reporting in the U.S. one might be tempted to conclude that the underlying reason for the collapse is the collapse of the TV News in America, which happened about two decades ago as a result of president Reagan’s deregulation. So to the list can be added to create a tax-funded TV and radio News service that is totally free from any advertising and sponsoring money, and that has to be un-biased and objective, with some sort of oversight and complaints system. NPR and PBS today are total jokes.

Can this be done? Yes, definitely. Will it be done? No, I don’t think so, because there is no political will, and no political possibility, due to the way the U.S. constitution is written. Ultimately, I believe the U.S. needs a constitutional reform that changes the form of government to a parliamentarian republic, with a prime minister alongside the president, and with proportional representation. Only by strengthening democracy in such a way do I think it is possible to defeat the powerful special interests that have now shot themselves in the foot so badly.

Joe “Judas” Lieberman’s health care bill

In the middle of the night I watched the U.S. Senate vote for cloture on the health care bill. It means that they decided to cut off debate, which requires a 60% majority. Which is exactly what they got, 60-40. The final vote on passing the bill is now just a formality, since it only requires a simple majority, 51 votes.

The bill that passed is, however, quite horrible, and a light-year away from the reform that the American people need. For instance, the health care insurers in the U.S. – private for-profit companies – have since WWII had an exemption from the anti-trust laws. The bill contained a clause that would remove that would make it illegal to fix prices. However, to get the 60th vote, they had to take that clause away.

Another crucial provision that was removed was to make it legal for states to set up not-for-profit, public health insurance systems. They had already a long time ago had to abandon the idea of a universal health insurance like the ones that every other developed country in the world has. The public option was all that remained. However, to get the 60th vote they had to remove even the possibility of public competition with the price-fixing private industry.

The 60th vote came from Joe “Judas” Lieberman. He was the one to sell out the American people to the insurance companies.

What remains in the bill is a provision that makes it a crime not to buy health insurance from the price-fixing private for-profit companies. In other words, the way to get coverage for all ended up not being a universal health insurance system like the other 42 highly developed nations have, but to force people by law to buy a product from an industry that is free to set whatever price they want, that is free to avoid private competition by price-fixing, and that is protected from public competition by law.

Today 40,000 Americans per year die since they have no money and no insurance to pay for life-saving medical procedures. Nobody will sell them health insurance since they have a “pre-existing condition”. If they loose their job, they loose their insurance. If they got a disease such as cancer while under the previous insurance, no new insurance will be sold to them. So if the cancer comes back, they’re dead. Cancer is just one example.

Even those who have insurance today are not protected. The insurers are happy to collect the fees for years, but when the customer becomes a patient and is headed for an expensive operation, then the insurance company makes an investigation to find out if the person had some pre-existing condition. If they find something, no matter how insignificant, then they drop the insurance immediately since the form was filled in fraudulently. Even if it was an honest mistake due to poor memory. Therefore, in my book the health insurance is organized crime; morally speaking, although it is legal since they have bought enough Congressmen to make their moral crime legal. But what they do is an abomination to God and to Human Rights principles alike.

The bill that now will be passed, it is just a formality, bans denying coverage based on pre-existing condition. That is a huge improvement, although I don’t think it will work in practice. You see, the companies will create such a bureaucracy to renew the coverage every year that it will take about half the year to renew, during which time the person will be uninsured, and (hopefully, in the eyes of the company) die. Simple logic says that you cannot run health insurance for profit without violating Human Rights. Those in Congress who argue otherwise have either sold their souls to Mammon, or they are naive. I’ll excuse the Republicans, but Lieberman is not naive.

So why did the Democrats pass this bill in spite of these sell-outs? Because the House bill is much better, so when the two reach the reconciliation committee the compromise will for sure be better than the Joe “Judas” Lieberman Bill.

US Congress Research Office’s report on Honduras

On September 10th, the congressional non-partisan research office presented a report about Honduras. It is invaluable as a source of information about how the US sees the events, and the binational relationship. It is based on official documents and newspaper articles, the latter unfortunately playing too big a role, since they are often full of errors due to simplifications or misunderstandings in translations.

Let me first point out that the author, Peter J. Meyer, left out on page 3 the publication of decree PCB-019-2009 on June 25th, an act that the judicial experts in Honduras considers very serious. Also, the author displays a clear ideological bias in opening statements such as “Zelaya’s forced exile marked the country’s first departure from democratic, constitutional governance” on page 4. Thus, keep in mind that his bias is against Honduras when reading it.

While the report mentions Zelaya’s policies of reducing fuel costs, it leaves out the side effects, some of which I personally experienced when carrying out an expert mission for IAEA, i.e., lack of fuel hampering work and making us loose days of work.

On page 5, Meyer writes “Zelaya has argued that presidential reelection should be possible and that the constitution—drafted in 1982—must be amended…” Actually, if Zelaya had said as much it would be a blatant violation of §239 which would have prompted his immediate removal from office, but the author does not seem aware of the fine details of the constitution. In fact, Zelaya never said that to my knowledge, but his actions were apparently interpreted by the prosecutor and court to imply that. His own justification was that liberal democracy was obsolete and that a new form of democracy was required, with less power to the other institutions of government (beside the president).

Om page 6, the secret arrest warrant of the Supreme Court is mentioned, and the date June 25th given to it. As I have blogged before, there is ample “ear witness” accounts and circumstantial evidence that this is true, and even I was told about it on the 25th, in the form of a hint that some action would be taken against Zelaya.

On page 7 the poll taken shortly after the change of president is mentioned, but unfairly. As reported in this blog (cf. the update), two questions were asked: Was it justified to depose Zelaya? Yes 41%, No 28%; Do you agree with the actions to remove Zelaya from the country? Yes 41%, No 46%. Thus, the majority thinks he should be deposed, but the majority also thinks he should not have been exiled (which is illegal, of course). It is a sign of bias that the report only mentions the second question.

Furthermore, the bias continues by not mentioning the rampant crimes committed by a significant number of people supporting Zelaya in destroying private property. The government has a duty to uphold order and to protect the citizens. To criticize it for doing so when the citizens are under attack, while ignoring the attack, is not fair.

On page 10 the report states that Micheletti rejected the San José Accord. I am rather certain that it is wrong, and it is only based on a foreign newspaper article (New York Times). As far as I am aware, Micheletti has no objection, but the Supreme Court and one other institution have, and furthermore Congress says amnesty can only be granted for political crimes.

The rest in the reportis unrelated, but let me just quote one figure to illustrate that the scholarship seems to be wanting. On page 12 the number of dead as a result of hurricane Mitch in 1998 is given as “more than 5,000” . For years I worked in several reconstruction projects after Mitch, in Honduras and Nicaragua, and this is the first time I hear a figure of under 10,000 dead in Honduras. I can only quote my countryman Axel Oxenstierna: “If you only knew my son, with how little wisdom the world is run” (written 1648).

Honduras ett bondeoffer i världspolitiken

Som jag har kunnat visa på denna blogg, enligt uppgifter från olika källor, vet USA, EU, Sverige och andra västländer mycket väl att det inte var en militärkupp i Honduras. Ändå låtsas de som om det var en kupp och inför sanktioner. Åtminstone för syns skull. Varför?

Den enda rimliga förklaringen är att de håller god min i elakt spel, och vill undvika att öppet utmana Hugo Chavez, vilken är i full färd med att bygga upp en global allians mot västvärlden. Förutom Venezuela ingår Syrien, Iran, Vitryssland och Ryssland, samt Kuba och länderna som håller på att genomföra den så kallade bolivarianska revolutionen, Nicaragua, Ecuador, Bolivia. I denna revolution ingår att kasta ut den konstitutionella demokratin och införa en i princip diktatorisk president, samt att nationalisera stora delar av näringslivet, samtidigt som mänskliga rättigheter kommer på undantag, om än olika för olika grupper.

Denna axels huvudfiender är USA och Israel. Men var står EU och Sverige?

Centraleuropa är beroende av gas från Ryssland. Spanien har oljeavtal med Venezuela, och den socialdemokratiska regimen verkar stå mycket nära Chavez (oppositionen är dock starkt kritisk till Chavez; Spanien tar över som EU-ordförande efter Sverige). Precis som högern i USA brukar säga är alltså Europa i en beroendeställning som gör att deras handlingsutrymme kan vara lite begränsat. Att USA köper en stor del av sin olja från Venezuela tycker de dock inte om att skylta med. Alltnog, EU försöker uppenbarligen att låta bli att reta Chavez.

USA har blivit utkastad från sin enda militärbas i Sydamerika, i Ecuador. Den enda kvarvarande i Latinamerika är i Honduras. Är det en tillfällighet att Correa blev vald i Ecuador och Zelaya i Honduras, och att de anslöt sina länder till ALBA, alliansen för den bolivarianska revolutionen? Bevis har framkommit att Correa fick kampanjbidrag från FARC, narkotikagerillan i Colombia. Bevis har ännu inte framkommit att Zelaya fick $10 miljoner från samma gerilla för sin valkampanj, men det är nog bara en tidsfråga.

Det är naturligtvis ingen tillfällighet. Man måste också misstänka att Chavez fick sin valkampanj i Venezuela betald av FARC, och att det är därför han är så hjälpsam mot dem. FARC var marxistisk från början, men nu är det en ren knarkgerilla, enligt colombianerna. Det är säkert heller inte en tillfällighet att Morales vann i Bolivia på en politik att göra koka lagligt (han är indian, och det är en del av deras kultur).

Vad vi ser verkar vara de synliga effekterna av en ny strategi för vänstergerillorna i Sydamerika. Istället för väpnad kamp i djunglerna har de alltmer övergått till att tjäna pengar på kokainet, och använt de stora inkomsterna till att köpa presidenter i allt fler länder. Efter Venezuela kunde de ta oljerikedomarna där och använda som hävstång (samtidigt som venezolanerna själva blir allt fattigare när deras pengar används till att muta ledare i andra länder och köpa vapen – ofta oanvändbara vapen som de ryska stridsvagnarna utan luftkonditionering, i ett land där pansarslag knappast är aktuella).

Att folk gör sig självständiga och tar ansvar för sina egna liv och länder är i och för sig gott, vilket gör att de har fått mycket sympati i Europa och bland USAs vänster. Deras koppling till kokainet har de lyckats väl med att gömma undan.

Problemet är emellertid att rörelsen är i grunden fascistisk, inte demokratisk. Den är marxistisk, ja, men socialismen (det Chavez kallar socialismo en el siglo XXI) är kombinerad med en stark presidentmakt och bristande respekt för mänskliga rättigheter och för privat ägande – just det som kännetecknar fascismen. Lägg därtill ett nationalistiskt drag, i betydelse att göra skillnad på folk och folk, och resultatet blir en ny form av nationalsocialism. Denna likhet mellan Chavez och Hitler har media i Latinamerika skrivit om i många år, utan att det verkar ha uppmärksammats i Europa. Likheten sträcker sig också till Chavez mycket effektiva propagandaministerium, vars inflytande sträcker sig också till vad som står i svenska tidningar. Honduras är ett bra exempel, men också pansarskotten. Hur många var det inte som försökte försvara Chavez med ihåliga undanflykter?

De militärbaser som USA nu skall få tillgång till i Colombia syftar till att kunna fortsätta kriget mot FARC. Att Chavez blir så upprörd beror inte på att Venezuela skulle vara hotat, utan på att FARC står under Chavez (inofficiella) beskydd. Även han håller god min i elakt spel och låtsas som om han inte hade med dem att göra.

Så detta har hänt: FARC och Chavez försöker underminera USA genom att köpa presidenter i de länder där USA har baser i första hand: Ecuador och Honduras. Ecuadors köpta president kastar ut USA; USA skaffar nya baser i Colombia. Honduras högsta domstol kastar ut den köpta presidenten; Chavez anklagar USA för att ligga bakom “kuppen”; USA nekar men håller med om att det var en “kupp” och inför sanktioner, kanske för att inte förlora PR-kriget och riskera baserna i Colombia. Ett bondeoffer för att komma nära “kungen av Sydamerika”, som Honduras president kallade Chavez?

Den som lever får se.

PS. Det krävs inte mycket fantasi för att misstänka att Obama härom dagen skrotade det av Ryssland hårt kritiserade missilförsvaret i Europa för att försöka få Ryssland mindre Chavez-vänligt, och därmed stärka alliansen mot denne.

Fotnot 1 oktober: Denna analys gjordes utifrån antagandet att Obamas politik var baserad på en insikt att Chavez är farlig, att den hat-socialism han står för är odemokratisk och destruktiv. Andra möjliga förklaringar är förstås att Obama inte alls förstår det, eller att han själv har samma dagordning som Chavez. Det verkar niu mest sannolikt att oförstånd är förklaringen.

USA försökte störta Honduras grundlag

Spelet kring Honduras blir alltmer märkligt. Igår framkom det att USAs ambassadör, Hugo Llorens, hade satt tryck på honduranerna att gå med på att kasta ut landets demokratiska grundlag. Detta gjorde han i veckan som föregick den 28 juni, då president Zelaya blev avlägsnad från sin post på order av högsta domstolen, just för att ha försökt störta grundlagen.

Detta betyder att det inte enbart var Venezuelas Hugo Chávez, utan också USA lett av Barack Obama, i och för sig via en ambassadör tillsatt av George W. Bush, som deltog i konspirationen att kullkasta Honduras demokrati och rättsstat.

Det som verkligen är märkligt i detta är att inget av de västländer som nu infört sanktioner mot Honduras tillåter att deras egen grundlag kullkastas. Någon anledning till varför de använder en måttståck för Honduras och en annan för resten av världen har inte presenterats.

Bland sanktionerna märks indragna visum till USA, vilket redan har drabbat de sjuka. Honduras strategi är att kvalificerad vård får man söka i USA, vilket alltså nu är omöjligt.

Honduras utrikesminister, Carlos López Contreras, har begärt ett möte med sin nordamerikanska kollega Hillary Clinton, beträffande dessa “oberättigade” och “diskriminerande” sanktioner, som han beskriver dem som. López anför att motivet till sanktionerna dessutom är falskt.

Sanktionerna infördes för att sätta tryck på Honduras att acceptera Óscar Arias plan, San José-överenskommelsen. Honduras har emellertid förklarat att flera punkter strider mot landets gällande grundlag. De har lagt fram inte mindre än fem motförslag vid olika tidpunkter för att söka hitta en lösning som kan accepteras av de demokratiska institutionerna i landet, och leda till en regim som omvärlden kan erkänna. Det är motparten i samtalen, den avsatte presidenten Manuel Zelaya, som förklarat att samtalen har strandat.

Sanningen är att Zelaya är oeftergivlig på en punkt, nämligen att han skall återinsättas. Samtidigt antyder han att om han återinsätts, så måste han få tidskompensation för den tid han har missat. Enligt grundlagen tillträder den nya presidenten i slutat av januari, och det är inte möjligt att ändra det, men Zelaya verkar vilja strunta i den paragrafen och sitta flera månader till.

Republiken Honduras är lika oeftergivlig på punkten att Zelaya kan inte återinsättas eftersom han bröt mot grundlagens §239, och grundlagen skall följas strikt, för den är grunden för demokratin och rättssäkerheten. Paragrafen ifråga säger att en som varit president en period kan inte bli president eller vicepresident, och om någon ens förordar att ändra den paragrafen så förlorar denne omedelbart sin förtroendepost och kan inte väljas igen på 10 år till någon post.

Denna konflikt, som vid ett första påseende verkar vara en klassisk militärkupp, visar sig alltså vara dess raka motsats. Ett litet fattigt men stolt land försvarar sin demokrati inte bara mot en fascistoid Sydamerikansk diktator – Chávez – utan också mot dennes ärkefiende, USA, det land som påstår sig vara demokratins högborg på jorden. Hur kan det bli så fel? Svaret är enkelt: Därför att nästan ingen analyserar fakta själv, och det inkluderar världens ledare. Axel Oxenstiernas ord är lika sanna nu som då: Om du blott visste min son, med hur lite vishet världen styrs.

Cold war in America, says Honduran industry leader

Adolfo Facussé, chairman of the National Association of Industry (ANDI) in Honduras was turned back when arriving to Miami last Saturday, after the US has revoked the visas for a large number of businessmen who have expressed support for the presidential succession in Honduras on June 8th this year. When returning he warned of a “psychological war” and asked Hondurans to stay calm.

Facussé was traveling with his young son, who had a medical appointment in Miami.

Today at the UN Human Rights Council meeting in Geneva, Switzerland, the meeting was blocked all morning by the group of Latin American and Caribbean countries, since they were opposed to the presence of the Honduran ambassador Delmer Urbizo, because he views the presidential succession on June 28th as constitutional. The Venezuelan ambassador, representing Honduras’ main cold war enemy president Hugo Chávez, as well as the Dominican Republic, indicated that their position was that Honduras should leave the meeting. When the Honduran ambassador refused, Argentina and Brazil raised it as a question of meeting order, whereupon the chair scheduled the debate for the afternoon.

Honduras is not part of the Human Rights Committee at present, but has as all countries the right to participate in the meetings and in the debate. Since the country has been accused of violating the human rights of citizens after June 28th, ambassador Urbizo chose to exercise that right in order to defend his country in the face of these accusations, something that Honduras’ enemies appear not to like at all.

USA is waging Cold War on Honduras

An editorial in the Washington Post writes about Obama’s decision to pressure Honduras to re-instate Zelaya as president, by cutting aid and visas:

“The administration’s action was not without risk. If the Micheletti regime digs in its heels, the result could be the very destabilization that the United States and its moderate allies hope to avoid.”

Given that the vast majority of Hondurans, all major presidential candidates in the upcoming elections, and all branches of government including the Supreme Court, support the country’s policy, no informed observer can reasonably believe that the pressure from the United States of America will lead to Zelaya being re-instated as president.

The Supreme Court of Justice of Honduras has in effect declared that Zelaya cannot be re-instated. What the United States of America is aiming for is therefore, in practice, nothing less than to defeat the sovereignty of the Republic of Honduras.

To defeat a sovereign nation without resorting to open war is called Cold War. The strategy has been said to be invented by Adolf Hitler, who successfully applied it to Austria and Czechoslovakia. Soon after, the Soviet Union applied it to Lithuania, Latvia, Estonia, and – without success – to Finland, a country that heroically defeated the superpower in the Winter War, using inter alia Molotov cocktails.

It is true that the US government has not instigated the conflict like Germany and the Soviet Union did. However, the US ambassador to Honduras knew about the political developments leading up to Zelaya’s treason that got him ousted, and did not prevent the escalation of the conflict.

Obama wants to mend relations to Latin America, and for that reason he cannot let a coup d’état stand. However, since Zelaya was no longer president when he was expelled, having violated §239 of the Constitution, there was no coup.

What the US should do is to contribute to making the truth known, and – privately – to advice Zelaya to resign peacefully in return for amnesty, at least for his political crimes. That would be the wise thing to do.

But as Axel Oxenstierna wrote back in 1648, “If you only knew, my son, with how little wisdom the world is run.”

PS. Here is an English blog from inside Honduras, revealing how Zelaya is openly declaring his intent not to abide by the peace accord if he is re-instated: La Gringa’s Blogecito

US Congressman new Chamberlain?

Just read an opinion piece in LA Times by Howard L. Berman (D-Valley Village), chairman of the House Foreign Affairs Committee.

He writes, “The de facto government claims that Zelaya was trying to subvert the Honduran Constitution and convert the country into a satellite of Venezuelan strongman Hugo Chavez. That may be.” and furthermore, “No matter what we think of Zelaya (and I don’t think highly of him) and his actions to change the Honduran Constitution, it is a fact that his mandate to govern was gained in a fully transparent election.”

Berman talks like he’s disconnected from reality. He admits that Zelaya was violating the Constitution, which would be the equivalent of High Crimes in USA, and still he argues he should stay in power.

The poor guy appears to have no idea what democracy is. Land is built with law. Enforcing the law is not optional.

No wonder Bush was not impeached or prosecuted in spite of blatant crimes, including war crimes.

Never in my wildest dreams had I thought that Honduras would be the country to defend democracy, and USA to be the gravedigger for it. Yet, that is what we are witnessing now. The Republicans and Democrats have now both gone utterly mad, albeit in different ways. The Republicans have got too big balls (which I presume is why they walk like cowboys), and the Democrats have got no balls at all.

The problem is not the regime change in Honduras. The problem is that countries such as USA treat presidents as if they were kings. King Barack wants to restore King Mel to power, and so do King Hugo and King Fidel.

I’ve got news for you guys over here in the young world: The old world has already tried that idea with kings, and guess what, it didn’t work out so well. Which is why we in Sweden introduced parliamentarism in 1748. Parliamentarism means the parliament elects the head of government. Funny thing, president Micheletti was elected by the parliament of Honduras, came to think of it.

America is such a young country that it has not yet had a single ruler turned dictator. Maybe that is the reason for the naïveté that Berman displays, and which makes him remarkably similar to Chamberlain with his “Peace in our times”. It’s pitiful, though.

Confusion in USA over “health care reform”

President Obama is facing strong opposition over the proposed – and crucial – reforms to the legislation that governs the so-called “health care” sector. The problem seems to be partly related to this misnomer, since it really is about caring for the sick and injured, not for the healthy. Furthermore, it is only partly about the care itself; mostly it is about who should pay for it, and how. The core of the issue is thus medical insurance reform.

The favorite argument of those who oppose the health care reform is to ask why people from other countries come to get health care in the US, if the system is so bad. Actually, one good answer that I haven’t heard yet is, “Because they have the insurance that allows them to afford it.” Unlike 47 million Americans.

Also, patients go to other countries too, for treatment, including Americans, and without a proper study one cannot assume that patients come to the US for treatment more than to other countries with advanced medicine. That is only hearsay.

The main point has to be, though, that access to medical care is a Human Right. Those who oppose it do not consider it a right. That is where the ideological divide is. Shall we allow people to die because they are poor? The American right screams “Yes!” to that question.