Honduras (catch all)

[marct]

Video analysis of the situation by Real News Network.

http://therealnews.com/t/index.php?o...0+17%3A03%3A19

"Analysis"? Hmm, I would have said "pre-conceived theological Truthyness" myself . Did anyone else notice that a large amount of the video was provided by Al-Jezeera? I also noticed that the "commentator" (aka talking head) didn't bother to make any reference to the fact that referendums are disallowed within 6 months of an election.

What's bothering me about a lot of this coverage is that nowhere yet have I seen anyone noting that Zelaya was trying to build a Chavez-style dictatorship.

[J Wolfsberger]

What's bothering me about a lot of this coverage is that nowhere yet have I seen anyone noting that Zelaya was trying to build a Chavez-style dictatorship.

Marc, I think you may be confusing "media coverage" with "news." What's important to the media is that a Leftist lost power. The facts are minor details of no particular significance.

What I would like to know is whether there's any confirmation of the assertion in the NY Post that Chavez has agents on the ground. Would he be likely to start/support an insurgency/revolution?

[AnalyticType]

how the video jives with truth on the ground now, several days afterward. Specifically, Prof Salas referred to Zelaya's referrendum as a 'survey', giving it a very different (and far more favorable) connotation. He stated that an unknown number of Legislators had been kidnapped, but I have not seen indications of that elsewhere (yet.) He cited the electricity having been cut off deliberately to create fear among the populace, as well as declaration of 'martial law' for the same purpose. I have not seen evidence of those allegations in La Prensa, though in full disclosure my spanish is rusty (making the translation perhaps less than accurate) and I don't have a handle on the direction of that publication's likely bias.

Having just spent four years living on campus at a very 'liberal' institution of higher education, and having many profs/administrators/students of vocally partisan viewpoints surrounding me, I recognise fervent advocacy coming from the "analyst" Professor Miguel Salas... not balanced analysis. Despite that, the video presented it's 'evidence' from a very finite viewpoint (assuming that all the video bits are actually from Honduras on Sunday), so I'm wondering whether any of the allegations made by Prof Salas from that time frame remain the situation now; or has stability and popular understanding of the full situation occurred? Again, that's the impression I got from my rusty reading of La Prensa.

And, as Marc mentioned, video courtesy of al-Jazeera?? Just a bit odd. I perceive a significant amount of cherry-picking in the information presented in the video.

J Wolfsberger, it's likely that the answer to your question is "yes."

I'm thinkin' a little structured ACH exercise is in order. (This'll be good practice for me!) I'll dig into it and post findings later today.

Video analysis of the situation by Real News Network.

http://therealnews.com/t/index.php?o...0+17%3A03%3A19

[marct]

Hi JW,

Marc, I think you may be confusing "media coverage" with "news." What's important to the media is that a Leftist lost power. The facts are minor details of no particular significance.

As Stan would say, that's the romantic in me . 'sides that, it would probably be more accurate (if that means anything ) to state that "What's important is that a demagogue using broadly Marxian rhetoric to establish personal rule under the "one Man - One Vote" rule (and he's the one man with the one vote) got turfed by the supreme court, the congress and the military."

What I would like to know is whether there's any confirmation of the assertion in the NY Post that Chavez has agents on the ground. Would he be likely to start/support an insurgency/revolution?

Now that is an interesting question. Honestly, i wouldn't be surprised if he did. You know, if Aristophanes was alive today, he would be having a field day - can we say "Brakakax, koax, koax"?

[J Wolfsberger]

... it would probably be more accurate (if that means anything ) to state that "What's important is that a demagogue using broadly Marxian rhetoric to establish personal rule under the "one Man - One Vote" rule (and he's the one man with the one vote) got turfed by the supreme court, the congress and the military."

Well THERE'S my problem. As a simple minded engineering type I didn't realize THAT'S what was happening!

[marct]

Well THERE'S my problem. As a simple minded engineering type I didn't realize THAT'S what was happening!

!!!!!!!

[Ken White]

...can we say "Brakakax, koax, koax"?

Google those words individually...

[John T. Fishel]

the SG of the OAS, Jose Miguel Insulza, was so adamant in this crisis. Insulza is a Chilean who was exiled as a result of the Pinochet coup in 1973. It was obviously a searing and formative experience for him. Moreover, there are enough analogous factors in the Honduras scenario to offer an explanation for his position.

Cheers

JohnT

[Old Eagle]

My read of the situation is somewhat different than many of the posts. Deep down, I think that many of the main external players, with the exception of the "Bolivarians" and the outright communists, want Zelaya gone, but through more judicial processes than having the army spirit him out of the country. The internal players (SC & cong), on the other hand, may be fearful of the street violence Z might be able to generate during that process.

Almost everybody wants to prevent the return of the ubiquitous military coups of the 50s-80s.

[Ron Humphrey]

Chavez was up to his Mr friendly antics at the UN a year or so ago was how would someone like him choose to pull kind of a reverse history in Latin America/ blended with a Castroesque control.

This

Take it turn it around and insert Chavez??

Probably way off but its one possible way of looking at it.
(Or do I get my own conspiracy thread)

[slapout9]

"Analysis"? Hmm, I would have said "pre-conceived theological Truthyness" myself . Did anyone else notice that a large amount of the video was provided by Al-Jezeera? I also noticed that the "commentator" (aka talking head) didn't bother to make any reference to the fact that referendums are disallowed within 6 months of an election.

What's bothering me about a lot of this coverage is that nowhere yet have I seen anyone noting that Zelaya was trying to build a Chavez-style dictatorship.

Happy Canada Day Marct here is some video coverage for you!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CykFEFwP2IU

[John T. Fishel]

I think your analysis is spot on. What concerns me is the unwillingness of the external players - non-Bolivarian - to look at the facts on the ground. They have all created a myth that this was a coup, which if the facts are as reported it was not. Indeed, it was a constitutionally sanctioned action carried out somewhat more crudely than was really necessary - but constitutional nonetheless.

Marct and all other Canadians here, I join in wishing y'all a Happy Canada Day.

Cheers

JohnT

[slapout9]

My read of the situation is somewhat different than many of the posts. Deep down, I think that many of the main external players, with the exception of the "Bolivarians" and the outright communists, want Zelaya gone, but through more judicial processes than having the army spirit him out of the country. The internal players (SC & cong), on the other hand, may be fearful of the street violence Z might be able to generate during that process.

Almost everybody wants to prevent the return of the ubiquitous military coups of the 50s-80s.

You got my vote.

[AnalyticType]

I meant to post this hours ago, but well, life happens....

BLUF: Based upon the information gathered, and assuming that all of the information that has been discussed is valid, it is highly unlikely that the ouster of Presidente Zelaya was an illegal action/coup. Further, it is highly likely that the actions taken by the Honduran Legislature, Supreme Court, and military, were triggered by a significant trend of activities by Zelaya to consolidate power and guarantee his continued presidency beyond the constitutionally set limit.

Utilising Dick Heuer's ACH software, I evaluated 36 pieces of evidence/information against two sets of mutually exclusive hypotheses:

1) The actions of the Honduran government were legal; or The actions of the Honduran government were an illegal coup.
2) Zelaya was not acting in his own self-interest; or Zelaya was laying the groundwork for "president-for-life" conditions to his benefit

The list of evidence/information which I evaluated against these four theses, with a screenshot example of how the ACH matrix was constructed, and a simple graph with statistical results, is attached to this post. Keep in mind that my goal was not to prove any theory, but rather to disprove all of the theories. The results of the ACH matrix are not absolute, but they are structured and significantly less prone to bias.

BTW, I'm prolly preachin' to the choir for quite a few here...humor me? My intent is merely to introduce a little structured analysis rather than emotion- or mind-set-based determinations.

[John T. Fishel]

Nice job putting that together.

Questions:
1. Where do you find the ACH softwear?
2. Is it available w/o charge ie free?
3.Where does one find a good and detailed description of what it does?

So much for the practical questions. Now for something methodologically substantive - How did you arrive at your coding for credibility and relevance? While I generally agreed with you there were a couple (1 - 3) relevances that I questioned and a few more (3 - 5) credibilities that I questioned. In a similar vein, was Low not an option? And if it was, why did you not choose it in any case (I really thought there were a couple of low creds and 1 low relevance)?

Again, ya done good!!!!!

Cheers

JohnT

[J Wolfsberger]

Nice job putting that together.

Questions:
1. Where do you find the ACH softwear?
2. Is it available w/o charge ie free?
3.Where does one find a good and detailed description of what it does?

So much for the practical questions. Now for something methodologically substantive - How did you arrive at your coding for credibility and relevance? While I generally agreed with you there were a couple (1 - 3) relevances that I questioned and a few more (3 - 5) credibilities that I questioned. In a similar vein, was Low not an option? And if it was, why did you not choose it in any case (I really thought there were a couple of low creds and 1 low relevance)?

Again, ya done good!!!!!

Cheers

JohnT

I'll second that.

John, I'm intrigued by the tool as well. Here's a start: Analysis of Competing Hypotheses.

Here's one tool: ACH2.0.3

[marct]

Nice job, AT!

JW, thanks for the links - I'm going to try playing with the software and see how well it operates.

[AnalyticType]

You beat me to it!

That's precisely the software I used. I have another one called DecisionWarning which has more graphing tools once you've completed the matrix, but ACH from PARC is better explained and easier to use.

JTF, to answer your third question, the ACH software from PARC (Richards Heuer) has a very detailed tutorial which can be utilized on-screen or downloaded and printed out. As I recall, it prints out to about 50 pages, give or take.

Regarding the subjective elements (credibility and relevance), the options are Low, Medium and High. For credibility of the information, if I had a piece of information that was obtained from a highly credible source, ie the State Department website, OR if I confirmed more than two disparate but credible sources, I rated it High. I used Medium for data which I found in two locations, where one or both sources were less than sterling. And Low I used on a couple items, but then found confirming information elsewhere and changed them to Medium.

Regarding relevance, the same options are available. I was evaluating two different sets of competing hypotheses which were related to each other but not necessarily 'linked' to each other. So I used High relevance for information which strongly was applicable to both sets of hypotheses, and Medium relevance for information which may be peripheral for one set but cogent for the other.

And yes, it is subjective. While I know a fair amount about Latin American history, culture and politics, I have not been there and am not an area expert. Someone who spent a great deal of time there (via State, DoD or CIA, etc) likely would rate relevance or credibility differently than I, in some instances.

I'll second that.

John, I'm intrigued by the tool as well. Here's a start: Analysis of Competing Hypotheses.

Here's one tool: ACH2.0.3

[marct]

Happy Canada Day Marct here is some video coverage for you!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CykFEFwP2IU

What can I say but Oi Vey?!?!?

Well, 'twas a fun day but doesn't come close to 1979 !!!!

[J Wolfsberger]

You beat me to it!

That's precisely the software I used. I have another one called DecisionWarning which has more graphing tools once you've completed the matrix, but ACH from PARC is better explained and easier to use.

JTF, to answer your third question, the ACH software from PARC (Richards Heuer) has a very detailed tutorial which can be utilized on-screen or downloaded and printed out. As I recall, it prints out to about 50 pages, give or take.

Regarding the subjective elements (credibility and relevance), the options are Low, Medium and High. For credibility of the information, if I had a piece of information that was obtained from a highly credible source, ie the State Department website, OR if I confirmed more than two disparate but credible sources, I rated it High. I used Medium for data which I found in two locations, where one or both sources were less than sterling. And Low I used on a couple items, but then found confirming information elsewhere and changed them to Medium.

Regarding relevance, the same options are available. I was evaluating two different sets of competing hypotheses which were related to each other but not necessarily 'linked' to each other. So I used High relevance for information which strongly was applicable to both sets of hypotheses, and Medium relevance for information which may be peripheral for one set but cogent for the other.

And yes, it is subjective. While I know a fair amount about Latin American history, culture and politics, I have not been there and am not an area expert. Someone who spent a great deal of time there (via State, DoD or CIA, etc) likely would rate relevance or credibility differently than I, in some instances.

This methodology is similar to the Delphi Method. One way to approach the rating is to have a small panel of independent reviewers, then "average" their evaluations. Depending on how you want to look at it, you're either averaging the subjectivity, or averaging it out. I've used this approach in areas such as formal risk assessments for R&D programs with pretty good results.

AT, I owe you a beer if we ever run into each other. I've been looking for a package to do this for some time now.