By Staff, Sustain Lane:
You would never cross the street without looking both ways, walk alone down a dark alley alone at three a.m., or tell your child to accept rides from strangers. So why let hazardous, toxic, and even carcinogenic chemicals into your home everyday?
The message driven home for millions of Americans each day via TV and internet commercials is this: No need to scrub or scour. With just one squeeze of the spray bottle, you can wipe away dirt, grime, and bacteria.
Alas, there’s that dark alley again. Air fresheners, disinfectants, and cleaners found under your sink are more dangerous than you think. Mix bleach with ammonia, for example, and you’ve got a toxic fume cloud used by the military in WWI. And they weren’t cleaning kitchens.
Here is a list of the ten products you should ban from your home -- forever -- along with suggested alternatives.
1. Non-Stick Cookware
When non-stick pans were first introduced into American households in the 1960s, they were thought to be a godsend. Gone were the days of soaking pans for hours and scouring pots with steel wool. In the forty years since then, however, we’ve learned that the ease of cleaning comes at a steep price: the coating that makes Teflon pans non-stick is polytetrafluoroethylene, or PTFE for short. When PTFE heats up, it releases toxic gasses that have been linked to cancer, organ failure, reproductive damage, and other harmful health effects.
The problems with PTFE-coated pans seem to occur at high temperatures, so if you must use Teflon, cook foods on medium heat or less. Avoiding non-stick pans altogether is the safest option. If you’re able to do so, try anodized aluminum, stainless steel, or cast iron pans with a little cooking oil. SustainLane reviewers like LeCreuset cast iron pans and more cost-effective ones like Lodge Logic. Using a lower setting on the stove will reduce the chances that your food will burn, which is how it usually gets stuck to pans the first place. If you’re worried about the extra calories cooking oil adds, try baking or steaming your food.
2. Plastic Bottles
By now you’ve heard of dangers of BPA in those ubiquitous neon water bottles. BPA mimics the effects of hormones that harm your endocrine system. While the company at the heart of the controversy has switched to BPA-free plastic, those aren’t the only toxic bottles. Single-use plastic bottles are even worse for leaching chemicals, especially when you add the heat of the sun (think about bottles left in your trunk) or the microwave. Aside from the fact that bottled water sold across state lines is not as regulated as tap water, the bottles themselves are spawning grounds for bacteria and are a source of needless waste. Each year, more than one million barrels of oil are used to manufacture the more than 25 billion single-use plastic water bottles sold in the U.S. Choose a reusable, stainless steel or glass bottle instead. SustainLane users have reviewed several water bottle alternatives.
3. Conventional Cleaning Supplies
These routinely make the top ten lists of worst household offenders. They contain toxic chemicals that negatively affect every system in your body. All purpose cleaners often contain ammonia, a strong irritant that has been linked to liver and kidney damage. Bleach is a powerful oxidizer, which can burn the skin and eyes. Another danger lies in oven cleaners, which can cause chemical burns and emit toxic fumes that harm the respiratory system. The American Association of Poison Control Centers reports that more than 120,000 children under the age of five were involved in incidents involving household cleaners in 2006, the most recent year for which data is available.
To protect you and your family from the hazards conventional cleaners pose, choose non-toxic, or natural cleaners. SustainLane reviewers have particularly enjoyed Method and Seventh Generation, which are commonly found on supermarket shelves. Bon Ami is a safe alternative to Comet and Ajax. If you have the time and want to go the extra mile, you can even mix your own using common household items like vinegar and baking soda. Check out these easy-to-make recipes household cleaners.
4. Chemical Insecticides and Herbicides
Since the purpose of these products is to kill pests, you can bet that many of them have ingredients in them that are also harmful to humans. For example, the active ingredient in Round-Up -- a weed-killer popular with gardeners -- is known to cause kidney damage and reproductive harm in mice. And cypermethrin, one of the active ingredients in the popular ant and roach-killer Raid, is a known eye, skin and respiratory irritant and has negative effects on the central nervous system.
There are several companies that sell natural and organic weed- and pest-control products. Buhach makes a natural insecticide from ground chrysanthemum flowers that controls ants, flies, fleas, lice, gnats, mosquitoes, spiders, and deer ticks, among other pests. Boric acid is an effective, natural solution for cockroaches as well; sprinkle it around baseboards, cracks and other places likely to harbor roaches. You can use this boric acid recipe to control ants. For weeds, check out E.B. Stone Weed-N-Grass or try spot-spraying with household vinegar.
5. Antibacterial Products
The widespread use of antibacterials has been shown to contribute to new strains of antibiotic-resistant “super-bugs.” The Center for Disease Control says that antibacterials may also interfere with immune system development in children. Triclosan -- the most common antibacterial additive found in more than 100 household products ranging from soaps and toothpaste to children’s toys and even undergarments -- accumulates in the body. In a study conducted by the Environmental Working Group, 97 percent of breast feeding mothers had triclosan in their milk, and 75 percent had trace amounts of the chemical in their urine.
Make it your goal to be to be clean, not germ-free. People who are exposed to household germs typically develop strong immune systems and are healthier overall. Avoid buying antibacterial products or soaps containing triclosan. Soap and water is really all you need to clean most things. There are plenty of eco-friendly hand washes and other cleansers that are safe for you and easy on the planet.
6. Chemical Fertilizers
These are notorious for causing damage to our water supply and are a known major contributor to algal blooms. Whenever it rains or a lawn is watered, the runoff goes straight into storm-drains, and untreated water is dumped into rivers, streams, and the ocean. This causes an imbalance in delicate water ecosystems, killing fish and degrading water quality.
If you have a lawn, choose organic fertilizers rather than chemical ones.
As another alternative to harsh chemicals, consider starting a compost pile to create nutrient-rich soil for your flower beds and vegetable gardens. You’ll be creating your own inexpensive fertilizer just by letting food scraps and yard trimmings sit. An added benefit: it’ll also help divert waste from landfills. SustainLane users have reviewed several compost bins here.
7. More Bulb for Your Buck
A Compact Fluorescent (CFL) bulb uses just a fraction of the energy regular light bulb uses. When your current bulbs burn out, swap them with CFLs, and start calculating your savings. General Electric has an online calculator that shows you just how much money you can save by making the switch.
One caveat of the low-energy bulb is that it contains mercury. Even so, CFLs are still your best bet, according to EPA Energy Star program director Wendy Reed. Coal-fired plants are the biggest emitters of mercury. Using CFL bulbs means you draw less power from the grid, which means less coal is burned for electricity. Because of the mercury, take precautions when disposing of these CFL bulbs. Rather than throwing them in your household trash or curbside recycling bin, take them to a hazardous waste collection or other special facility. This story from National Public Radio has a more through discussion of this topic.
8. Air fresheners
Just like cleaning supplies, these are incredibly toxic and can aggravate respiratory problems like asthma. Even those labeled “pure” and “natural” have been found to contain phthalates, chemicals that cause hormonal abnormalities, reproductive problems and birth defects. Try simmering cinnamon and cloves to give your home an “I’ve-spent-the-whole-day-baking” scent, and leave a few windows open to let in fresh air. You might also boil a pot of water on the stove with a few drops of your favorite essential oil, or use an essential oil burner.
9. Flame Retardants
A common flame retardant that was used in mattresses -- polybrominated diphenyl ethers (PBDE) -- is known to accumulate in blood, breast milk and fatty tissues. This chemical is linked to liver, thyroid, and neuro-developmental toxicity. According to the Environmental Working Group, new foam items often do not contain PBDEs, but foam items purchased before 2005 (like mattresses, mattress pads, couches, easy chairs, pillows, carpet padding), are likely to contain them. Household furniture often contains flame retardants and stain repellents that use PBDE’s as well as formaldehyde and PFOA (the same chemical used in non-stick cookware).
If you are in the market for a new mattress or sofa, ask manufacturers what type of flame retardants they use. Look for products that don’t use brominated fire retardants. Organic Abode sells natural and organic furniture. If you’re looking to keep your existing mattress, but make it safer, use a cover made of organic wool to reduce PBDE exposure. You can find organic furniture and interior décor here.
10. Plastic Shopping Bags
Remember: Like diamonds, plastics are forever. Ever heard of the Great Pacific Garbage Patch? It’s a giant mass of plastic twice the size of Texas that’s floating 1,000 miles off the coast of California. In the United States, only two percent of plastic bags are recycled, which means that the remaining 98 percent is dumped into landfills or blown out to sea. According to Californians Against Waste, the City of San Francisco, which recently banned plastic shopping bags, spends 8.5 million dollars annually on plastic bag litter.
The good news is, we can easily decrease our plastic bags use. Bring in your own reusable cloth bags when you go shopping. If you have kids, ask them to remind you to bring them. Or keep them in a place by the door where you’re most likely to remember them on your way out.
Watch this informative cartoon on your own or with your kids
July 9, 2009
I love a practical solution, especially when it’s good all around — for personal health, the environment, and for living consciously. So when I received an email from Chris Elam, the director of the Meatless Monday campaign — a project of the Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health and the Columbia University School of Public Health, in association with twenty-seven other public health schools — I was thrilled.
The campaign is focused on convincing the world not to eat chickens, pigs, and other animals — just one day per week (on Mondays, as you may have guessed).
Since it’s sponsored by a slew of public health schools, the campaign was set up to promote health, and since I’ve already written extensively about the fact that eating meat leads to heart disease, cancer, diabetes, obesity, and lethargy (for example here), I’ll skip extended analysis of these facts, other than to say: When Johns Hopkins, Columbia, the American Dietetic Association, and dozens of other health organizations argue that the less meat you eat, the better off you’ll be, it’s worth listening to them.
Chris wrote to share the fact that Michael Pollan had just argued in favor of the campaign on Oprah, saying, “[w]e don’t realize it when we sit down to eat, but that is our most profound engagement in the rest of nature… To the extent that we push meat a little bit to the side and move vegetables to the center of our diet, we’re also going to be a lot healthier…” I wasn’t surprised, since Pollan’s most recent book calls on all of us to eat “mostly plants,” and his new movie (Food, Inc.) offers a stomach-turning look at factory farming and slaughterhouses (I highly recommend it).
As an aside on Food, Inc.: The scene that I found most interesting is the one where Joel Salatin, proprietor of Polyface Farm, was slaughtering chickens and talking a mile-a-minute through the process. He was talking about treating the animals with respect, but in the theater where I saw the film, this scene elicited perhaps the most audible shock of the entire movie because you can actually see the animals being slaughtered (contrast this with the secrecy of factory farms and slaughterhouses — no one is allowed because, as Paul McCartney likes to say, the process would turn everyone vegetarian). Anyway, this scene seemed to shock a lot of people, even though this is poultry slaughter at its most humane. Actually, the scene reminded me of that Sarah Palin interview that she conducted in front of the turkey slaughter; it’s worth remembering that most chickens and turkeys have a far more horrific experience in the factory farms that process more than 98% of the birds we eat.
Chris also wanted to share their new video, in which their scientists tell us that if all Americans switched from eating chickens and pigs to eating beans and grains for just one day per week, that would stop as much global warming as if everyone in the U.S. shifted to ultra-efficient Toyota hybrids (which is the weekly equivalent of using 12 billion fewer gallons of gasoline). Of course I have to point out the obvious: If we all stopped eating animals completely and shifted to vegetarian foods, that would save 84 billion gallons of gas per week (and all the troubles that go with that kind of consumption).
I know that some readers will argue that the issue is not the meat industry, but factory farmed meat. But in fact, environmentally, all meat requires exponentially more resources to produce than eating grains and beans, as eloquently discussed in the Audubon Society’s magazine a few months back. And all meat contributes to heart disease, cancer, diabetes, and so on. Some meat may be “less bad,” but according to the science, no meat is good.
And I know that some vegetarians pooh pooh Meatless Monday as not enough. I’m sympathetic to that view, but I think it’s unnecessarily strident. For people who think that going totally vegetarian is too challenging, the Meatless Monday campaign offers a gentle entrée into the idea of eating without eating animals. My hope is that people will use the campaign as a stepping stone — first one meatless day per week, then three, then five, then seven. As we lean into meatless eating — switching out more and more meat meals for meatless meals — we end up feeling better, both physically and ethically.
And another point for those who might think that Meatless Monday is not enough: The first family of vegetarianism — Sir Paul McCartney and his daughters — recently launched the campaign in the UK. Stella and Mary have been vegetarian since birth, and Paul has been a vegetarian for more than two decades.
For recipes and cooking information, check out the Meatless Monday site. And for tips on making the transition to vegetarian eating, please click here.
Happy eating!
GEORGETOWN, Guyana — David Thompson, Prime Minister of Barbados, said this week that the Caribbean was faced with global economic convulsions of unprecedented proportions, which had reinforced convictions that regional integration “is the last best hope” for the Caribbean Community (CARICOM).
“Going it alone or fragmenting into unworkable reconfigurations of the regional project cannot be an enduring solution”, Thompson stated. He was at the time speaking at a press briefing in Georgetown, Guyana, on the eve of the 30th Meeting of The Conference of CARICOM Heads of Government.
![]() |
| Barbados Prime Minister David Thompson |
Thompson who is also Lead Head of Government with responsibility for the Single Market and Economy in the CARICOM Quasi Cabinet stated that in the current economic crisis, it was easy for stakeholders to become impatient due to what they saw as the slow pace of the integration project and to declare it “dead on arrival”. Alternatively, he posited, what was needed was the strengthening of the core ideals of the integration movement rather than “proliferating the periphery.”
“In the midst of global crisis and regional upheavals, now is not the time for CARICOM to retreat from its strategic purpose,” the Barbadian Prime Minster emphasised. He added that the crisis had highlighted the need for the refocusing of many of our national institutions from purely domestic visions to the wider regional horizon.
“The successful implementation of the interlocking elements of the CARICOM Single Market and eventually the Single Economy demand this of us,” he stressed.
“It requires of us to put in place number of regional institutions dealing with accreditations, standards, and the exchange of information amongst other infrastructure to facilitate the CSME. If we do not do this carefully, we would endanger the fabric of the very societies regional integration aimed at sustaining” Thompson added.
Outlining the progress of the CSME, he stated that all of the provisions for the rights of establishment and the free movement of the goods, services, and skilled persons had been implemented.
Included in the successful implementation of the Single Market, Thompson said, was the establishment of the CARICOM Development Fund, which has been established to assist disadvantaged countries, regions and sectors.
He said while the time table for the Single Economy may have been delayed, recent developments in the Region have shown the true extent of the financial interdependence that already existed, and this has given new urgency to the policy coordination efforts of the Region’s regulators and Ministers of Finance.
Reflecting on the historical Grand Anse Declaration and Work Programme for the Advancement of the Integration Movement, crafted at the 10th Meeting of The Conference, 1989, in Grand Anse, Grenada, Thompson said that it was now time for the Community to “regroup and refocus to find strategies irrecusable of survival”.
Prime Minister of Barbados is expected to lead a discussion on the developments within the CSME at the July 2-5 Meeting of The Conference of CARICOM Heads of Government.
July 4, 2009
Not so very long ago, humans -- like the rest of the animals and plants on earth -- moved through our natural cycles at nature's pace. Time was marked by the passing of the seasons, the life cycles of human, animal and plant life and the yet grander cycles of the moon and the other celestial bodies.
Homo sapiens, a late-appearing species in the long history of our unimaginably ancient planet and universe, evolved during the recent (as the universe views these things!) Pleistocene era, adapted for a life intimately connected with and expressive of our natural surroundings on the African savannah and beyond.
And this is how we lived for millennia.
In the last 150 years, however, the human relationship with time has radically changed. Some say the problems started earlier, with the development of agriculture or writing, but it was really the Industrial Revolution -- the rise of the Machine -- that put humans in thrall to mechanical processes and machine time. And the recent exponential speeding up into Cybertime has accelerated the process still further. Industrial time was bad enough (Charlie Chaplin did a wonderful job of visualizing that "cog in the wheel" feeling in his film "Modern Times") but Cybertime can be dizzyingly discombobulating for a Pleistocene primate.
And that's how many modern people feel -- completely frazzled and out of synch with our deepest selves.
The results of this disconnection from nature and nature's pace show up in therapists' and doctors' offices every day. Living under unnatural time pressures causes a myriad of psychological, social and physical ailments. Delinked from the natural rhythms of our bodies and the rest of the planet, we struggle with diminishing success to adapt to the strange mechanical and disembodied world we have created.
As a practicing psychotherapist and ecotherapist, when I see patients who are suffering from depression or anxiety I ask them to keep a time-journal in which they record the hours and minutes spent each day outside, as well as the hours spent inside in front of a screen. My clients are often shocked to realize how disassociated they have become from nature and our species' natural ways of living, and the effect this disconnection is having on their psyche. In fact, a 2007 study from the University of Essex shows that a daily "dose" of walking outside in nature can be as effective at treating mild to moderate depression as expensive antidepressant medications that can sometimes have negative side-effects.
Time poverty is now a recognized psychological and social stressor. In a speeded-up, highly complex society, there just isn't enough time for everything: our demanding jobs, our interlocking bureaucratic responsibilities (taxes, insurance, legal issues), our loved one, kids, our community (including the rest of nature), plus commuting and keeping up with traditional media and endless 24/7 online communications. Constantly rushing to keep up as we inevitably fall further behind, we find ourselves destroying not only our own health, but our habitat and the habitat of the people, plants and animals with whom we share the planet.
In my recently published book, Ecotherapy:
Healing with Nature in Mind (Sierra Club Books, 2009) therapists and experts from many backgrounds discuss some of the ways that nature can help to heal problems like stress and anxiety. What suggestions can ecotherapists offer to help us slow down to a more natural pace of living? Here are a few simple things that can make a difference:
Making just a few of these simple changes can radically shift how we feel. Ecopsychological research is now proving that reconnecting with nature and more natural living performs a host of psychological miracles, including lowering depression, improving our sense of well being, calming our anxieties, raising self-esteem and giving us a sense of belonging to the great whole of which we are a part.
July 2, 2009
The media is very powerful, so much so that depending on the ‘perspective’ that is put forth, one’s view can be highly influenced.
Based on the information I have uncovered, it appears as though "the system" has (to this point) stumped the efforts of Jose Manuel Zelaya to follow in the footsteps of his mentor, President Hugo Chavez. His initial attempt to run amuck of his nation’s laws, on a grand level, was thwarted.
In my opinion, Honduras’ Congress and Supreme Court did the right thing. Indeed, Zelaya is the constitutionally elected leader of that country. But does that mean the he can defy the laws as set forth in the constitution and beyond that, defy the judgment of the Supreme Court? I don’t think so.
What I perceive to have occurred is a failed attempt at a grab for increased power. One need not look any further than the case of Venezuela, to gain some insight as to what Zelaya attempted to do.
One of the fundamental differences in this case involved a critical miscalculation by Zelaya. Initially, unlike the Venezuelan President, Zelaya presumably does not have an adequate level of loyalty from the military, as does President Chavez.
Second, it appears as though those who are vested with the responsibility to ensure that the different branches of Honduras’ government remain separate and accountable through checks and balances, were not asleep at the wheel. Kudos to those who did their job, as required, under what must have been a highly stressful situation.
![]() |
| Frank Edward Paco Smith, Jr. is a Belizean who currently resides in Belize. He has a BA in Social Sciences from the University of California at Irvine (USA), an Executive Masters in Business Administration (EMBA) from UWI Cave Hill and an MSc. in Governance and Public Policy from UWI Mona. |
Certain, mainstream, media houses have presented a neat little package which depicts the events in Honduras as a “military coup”. Certainly, it depends on how one defines such an event, but given the history of Latin America, that term carries a negative connotation.
I have come to understand that Zelaya ignored a judgment of Honduras’ Supreme Court and set upon a path to hold a referenda vote, which was not sanctioned. Apparently, he instructed the Army Chief to mobilise security forces to facilitate the vote. When his order was not carried out, Zelaya fired the Chief.
The Supreme Court informed as to the illegality of his actions and requested that the Army Chief be reinstated. In all, Zelaya took it upon himself to attempt to hold the referendum vote, without the logistical support of the Army and, incidentally, in contravention of the judgment of the Supreme Court.
It has been revealed that the Supreme Court informed him of not only the illegality of such an act, but also told him of the potential consequences. When faced with the facts, it is said the Zelaya was given an option; either proceed with the vote and face prosecution under the law or resign as President and receive safe passage to a neutral country.
My understanding is that he signed a letter of resignation and opted to go into exile, rather than face the music.
With that said, and if it is indeed fact, this is where I take issue with those organizations and countries which provided a knee-jerk reaction to the unfolding situation in Honduras.
Specifically, I take issue with the Organisation of American States. This entity, which is led by Secretary General Jose Miguel Insulza, immediately called for the re-instatement of the “democratically elected President of Honduras”. My disdain with the OAS runs deeper than just this matter, but I will attempt to remain focused.
By no stretch of the imagination do I claim to be an expert on the affairs of Latin America, but being a Belizean, I have a keen interest in matters that can potentially affect the well-being of my country.
The OAS has based its position on the notion that Article 19 of the Inter-American Democratic Charter should be applied to the present situation in Honduras. Admittedly, I am no expert on the aforementioned charter, but I am someone who believes in the equal application when invoking judgments.
To my knowledge Article 19 can be applied to matters which cause any unconstitutional interruption of the democratic order. I do not share Secretary General Insulza’s view that Article 19 should be applied in this instance, especially given the fact that unlike how matters have been characterised in the mainstream as a ‘military coup’, there are more substantive and critical inputs which have contributed to the critical mass.
Case in point, when one talks of “any unconstitutional interruption of the democratic order”, how exactly does the trampling of individual’s rights to the freedom of speech and expression factor into the equation?
There is a nation in South America, where the voice of any and virtually all opposition is being summarily silenced. Opposition leaning television and radio stations are being shutdown, based on trumped-up charges. There is even the case of a leader of the major opposition party having to seek asylum in a neighbouring country, in order to escape persecution from the newly self-styled Latin American strongman, who incidentally appears to have the tacit support of Secretary General Insulza.
Let’s be real. How is it that the OAS, who is tasked with addressing and facilitating regional matters, appears to be so overtly biased when taking positions on matters of concern? Maybe I missed it, but has the OAS expressed any concerns, let alone taken any action against the South American government who has undoubtedly engaged in the aforementioned activities?
Getting back to the matter of Honduras, it was reported that the Venezuelan President expressed something to the effect that he would fight and defeat those who have taken over in Honduras, following Zelaya’s departure. Can someone tell me whether such a vow contravenes some statute of the OAS?
What it sounds like to me is that a leader of a foreign country has publicly expressed his intention to proactively meddle in the internal affairs of a sovereign nation. Where is Mr Insulza’s castigation of such expressed intentions? To date, I have heard nothing from the OAS which calls upon President Chavez to temper, what I hope is, his rhetoric.
Again, I see a great disparity in the manner in which the OAS selectively chooses to address issues. My friends, I detect a very insidious and certainly dangerous trend. I won’t go as far as calling the Secretary General a “Chavista”, just yet. But if it looks like a duck and quacks like a duck, there is a strong likelihood that it very well may be a duck.
Concerning a different issue, the recent moves by the OAS to specifically facilitate the potential for Cuba to re-enter the regional body also deserves closer scrutiny. I am not against Cuba’s re-entry, but I have a concern when special concessions are made for specific countries in order to appease certain, regional leaders. If one of the basic tenets of the OAS involves the need to facilitate and promulgate democracy and democratic institutions, I think that precept should remain paramount. Again, the matter of Cuba is a completely different issue, but I believe it is important to acknowledge especially when one perceives a certain trend in the anglings of the OAS.
Although I am a stickler for the rule of law, one must give credit where it is due. Prior to the current situation in Honduras, President Chavez had proven rather effective in co-opting support throughout Latin America to legitimise his self-styled socialist revolution. This can be attributed to many factors, including his capacity to: plan, evoke stirring rhetoric and above all capitalise on the frustrations of many disenfranchised individuals throughout Latin America, who have developed a lingering disdain for the systems and structures which have perpetuated considerable economic inequalities.
In all, President Chavez has proven a very astute tactician. I do not agree with many of his tactics, but I admit that he has proven rather effective, to this point. Bearing this in mind, I hope that my fellow Caribbean counterparts are taking a critical view of these issues, for the lure of ‘petro-dollars’ is appealing.
Yet, I do not wish to see the general tradition of freely contested elections become a thing of the past in the Caribbean. Choice is important and the potential for certain elements of a self-styled socialist system do not appear to share synergies with this concept. In other words, be mindful of those who bear gifts, for more often than not, they come with invariable conditionalities.
I applaud Honduras’ Congress and the people of that nation for stopping former President Zelaya in mid-stream. My disquiet is ever-growing for the position taken by those nations and organisations, worldwide, who wish to focus primarily on Zelaya being the 'democratically elected' president of Honduras. They should stop with their knee-jerk reaction and realise that although Zelaya was democratically elected, within his capacity as the Executive...he is not above the law, as set forth in Honduras' Constitution.
Unfortunately, the entire realm of International Relations is becoming perverted much like the notion of Human Rights. The latter began as a meaningful concept, but has morphed into an internationally sanctioned sorry excuse for perpetrators of (local) crimes; whereby they commit atrocious violations (e.g. murder, rape, etc...) and once apprehended, their rights and not those of the victims, become paramount. Unfortunately, it appears as though the major players in the realm of international relations have succumbed to this misguided concept.
In sum, I applaud those who stood up to Mr Zelaya, a presumptive authoritarian in the making. As for the rest of Latin America and the Caribbean, wake up! Stop these aspiring autocrats before they gain a strangle-hold on your respective: seat(s) of power, economies and ultimately your destinies. It is interesting because they are a new breed; one which consistently reminds the masses of the atrocities brought about by leaders who were propped-up by “the Empire”.
What they fail to explain is that similarly, yet uniquely, they are constructing their personal fiefdoms, at the expense of the masses. I guess at the core level, it is politics as usual. This time, at least in one case, it has taken on a distinctively local dynamic and is backed by wealth derived from natural resources.
With the misguided calls proffered by the OAS and other organisations, it will be a challenge for Honduras to defy their calls for Zelaya's re-instatement. Yet, I encourage them to stay the course, for once they are convinced that their actions were within the legal parameters set by the Constitution of Honduras, the law is on their side. Don't let the external forces dictate your internal matters, on this level!
On the whole the recent activities in Honduras have opened a ripe discussion as to whether the questionable reasoning of a regional body holds primacy over the laws of a sovereign nation, in such instances.
caribbeannetnews