Here is a person who ran for public office and
won. She has a mandate from the people, this mandate is for a certain period of time.
Then all of a sudden before the end of the mandate she declares that she will resign, and her resignation speech is such that days nobody really knows why she resigned. Apparently she no longer felt like going on like this and she doesn't exacly know what she'll be doing from now on.
When you have a mandate, it's a moral contract with the people you represent. If you resign, the least you owe them is a clear (and preferably truthful...) explanation, if not apologies to your constituents.
POLL : I used the personal pronoun 'she' in the above.
That makes my contribution
What is 'talk like a working class person'?
Each individual commands several levels of language appropriate to diverse circumstances. In everyday life, a working class person arguably speaks differently from a university professor
(but beware of generalizations). However, when
a working class person talks publicly, he/she doesn't talk in the same way as privately (just like anybody).
Describing Sarah Palin's manner of speaking as a 'working class' mode of expression is an insult to working class people, many of whom are perfectly articulate if not very eloquent when they need to - cf trade union leaders.
However her manner of speaking publicly is completely artificial, as she deliberately adopts a level of language which is not appropriate which is not suited to the circumstances.
When people are seized by armed people and taken to a place against their will without any legal authority or justification, I call that abduction.
That the victims were later released in some other place where they didn't mean to go doesn't change anything.
What's the problem with that? How is it counter productive to call a cat, a cat, as we say in French?
I think you're going a bit fast when you say you have a hard time calling this a coup. I don't think we have all the information required to decide whether it is a coup or not. Was Zelaya allowed to take his toothbrush along with him?
That is, assuming Israel (I mean Israeli leaders)
will accept peace. On the other hand, if Israel aims at getting rid of Palestinians, then
it makes perfect sense to expand settlements, drive them mad so that they send a few rockets, exterminate some, explain that it's all their fault, and continue expanding settlements.