Leftist set to be Bolivia's first Indian president

[Thom Little]

Evo Morales is an unorthodox candidate. He's a former llama herder and coca farmer, and an indigenous Indian with an eighth-grade education. His platform rests on ending Bolivia's 20 years of free-market economic policies, and decriminalizing the growing of coca, the leaf from which cocaine is made. And polls indicate he is poised to become the next President of Bolivia.

"This election will change history," Mr. Morales tells the crowds gathered for his last campaign rally in the capital. With a traditional red poncho draped over his signature blue sweatshirt, Morales revs up his supporters: "If we don't win, neo-liberalism and colonialism will deepen," he cries. A wreath of potatoes, roses, and coca leaves hangs around his neck. "The time of dignity for the people has come."

Morales is populist, socialist, and anti-American. In that sense, he's cast in the same mold as Venezuela's Hugo Chávez - who Morales admires. And like Chávez, his country sits on a vast supply of hydrocarbons - the continent's second biggest reserves of natural gas.

Washington worries that if Morales wins, it will be yet another Latin American nation swinging to the left - away from free trade - and, in this case, the drug war. After two decades of moving away from dictatorships, some see a regional trend back toward the Marxist ideas popular in the '60s and '70s. "Che Guevara sought to ignite a war based on igniting a peasant revolution," Roger Pardo-Mauer IV, a senior adviser to the Bush administration, said in July. "This project is back."




http://csmonitor.com/2005/1216/p01s03-woam.html

[Peace Patriot]

1. This is FANTASTIC news! A democratic revolution is sweeping So. America

and the Bushite Pardo-Mauer is absolutely WRONG. This has NOTHING to do with Marxism. These are highly monitored DEMOCRATIC elections--in Brazil, in Venezuela and now Bolivia--where an entirely peaceful transformation is occurring, with the enfranchisement of the vast population of poor, brown peasants. They are peacefully and democratically throwing off their NORTHERN corporate masters (our global predator corporations) and creating fair and just societies. They are not confiscating anybody's Jaguars or land. They are not jailing anybody. They are not harming anybody. The poor are coming into their own, and are opting to use these countries' resources to benefit everyone--with schools, medical clinics, community centers, and small business loans--not just to enrich the few. We and our government should be ecstatic over these developments in Latin America. But of course the Bushites hate them. They can't plunder and kill in a just world!

Another thing this does is provide some protection for Chavez, whom the Bushites likely want to assassinate (to get the oil). He is not alone. Here is another, another, honestly elected leftist, surrounding him. Viva Evo! Viva Hugo! Viva Lulu! Way to go!

[rodeodance]

4. good for them.

[nick303]

11. This will not make me popular but..

The "democratic-ness" of Venezuela's most recent election was highly suspect.

Unfortunately the remainder of this article requires a subscription. From the december 8th issue of the economist:

http://www.economist.com/displaystory.cfm?story_id=S%27%28H%24%2BRA%2F%2B%20%20%20Q%0A&tranMode=none

EVER since he was first elected in 1998, Hugo Chávez, Venezuela's leftist president, has preached the virtues of “participatory” over merely representative democracy. “All power to the people” has become a favourite government slogan. But in an election for the National Assembly on December 4th, the masses chose not to participate. And because of a last-minute boycott of the election by most opposition parties, in protest at the government's control of the National Electoral Council (CNE), many Venezuelans will not be represented.

...“Broad sectors of Venezuelan society have no confidence in the electoral process, nor in the independence of the electoral authority,” said election observers from the European Union. They called on the assembly to appoint a new CNE “composed of professionals with prestige and independence”.

..."But the essence of democracy, as Joseph Schumpeter wrote more than 60 years ago, is an “institutional arrangement for arriving at political decisions in which individuals acquire the power to decide by means of a competitive struggle for the people's vote.” Unless Mr Chávez accepts that next year's contest must be impartially conducted, outsiders may conclude that Venezuela is no longer a democracy in any meaningful sense of the word."

[manic expression]

13. The fact that

Jimmy Carter signed off the elections as legitimate should have you questioning your conclusions on Venezuelan democracy in general.

I hope you don't get flamed, but that is patently untrue. The opposition made a piss-poor boycott just to get this type of reaction. They are highly unpopular, so such a boycott made little difference in the results. Even with control of virtually the whole of Venezuela's media, they cannot amount much support from the populace. The reason some Venezuelans are not represented is because they chose NOT to vote. That's it, the opposition made a foolish move with no reason to do so, and it has absolutely no bearing on Venezuelan democracy.

Another thing is that the failed coup made the opposition EVER MORE unpopular with the people. Notice that Chavez did not even go after the would be usurpers! Now that's tolerance for the opposition.

[nick303]

14. I wish I could have posted the entire article..

to fill in some of the gaps. It generally said that yes, the opposition parties made a rash move in doing what they did, which they will probably regret. However, it was a little more than just "some" Venezuelans. Official numbers say that 25% of eligible voters actually did vote in parliamentary elections. The opposition claims this number was less than 20%. It looks like there is a population that is largely disenchanted with their voting system.

Many people would claim that voting machines are making elections illegitimate in the United States. However, there is a good chance they will still be around in some capacity next year for the 2006 Congressional elections. Despite this, I think we'll still see the usual, or perhaps even a higher percentage of people voting. If instead 75-80% of the population stays home (a large portion of that Dem's), then we would have a situation that looks just like Venezuela's.

[manic expression]

16. Here's another

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/4496586.stm

Sure, much of the population didn't vote, but you should consider the fact that the opposition controls virtually all of the media. Also, I don't think you can put this all up to the boycott. There are more factors that contribute to low turnouts than just that. This may not have had such a large effect on the results, however.

There is no reason to be disenchanted with the voting system, and if you disagree, you can argue with Jimmy Carter, as well as other neutral observers.

Don't compare the US to Venezuela. First, the opposition attempted a coup, which failed (and one that faced no punitive action). Second, leftists are making huge gains, and that is good for the people of the country. Moreover, the voting system is not corrupted at all, which is a different story in America.

Lastly, I won't be shedding any tears, since Chavez can push better social programs for the people of Venezuela. The opposition (criminals among them) can cry about a low turnout all they want, but the elections in Venezuela are more than legitimate, and I do think the results are as well.

[nick303]

32. From what I've seen

Carter's report was from last year, meaning it has little or nothing to do with what I commented on.
This year's elections were called suspect by observers from the European Union.

"Moreover, the voting system is not corrupted at all, which is a different story in America."

Evidence from reliable sources doesn't lead anyone to think that (about Venezuela).

[Stevepol]

40. Don't they use the Smartmatic from Olivetti for their voting?

This machine has a paper ballot print-out that can be used for audits AND WAS USED FOR THIS PURPOSE BY CARTER DURING THE CHAVEZ ELECTION.

I'm not sure about the succeeding elections, but it does seem to me that they are in far far better shape in terms of election honesty and transparency than we are.

[1932]

15. Did you expect The Economist to be satisfied with the election?

The Economist's editorial policy is to support the sort of free-trade/neoliberalism of which Venezuela's government is a very persuassive critic.

I read somewhere else that this off-year election in Ven. (no nation-wide elections) had higher turnout than the last off-year election and that particularly bad weather was a problem this year.

Also, when people are satisfied that their country is moving in the right direction and that their favorite candidates will win, there's less urgency in getting out to vote.

I'm not saying that's always the case, but it's a possiblity. It's not always the case that low turnout means disenchantment. Clinton's second term had the lowest turnout (49%) since 1960, but today he's the most popular president of the past 45 years. 1998 and 1986 tied for the lowest off-year turno ut during that same period (36.4%). I don't think you can say that 1998 was a year of disenchantment.

Furthermor, in the US the five highest turnout national elections (including off-year and presidential year elections) since 1960 were:

1960: 63.1%
1964: 61.9%
1968: 60.8%
2004: 55.3%
1972: 55.2%

Do you think there's a correlation between "enchantment" and turnout? The correlation might be the opposite. With the exception of '64, those are five of the most polarized elections we've had in the US.

I don't think the Economist has any interest in presenting these historical counterarguments or any facts that might contradict their editorial agenda, which leaves it to us to investigate them for ourselves.

[arcos]

43. Yes, a lot of Venezuelans didn't participate...

Same thing happened in midterm elections before Chávez was elected, and no one said they were undemocratic.

In fact, it happens in midterm elections almost everywhere... how many people participate in US midterm elections? 25%? 30%?

Does that make then undemocratic?

[Peace Patriot]

2. Please RECOMMEND and kick! You want some good news. Here it is!

Yeah, we had some good news today on the Patriot Act--and on yet another Florida county rejecting Diebold voting machines. But still, it's difficult to remember what real democracy looks like. We should look to the South for how it's done. We can do that HERE, too--have a government that represents ALL of the people!

[radio4progressives]

21. Woo Hoo!!

:woohoo:

Maria Hinohosa reported on NPR (Spanish program -Sunday evenings on KQED)several weeks ago, that the polls were indicating these positive results - popularity very high among the people - i think this bolds well for a cohesive alliance among the South American countries seeking socio-economic and political justice and equality and independence from Neo Colonial Empire and hegemony.

That report lightened my heart and instilled some hope for the welfare of our Southern Hemisphere/South American neighbors.

:toast:

[patdem]

3. What grade did Lincoln complete? This is a self taught man!

AND he is freeing the people of Bolivia! This is good news K&R

[murray hill farm]

5. recommended!

This is great news! With the presidental elections in mexico in 2006, this trend will continue!

[High Plains]

31. Do you think Lopez Obrador will win?

I haven't been following Mexican domestic politics that closely lately?

But it seems like Fox has managed to erode the PAN's popularity, so I'm assuming it's going to come down to Lopez Obrador vs. the PRI candidate.

A PRD victory in Mexico, I guess you'd call them soft left, would be super.

[murray hill farm]

48. ONe can hope!!

And yes, i do believe Obrador will win...but of course its not over til it is over...and soft left is the leaning i was refering to with mexico, but for mexico that is still so economically tied to the usa, it is a huge leaning.

[WinkyDink]

6. Go, South America, go!

You ROCK!
Now, how would Dubya say that en Espanol? Heh.

[dennisnyc]

7. this great news! Maybe "free trade" is going out but FAIR

TRADE has a chance now.

Chavez, Lula, Morales.... Mr. b*sh, insert tail between legs and walk away! Democracy is winning in the south!

[lostnfound]

8. "And the meek shall inherit the earth."

Hope he stays out of small planes and helicopters, however.

[Dufaeth]

9. Fox News is already attacking him

as a cocaine grower, and supporter of other coke growers.

[Judi Lynn]

28. Bolivian natives have been using coca leaves LOOOOOONG before

Americans developed a cocaine habit.

Fox has never been a respectable source. You've seen what kind of people rely on Fox for their news. They are limited.

[Dufaeth]

34. Hey, I know Fox isn't respectable

I was just pointing out they are already trying to Chavez him.

[SoCalDem]

37. Chewiing coca leaves is what allows them to work hard in high altitude

Mother Nature once again, provides a substance that is necessary for locals to survive..

Others perverted the use of the plant, not the indigenous people..

If people from other places all of a sudden found a nefarious use for sod, there would be suburbanites digging up their yards at midnight, trying to make a buck:)

[High Plains]

33. Someone should tell Fox News there are no "cocaine growers."

There are, however, coca growers, as there have been in the Andes for thousands of years.

[javiermynephew]

10. Chilean leftist woman wins 1st round

Let's not forget that Chile, Latin America's strong economy, is about to elect a socialist woman. The socialist coalition party has won the last 2 elections, ready to win its third.

[radio4progressives]

23. Yes Indeed! 2 Woo Hoo's!

:bounce: :toast: :woohoo::hi: :applause::hi: :woohoo: :toast: :bounce:

[1932]

12. Do DU'ers agree that Americans are better off when all countries around

the world have strong middle/working class societies? We all agree that we all do better when we all do better, right?

I saw Syriana recently, and I think that it made the point well that when there are very poor people who feel exploited and hopeless, that they turn to violence. I believe that's true. However, I think the movie did not make the point well that when the west exploits foreign countries it doesn't make ALL of America wealthier. It just makes a few Americans wealthier, but makes the rest of us poorer in the sense that we lose solidarity with other working class people in other countries and we end up having to compete for cheap jobs with the exploited, and it also hurts democracy by creating a wealthy class of Americans which is SO MUCH wealthier and more powerful politically and economically than the American working and middle class.

I think sometimes I get the sense that there's this subtle RIGHT WING tendency among a very few unwitting liberals (or, perhaps, they're right wingers posing as liberals) who celebrate Morales and Chavez as giving the finger to the US. They're not giving the US the finger. The US -- the nation of Martin Luther King and of Cesar Chavez and of the New Deal and the New Frontier and the Great Society -- is much much better off when other countries around the world have leaders who embrace those same values of MLK and Cesar Chavez and of FDR and JFK.

[DaveColorado]

17. He needs to get some protection from the CIA

[1932]

19. Who?

[radio4progressives]

22. Clooney and the Baer (author of the book the film was based on) n/t

[1932]

26. Speaking of Baer, in his book See No Evil, Chalabi makes a cameo in the

first chapter.

Has anyone read this book?

[Judi Lynn]

29. It's their delusion that the U.S. ONLY means Republicans. They see

all others as their enemies, and anti-American, regardless of all evidence to the contrary.

[MrPrax]

18. Heads Up...

For Bolivian watchers, the attacks on Morales domestically will be from the province of Santa Cruz--they don't like the Indian power stuff ,loss of privilege and it's the place where most of the gas lies--and have been salting the foreign press with talk of 'independence'.

I am sure after the election, outfits like 'Pre-Autonomy Council of Santa Cruz' and 'Comite Pro Santa Cruz', will find themselves getting a lot more attention in Washington.

Which is fine, given the US track record in destablizing Veneszaula, which seems to have only strengthened Chevaz, as it revealed just how much support he has, Bolivian efforts will fail.

The only card the US has is direct involvement. Morales defense of alternative coca production might give the US just that reason.


Factoids for Leftists (just a reminder of what is really going on...)

-According to the UN, Bolivia’s 100 wealthiest landowning families hold five times as much acreage as 2 million peasant farmers.

- 2004 World Bank study found that the discrepancy in wealth between the richest and poorest fifths of the Bolivian population is 90:1, with the ratio soaring to 170:1 in rural areas.

Easily one of the poorest countries in the world that desparately needs distribution--whether it's done democratically who cares, since it was never distributed democratically in the first place.

Pay the freight, gringos...enuf is enuf

[manic expression]

20. Great points n/t

[radio4progressives]

24. Important Points! Thanks for Reality Check and Heads Up! n/t

[High Plains]

25. Morales will likely decriminalize coca production in the Chapare

Under a US-imposed law, coca production is limited to the Yungas area, the area of traditional cultivation, but people who lost jobs in the neo-liberal restructuring of the last 20 years have moved into the Chapare to grow coca. That's where Morales got his start--as the leader of coca grower unions in the Chapare.

If Morales does what he's promised, he will be on a direct collision course with Washington.

But this is probably the most favorable hemispheric conjuncture for something like this in years. US prestige in the region is at record lows, and that goes double for support for Washington's drug policies. Bolivia is the poorest country in South America, and it has been easy for Washington to threaten aid cut-offs it it doesn't stay in line. Now, however, there is a Chavista alternative.

This could get very interesting.

But remember: This election ain't over yet. If Morales fails to win a majority, the election goes to the Congress. There will be plenty of back-room politicking in that event.

[javiermynephew]

27. The only reason why Colombia doesn't turn left

Is because the liberal party candidate is always assassinated. During the 1980's more than 2,000 members of the leftist Patriotic Union (UP) were murdered by right-wing death squads. Members of other leftist parties were also killed, as was a reform-minded, Liberal Party presidential candidate.
The death squads not only targeted leftist candidates and former guerrillas, they also assassinated reform-minded members of the two major parties, such as Liberal candidate Luis Carlos Galán, who was expected to win the 1990 presidential election.

[Judi Lynn]

30. The American right-wing hasn't organized its hate campaign against Morales

yet. It's just one more foreign name they'll have to learn first, and that hurts their heads.

You can count on _Bush and his "freedom-loving" cohorts to hire the right p.r. people to crank out a whole hate program on Evo Morales, too. Up 'til now, in the "Threaten Evo" stage, they have relied upon threatening Bolivians with military action against them if they elected Morales.

They probably didn't think it would be necessary to go to Step 2.

[Up2Late]

35. Deeply divided Bolivia to pick a new president (AFP)

(They are already calling him a Friend of "U.S. Enemy's" Castro and Chavez) :eyes:


Presidential candidate Evo Morales delivers a speech during his electoral campaign
©AFP/File - Aizar Raldez

Deeply divided Bolivia to pick a new president

18/12/2005 05h13

LA PAZ (AFP) - Bolivians go to the polls in a hotly contested election that could produce the country's first indigenous president and sharply alter its political and economic landscape. The 3.6 million voters will also renew the 130 deputies and 27 senators of Congress and choose, for the first time, nine provincial governors.

Sale of alcohol has been banned in Bolivia since Friday and 50,000 police and soldiers have been deployed around the landlocked Andean country, roughly twice the size of France, to promote calm on polling day. The presidential race pits Evo Morales, 46, a socialist Aymara Indian who gained prominence protesting coca-crop eradication, against former president Jorge Quiroga, 45, a US-educated advocate of market liberalization.

Recent polls have placed Morales in the lead with 35 percent of voter intentions to Quiroga's 29 percent. Industrialist Samuel Doria Medina trailed with nine percent support in the polls. If none of the three contenders gains an absolute majority, as expected, the focus will be on Congress, which will have to choose between the two leading vote-getters in January.

That could create yet more political uncertainty in South America's poorest country, which has seen two presidents forced from power since 2002. Morales and Quiroga offer radically different visions for Bolivia, with one representing the indigenous majority of Bolivia's Altiplano, the other the comparitively prosperous eastern planes.

<http://www.afp.com/english/news/stories/051218044820.jo1zlrjr.html>
(more a link above)

[jsamuel]

36. Wow!

[nerddem]

38. i guess things have to get worse before they get better

i know y'all mean well, and the label "socialist" conjures up certain images that would undoubtedly help bolivia, but his election won't really help much, if at all. in fact, i'm guessing he'll fail miserably.

do you know what his followers are doing? they harass people wearing suits, they blocked off la paz for weeks and weeks hurting a lot of the same people they proclaim to help by sending prices skyrocketing for everything--especially food--followed by an outright lack of lng for cooking and food to cook. i couldn't visit my grandparents this past summer because they blocked the highway from the international airport into the city. they attacked police officers, the vast majority of which, again, are a lot of the same people they proclaim to help.

he's bad news, bad, bad news. he'll only help isolate bolivia. the reason che failed in bolivia is because he never got the support from the indigenous base that he had planned on. they didn't care, they saw him as just another foreigner trying to tell them what to do, which he in fact was. the best he'll do is pass bolivia from one sphere of influence into another. if we're not subject to the united states, then we'll be subject to china and venezuela, whoopty doo.

here we fault republicans for using divisive politics, so why would good democrats turn a blind eye to morales, who isn't talking about bolivian unity at all.

[Peace Patriot]

44. nerddem, sounds like you're following events pretty closely in Bolivia.

I'm looking at developments in South America from afar, but with great interest, and it appears to me that the indigenous majority in Bolivia--and the vast poor populations of Venezuela, Brazil, and, really, the entire subcontinent, are finally taking rightful leadership of their countries, after centuries of the worst kind of exploitation by the US, European countries and the rich elites. And they are doing it democratically, and, peacefully, without armed conflict--even though US-funded death squads (and whole armies) have been used against them for decades.

There is a huge difference between Che and the Marxist movements, which used armed conflict, and people like Chavez and Morales, who seem passionately devoted to constitutional, democratic government, and who show no inclination to suppress, jail or harm their adversaries--and this, despite great provocation in Chavez's case, for instance--a US backed coup attempt, US funding of his political opposition, and outright death threats, i.e., Pat Robertson. Chavez's restraint is remarkable--and it appears to me that he can show such restraint because of his confidence in his own elections, which have been monitored by hundreds of international election monitors, all of whom have said that they are honest and aboveboard. He IS in fact the representative of the great majority, which have endorsed him and his policies and his government time and again.

It also seems to me that, in the case of Bolivia--also Columbia--unity with the rich elites who have colluded with the US in death squads and mass murder, and poisoning of the countryside, is not possible. How can you take a "centrist" or "unity" course with people who have done such harm? What we should be hoping is that the reps of the majority do not retaliate, and stay on a peaceful path like Chavez.

Do you really think that Bolivia will be worse off allied with Venezuela, Brazil, Argentina and other neighboring countries, large and small, in common cause for fair trade and equity for the poor, than being dominated by US predator corporations and lethal DEA programs? Bolivia may be more divided, and even poorer than these others--due to savage exploitation by the rich--but whatever chance it has to recover from so much exploitation and murderous policy would seem to me to be enhanced by regional alliances. Bolivia has no chance as a peon of the U.S., and a much better chance of being treated with fairness and dignity by the leftist democracies on the subcontinent.

The South American countries are not just revealing great leftist majorities finally coming into their own in honest elections, and are not just electing leftist governments all over the landscape, they are forming economic partnerships--a South American 'EU'--and creating their own political and economic alliances abroad (to the east across the Atlantic and to the west across the Pacific). These are remarkable developments of huge historical importance--which the Bush junta (preoccupied with its greedy designs upon the Middle East, and on destroying democracy in the US) have been unable to stop. What are they going to do--invade all of the South America? They can try and chip away at it, with their assassins and death squads and dirty tricks, and god knows what all, but they really can do nothing to retard such a fundamental and overwhelming change for the better.

It should give us heart. People somewhere are making progress, are learning new ways of change, are understanding that the world economy must benefit all, and are going for it. They're going for justice and equality and fairness. And I think that Chavez has made clear that they do not hate us, the people of the U.S., despite all that our gov't and our predator corporations have done to them. They KNOW that WE TOO are oppressed.

So Chavez comes HERE and arranges for cheap heating oil for the poor people of the U.S. I mean, you've really gotta love the guy, if, for nothing else, for his brilliant irony.

------------------------

Note: The Economist is a tool of the global corporate predators. We should not trust one word that it prints. Their economic propaganda is equivalent to Judith Miller/NYT on the Iraq war. 100% self-serving lies.

Note 2: Regarding the barricades and other events in Bolivia--I don't know what happened there, but, from your description, it sounds like a labor union type of action, where temporary economic hardship has to be endured, to make longer term gains and to establish the rights of working people. And it is truly unfortunate when working class policemen allow themselves to be used as the army of the rich, and get in the middle, as enforcers against the poor. But I've personally seen too much police brutality in situations like this, and too many police riots, to ever presume that the poor are in the wrong. If violence breaks out, it is almost always instigated by the police, or by paid provocateurs, and is almost always bricks and sticks against military-type weaponry and tactics. I'm sorry you were inconvenienced, but I think you should try to put that inconvenience into perspective. Sometimes people just have to shut things down--as was done to the WTO in Seattle in 1999. You can't allow "business as usual" when such great injustice is being done. THAT was an inconvenience to the people of Seattle, but they didn't blame the protesters for the disruption--they blamed their own police (it was a police riot that caused disorder), established by city hearings later on, the findings of which were never reported by the corporate news monopolies. 50,000 people in the streets, and not one incident until the police started bashing heads. What really happened in this Bolivian event? Do you know? Or are you relying on corporate news reports? (Just asking. You were there. I wasn't. But my instincts and experience say, look deeper.)

[Judi Lynn]

39. ELECTION DAY IN BOLIVIA

Dec. 17, 2005, 10:20PM
ELECTION DAY IN BOLIVIA
A defiant 'deal-maker' who makes the Bush administration very nervous could become South America's latest populist leader
Another shift to the left?

By JOHN OTIS
South America Bureau

LA PAZ, BOLIVIA - Although Washington underwrites Bolivia's war on drugs, that didn't stop presidential candidate Evo Morales last week from convening a news conference around a table piled high with green coca leaves, which are both chewed by local Indians and made into cocaine.

In fact, nearly everything about Morales, the front-runner heading into Bolivia's first-round presidential balloting today, seems hostile to the Bush administration.

A former leader of the nation's union of coca growers, Morales has proposed decriminalizing the cultivation of the plant. He lavishes praise on Cuba's Fidel Castro and Venezuela's Hugo Chavez. He also has scorned free-market capitalism in this country, which is home to vast oil and natural gas reserves but has been virtually paralyzed for the past three years by street protests and political gridlock.

"With the force of the people, we are going to bury corruption, the pillaging of our country and North American imperialism," Morales, 46, told a huge campaign rally last week in La Paz.

.......
A Morales presidency would mean a further shift to the left in South America, where populist leaders already govern in Argentina, Brazil, Chile, Ecuador, Uruguay and Venezuela.
(snip/...)

http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/world/3531163.html
(Free registration required)

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

As our _Bush-pleasing news sources see it, any leader who doesn't seek American interests first, above the interests of his/her own people is dangerous. Typical perverted Republican "compassionate" thinking.

[killbotfactory]

45. He is a communist dictator with ties to terrorism!

Just like everybody in Latin America who doesn't support our exploitation of them.

[MetaTrope]

41. "We'll have zero cocaine but not zero coca"

"The US isn't really interested in cocaine eradication - it uses the war against drugs like the war against terror in Iraq, as an excuse to dominate other countries.

"The fact that it doesn't really target the demand for drugs demonstrates this."

Morales does distinguish between the plant and the refined product, which most of the MSM refuses to do.

http://news.scotsman.com/international.cfm?id=2415212005

[killbotfactory]

46. I hope he has good protection

Bush probably already signed his death warrant.

[Peace Patriot]

47. "...it uses the war against drugs...to dominate other countries." -Morales

It (the Bush junta) also uses the war on drugs to dominate US, the people who are paying for it. Billions and billions of dollars for a "war" that never ends, and that fattens up the military, police and prison establishments, and poisons our whole society with violence.

Did you know that a poor woman in California (yes, California) who is caught with (or planted with) a small amount of marijuana or other drugs, can be hauled into a police holding facility, and, before she is even charged with an offense, stripped of her clothing, made to bend over, and endure fingers probing into her vagina and anus, sometimes with male police officers and others just wandering by in the corridors, and, if she refuses to permit this, is treated like a crazy person, and placed into a padded cell with no clothing, no blanket, no towels, no heat and no furniture, and is held there for many hours, and badgered to sign the permission form for this humiliation.

And that's just the TIP OF THE ICEBERG of the brutality in our so-called justice system--all of it based on the "war on drugs." It's a war on PEOPLE, especially poor people.

The above practice was stopped by a California court. But not until thousands and thousands of poor women had been treated this way. Upon arrest--with no charges filed. Once in prison--which can and often does happen to the poor for minor, non-violent offenses--you become a CAGED ANIMAL and exist within an artificially created jungle of sado-masochistic oppression, both psychological and physical.

And the reason we don't stop this INSANE POLICY of criminalizing drug use is $$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$!

Billions, siphoned off from everything good that government could do--schools, medical care, child care, nutrition, job training, decent housing, decent wages, small business loans, community improvement, insuring clean air and water and a healthy environment, etc. etc.--into the pockets of, a) the private corporations that now run many prisons; b) the military-police establishment and DEA that does things like raiding medical marijuana clinics in San Diego, and c) the politicians who support them.

Twisted, upside-down, inside-out, INSANE public policy. Period.

Evo Morales speaks the truth. Oppression of them. Oppression of us. Time to get rid of it--the whole "war on drugs/war on the people" junta. Throw it off our backs! Now!

He gets one thing a bit wrong, though. Unfortunately, it's not just the Bushites or the Republicans (whose numbers are padded, by the way, with every prison built in sparsely populated, rural, Republican areas, who then get to COUNT all the voting-barred prisoners, mostly blacks from urban areas, for census purposes--as if the white, rightwing, Republican elected officials were representing those prisoners!). It's also many Democrats who are at fault, and have gone along with this, and benefited from it. Gov. Davis* in Calif. was a good example--receiving big campaign contributions from the prison guards union, and, in turn, building many prisons, and supporting drug laws and capital punishment (another way of enhancing the culture of official violence). As with the war on Iraq, and the electronic voting scam, many of the Democrats' hands are not clean--which of course makes the problem all the more difficult to solve.

*(I'm not saying Schwarzenegger is better. I voted for Davis, despite his support of our violent system of anti-justice. I have nothing against prison guards, police and others in difficult jobs being well-paid, and being unionized. I strongly support it. But the "war on drugs" and other official violence has artificially increased the entire prison/police establishment, which has become self-perpetuating and parasitic. The policies of Schwarzenegger and other Bushites are worse--they will result in NO MONEY to pay ANYBODY decent wages. They are sending us right off the cliff to bankruptcy as a nation. They are a gang of criminals. Davis was a saint by comparison--and a responsible money manager, who presided over a multi-billion dollar surplus which the Bush/Enron/Schwarz gang stole right out of our pockets. Our dilemma is that we have to choose (in so far as the new electronic voting machines give us a choice) between the "sainted" Democrats with the dirty hands, and the filthy, rotten, fascist war criminals who are destroying our country.)

[entanglement]

42. Excellent news and more power to Mr Morales!

[peace_prevails]

49. Critical mass and beans!

Can someone say critical mass?

The beans in the crock-pot have been simmering for a while, fueled by the oppressors from the north and their installations.

It's time for some socialist feijão in Latin America.

And Georgie's not invited to the fiesta.