I wish I had more time to post in response to your political, social, and economic views, but a major project coming out of my office precludes my ability to do so. But I certainly look forward to reading the forthcoming rebuttals because there should be many as it applies to Evo Morales. The nationalization of the Bolivian oil fields is only a small part of his political agenda. He is a self-proclaimed disciple of past Latin American revolutionaries and also intends on eventually legitimizing the harvest of coca.

I don't mean to disparage you, but you sure do have a tendency to broadbrush these issues with oversimplifications of the issues. This is my only comment - I spent too much time on this alone.

Interesting article on one of your points:

Morales has new drug-fighting strategy

WASHINGTON -- If Bolivian President Evo Morales has his way, you may find yourself soon ordering a cup of mate de coca instead of your morning cappuccino at your favorite cafe.

Morales wants to give thousands of Bolivian coca growers access to new markets. He envisions an expanded use for coca as an ingredient in beverages, chewing gum, toothpaste and as a food-flavoring agent. Traditionally, the leaf has been used in the Andean region to stave off hunger, cold and fatigue as well as for medicinal and sacred practices. More recently, the illegal drug trade has transformed coca into the lucrative drug cocaine.

Morales' plan is the second of a two-pillared drug-fighting strategy. The first is the continuation of conventional methods of cocaine interdiction as well as the crackdown on drug traffickers, money laundering and the importation of chemicals used to make cocaine. Bolivian officials say that some of those conventional efforts already have yielded greater results than in years past.

The second pillar, the so-called revalorization of the coca leaf, is the problem. Since the 1961 U.N. Single Convention on Narcotic Drugs, coca itself has been classified as an illegal substance as harmful as cocaine or heroin. Morales and many others see this classification as a historical error that needs to be corrected.

"Coca is not cocaine," Morales told the European Parliament last week. How can it be possible, he asked, "that coca is legal for Coca-Cola but it isn't for native peoples and peasants?" Under a special exception in the 1961 Convention, the use of coca leaves as a flavoring agent without their alkaloid component is permissible, an exception that Coca-Cola continues to take advantage of.

Bolivian officials brought a similar message to Washington recently. During a meeting of the Organization of American States' Inter-American Drug Abuse Control Commission, Mauricio Dorfler Ocampo, Bolivia's vice minister for foreign affairs, asked the international community to distinguish between the leaf's legal and illegal uses. He also asked for a change of coca's status in international conventions in order to help his government provide coca growers with viable alternatives to make a living.

So far their request has been received with skepticism on both sides of the Atlantic. Officials fear that legitimizing the leaf will undermine the overall drug war. It would also be a symbolic defeat, as Bolivia would surely rise in the ranks of top coca producers after recent and highly praised reductions.

In Washington, officials believe production is increasing already. Anne Patterson, assistant secretary for international narcotics and law enforcement affairs, says Morales' commitment to coca eradication is "lackluster." On a recent visit to La Paz, she told Bolivian officials that current eradication rates are now half of what they were in 2005.
Officials from other countries in the Americas also have expressed concerns that Morales' plans would mostly favor illegal drug trafficking. Specifically, they fear a worsening of its corrosive effects in their own streets -- where gun-related violence fueled by the cocaine trade is on the rise as this week's Sao Paulo killings demonstrated.

Under current Bolivian law, cocaleros can legally grow up to 12,000 hectares for traditional domestic consumption, namely coca tea and coca chewing. The European Union has agreed to fund a study to determine a more accurate measurement. Morales sees the study as an opportunity to ensure that the 12,000 figure will increase.

One might say that by arguing that more cultivation is needed, Morales already is recognizing defeat in efforts to stem the supply of coca leaves for the illegal market. Also, it seems naive to think that encouraging coca growers to produce crops for products yet to be marketed would be any more successful than crop substitution has been for overall reduction of illicit use of coca. Meanwhile, drug traffickers, with their highly sophisticated means for developing and delivering their product worldwide, would be the first to profit from increased production.

Morales embodies a fundamental change of power in Bolivia that, as he likes to proclaim, is putting the country in the hands of its rightful owners, the indigenous majority. As part of that change, Morales is expected to assert control over the lands and resources of his ancestors. Morales already has nationalized the hydrocarbon industry. For coca, he wants to develop alternative products.

Yet, the former leader of a coca growers association has a way to go in convincing the international community that his plan is a novel approach to combat drugs by promoting alternative uses rather than continuing attacks on indigenous coca suppliers.

So the supply of coca increases. So coca tea now becomes the featured item at Starbucks? What's your point?

Forget I asked that question. I don't want to get into this - too busy.

Regardless of what his position is on Coca, he did not change his position after being elected. What he is doing now is exactly what he said he would do before being elected. The people voted him into office by a landslide, and now he is fulfilling his campagn promises.

How is that an erosion of democracy? It sounds to me like that is democracy at its best.

Are you saying that because you (and many others) disagree with his policies that this means he is not democratic?

As I have heard Americans say so often in the last several years, who cares what the rest of the world thinks -- we are the ones who vote in our elections, not them. We are the ones who decide. If the rest of the world voted, Kerry would have won the last presidential election by a landslide.

Do the same rules not apply to Bolivia?

that's where you are wrong. He's referring to the erosion of democracy as to the fact thatcoca plantations are turning into government owned and distributed properties to the masses. This is a clear socialistic agenda. What part of that is confusing? So tell me what in your definition is socialism if this is not?

Of course it is socialism, but it is also democracy. It is possible to have both you know.

Democracy is where the majority vote and the elected leadership represents their interests. That is clearly happening in Bolivia. The majority wanted the natural resources of the country to be nationalized, and that is what is now happening.

To add a funny saying, "Democracy is when 2 wolves and a sheep vote on what to eat for dinner". In this case, the foreign corporations are the sheep. Too bad for them.