What I'd Be Doing if I Were in the US This Weekend
Four years ago President Bush listened carefully to fabricated intelligence reports, heard what he wanted to hear, and launched the US into one of the most disastrous and deadly follies in the nation's history. Last November President Bush listened again, this time to the voice of voters across the US, and apparently has once again heard what he wanted to. In the face of huge and clear popular opposition to his war policies in Iraq, Bush has opted for a policy of escalation.
Many others, more expert and more eloquent than I, have filled pages on the Internet analyzing and criticizing Bush's planned 20,000 solider escalation of the war. This weekend thousands of people in hundreds of cities across the US will take to the streets to voice their opposition to the war and to help encourage the newly installed Democratic Congress to develop the political backbone to act.
Here is a list, published by the group United for Peace, of the major events taking place this weekend, state-by-state and city-by-city.
Is it worth your time to turnout? More than 3,000 US troops have been killed since Bush launched the war, and 34,000 Iraqis just in the last year (according to the UN). If it were your sister or brother, your son or daughter, your husband or wife, on the list to go – would you turn out then?
I know what I would be doing if I were in the US this weekend. Because I can't, I hope some of you will go in my place (and share news with your comments here on the Blog).
posted by The Democracy Center at 1:52 PM
56 Comments:
Marching sure not gonna contribute anything. May be you have spent too much time in Bolivia.
Very few support the war, but far fewer can offer alternatives and that is what is needed now. I told you so, etc. etc. is not productive, besides Pelosi has already said that there will be no impeachment.
I went to a march last year. It was a great place to score some weed. It didn't feel any different than a Grateful Dead concert. Did not hear any good speeches and the pamphlets were ridiculous...Fox News would have had a blast .
"Four years ago President Bush listened carefully to fabricated intelligence reports, heard what he wanted to hear, and launched the US into one of the most disastrous and deadly follies in the nation's history."
One of the deadliest follies in American history?
Estimated military casualties from the American Civil War: 500,000 to 600,000 soldiers.
Estimated total dead from World War I, including both military and civilian casualties from all involved countries: 19,447,300.
Estimated total dead from World War II, again including all military and civilian casualties from all countries: 62,537,800.
Estimated dead from the Vietnam War: from 1,500,000 to 5,000,000 Vietnamese, and about 58,000 American soldiers.
Figures from the war in Iraq: from 60,000 to 100,000 Iraqi casualties, about 3,100 American military casualties, and 2,973 American civilian casualties from the 9/11 attacks.
Yes, that is a lot of lives lost. Yes, war is a terrible thing. Yes, a few American soldiers have committed atrocities in Iraq. However, this war has been one of the cleanest, least bloody wars in history.
Jim, you believe in democracy, and I like many of your ideas. What would you recommend be done so that Iraqis can have democracy and freedom? How should America protect her people from further terrorist attacks? If American troops are withdrawn from Iraq now, after having overthrown the old government of Saddam, will the Iraqis be able to establish a new, democratic government on their own?
Chiarina
If it were my sister, brother, son or daughter or my wife, on the list to go – would I join the protest? Absolutely not. War protests only serve to embolden the enemy. The other side uses the war protester to fire up his troops. I would not give any advantage to the enemy by undercutting the moral of my troops. One other point of correction, Bush did not lose the Congress and the Senate because of his war policy. He lost them because the conservative base was fed up with his pro-amnesty immigration policies and his over spending.
Yasar,
I think you skipped the part about how the Tooth Fairy and the Easter Bunny secretly sealed the doors of conservative voters in swing districts, keeping them from getting to the polls to allow those wily Democrats to win.
Bush's plummeting poll numbers and the current swell of public opposition to the war had nothing to do with it.
Wanna buy a bridge?
Is that you Jim?
Is that you, Norman?
(Norman claimed there is excess food in Bolivia; confronted with evidence of severe hunger in Bolivia, he wanted us to believe excess food coexists with severe hunger.)
The facts-based on exit polls-showed voters ousted Republicans because of "corruption" and "Iraq", in that order:
1) WEBSITE WITH EXIT POLL SCREEN CAPTURE JPG: http://thinkprogress.org/2006/11/07/exit-polls-corruption/
"BREAKING: Exit Polls Show Corruption As Most Important National Issue
CNN just released the first exit polls, showing that national issues matter more than local issues to voters this year, with the issue of corruption leading:
cnnpolls.jpg
Additionally, 57 percent of the voters polled disapprove of the way the Iraq war is being run."
2) FROM WIKIPEDIA:
"United States general elections, 2006
The 2006 United States midterm elections were held on Tuesday, November 7, 2006. . .
The final result was a turnover of the House of Representatives, the Senate, and a majority of governorships and state legislatures from the Republican Party to the Democratic Party.
Exit polls indicated that, although a majority of Americans who voted in the midterm elections disapproved of the war in Iraq, corruption was their most influential concern and national issues mattered to them more than local ones.[1]"
Chiarina,
You forgot to claim that occupying Iraq is warranted because there are "weapons of mass destruction" there since you are spreading Bush/Blair disinformation/propaganda that grossly under reports casualty figures. And when you again lack credible evidence, don't forget to use the Bush phrase: "otherwise the terrorists win".
Prestigious John Hopkins University Researchers proved that Jim correctly claimed Iraq is "one of the most disastrous and deadly follies" as set forth in many sources, that you chose to ignore. From the Post:
"Study Claims Iraq's 'Excess' Death Toll Has Reached 655,000
By David Brown
Washington Post Staff Writer
Wednesday, October 11, 2006; Page A12
A team of American and Iraqi epidemiologists estimates that 655,000 more people have died in Iraq since coalition forces arrived in March 2003 than would have died if the invasion had not occurred. . .
Of the total 655,000 estimated 'excess deaths,' 601,000 resulted from violence and the rest from disease and other causes, according to the study. This is about 500 unexpected violent deaths per day throughout the country.
The survey was done by Iraqi physicians and overseen by epidemiologists at Johns Hopkins University's Bloomberg School of Public Health."
PS: Since you asked Jim to solve the mess Bush got the world in-instead of leaving historically capable sovereigns to eventually resolve their issues-how about you answer:
1) Why do bad things happen to good people?
2) How did the universe come into being?
3) Since Einstein's theory of gravity is incompatible with the rules of quantum mechanics, how does gravity fit in to a single unified theory incorporating the answer to the preceding question?
Extra Credit: What came first the chicken or the egg?
E-G,
I believe Chiarina's questions were:
What would you recommend be done so that Iraqis can have democracy and freedom?
How should America protect her people from further terrorist attacks?
If American troops are withdrawn from Iraq now, after having overthrown the old government of Saddam, will the Iraqis be able to establish a new, democratic government on their own?
They seem like fair questions. Rather than belittle her, how about picking one question and show where Mr. Bush's plan is the wrong one and propose a better one.
For my part, whenever Jim attacks Mr. Bush on the Bolivia Blog, I look for something that MAS has done that Jim doesn't want to talk about.
Norman,
I am not surprised you jump in to obfusticate and cover up for "Chiarina".
She got caught dissing Jim with fake figures of Iraqi deaths, shilling for Bush, and ignoring the scholarly research concluding over 600,000 Iraqis died because Bush invaded Iraq under false pretenses. Her "questions" repeat the most current Republican speaking points Bush is parroting which is to ask for a better plan. This despite that a bipartisan committee thoroughly researched the issues and presented such a plan to him.
Bush, "Chiarina" and you ignored the Iraq Study Group's plan because you prefer to serve your Republican party by tactics such as changing the subject from the over 600,000 dead Iraqis to questions whose answers you will then disregard. Save that trick for another sucker.
Instead of waiting for an answer you will ignore, justify your position that there is "excess food in Bolivia" despite the evidence of severe hunger in Bolivia.
So I take it then that you don't have any better ideas, just attacks. Her figures are the generally accepted figures. Even with your figures though, she is correct in that Iraq does not compare on scale with other major wars throughout history. That in itself is irrelevant though; the level of destruction in Iraq is great. Jim doesn’t like George’s answer. Chiarina asked for a better solution. You said “Not my problem!” Any way it turns though, Jim’s happy because we’re not talking about Evo giving legitimacy to the “Poncho Rojo" paramilitary force. ("Obfusticate", huh? Is that like "Oblivity"?)
Norman did not obfuscate and Chiarina's questions are letigimate. Even if there are 1MM casualties, the reality is that 21,000 troops are not gonna make a difference and rather than argue among us what a fool Bush is, we need to start answering Chiarina's questions.
Instead of what I would do if I was back in the good'ol US of A. It would be far more relevant for Jim and his blog from Bolivia to talk about how, after exactly 15 yrs, he is comfortable of advocating for a regime that just created its own paramilitary militia based along racial and cultural lines. Or if wanted to spin a more positive angle of the situation about the rumors of a 2/3 compromise.
ps. I guess this is the year wikipedia becomes another "idiot's guide" and acceptable source...o tempora, o mores!
Typo correction in prior post: obfuscate instead of obfusticate.
In contrast to Norman and Chiarina, I man up to my errors. As a Bolivian, I hate to see obvious lies posted as truth here as has happened with Norman and Chiarina.
If Norman and Chiarina post something that turns out to be false, then they should "man up" and apologize. We're a forgiving people if there is a sincere effort to have an honest conversation instead of hackers posting what seem to be lies bought and paid for by the Bush government. (See previous Bush scandals regarding criticism of Cuba by Miami Herald columnists and several other journalists regarding other issues who were paid for pro-Bush propaganda.)
Expressing opinions, of course I'm cool with that; But, I'm not cool with Norman and Chiarina posting things that are blatantly false . (case in point: Norman claims there is "excess food in Bolivia".)
When people like that refuse to acknowledge they were peddling misinformation (lies and falsehoods) and won't accept responsibility, it's hard for them to retain credibility.
We see Norman and Chiarina peddling obvious lies, and now even challenging Jim's opinions based on Chiarina's false facts. Then she and Norman refuse to admit anything wrong was written. Norman claims Chiarina's lies of 30,000 dead Iraqis are "generally accepted figures" despite the Hopkins University study showing it is more than 600,000. (30,000 is "generally accepted" only by Cheney for Bush to repeat speeches.)
How can anyone have any respect for them? I cannot even be polite to people like that who spread lies in the Bolivian discourse community. . . time after time. Why? It seems their agenda is to protect the status quo and keep the poor, the disenfranchised and the marginalized down. And to have Bolivia serve as a colony-whose natural resources are raped-in their desperate dreams of reviving the decaying neocon empire.
As to Iraq, Norman shouldn't mislead the reader as to what I said. Iraq is my problem since it diverts my tax dollars to "no bid contracts" in Iraq and probably pays hacks like Norman to write posts that lack cogency with the topical issues. Their only success lies in functioning as a time-suck . . . and I hate when that happens. :-(
As I previously mentioned, a thoroughly researched plan was presented to Bush, by the Iraq Study Group. I would implement and modify accordingly that plan.
In the alternative, I would timely withdraw American troops from ALL foreign lands where their primary purpose is to build an empire for the transnationals that contributed to Republican coffers. I would start with Iraq.
As I previously stated above, Iraqis historically did well governing themselves in the times of Hammurabi and Nebuchadnezzar. Freed from foreign occupation, they can find their way to choosing how they wish to govern themselves. US interests are best served by respecting the sovereignty of others. And not by using proxies to exploit or subject others.
Peace in Palestine would go a lot further to increasing stability in that region than any other thing I can think of.
But, I digress. This forum is not the appropriate venue for discussing the above. Jim made his point about the significance of the harms caused by Norman and his fellow Republicans in this ill conceived empire-building military adventure. As was Jim's right, he shared his viewpoints on what he would do this weekend. Thus, I will ignore further posts on that subject. Meanwhile, thanks to Jim, I understand fellow citizens will exercise their First Amendment rights to assemble and speak against Bush's violation of the will of the electorate as expressed in the midterm elections. I think I'll follow Jim's suggestion and attend . . . "in [his] place".
Ps. Anonymous 10:22
Real idiots do not have access to wikipedia nor do they know how to spell "legitimate" (they often type "letigimate" instead). Instead of using a "idiot's guide" or wikipedia as an "acceptable source" this "year", since they are by definition idiots, they-same as in years past-make unsupported claims and often type at the end .. . "o tempora, o mores!"
Hey Guys,
i think there are some generally accepted points about Iraq;
1. going in was a mistake & had little to do with the US defending itself from terrorism
2. the country is in more of a mess now than it was before
3. it’s not possible to have accurate data on victims (that’s why the figures vary so wildly, as far as I recall the stats for civilian victims – which are by their size those that make the most difference - are compiled simply from adding the figures that appear on the news reports… hey you & me could do that with a pc..) – this in itself is a sign of how much chaos the country is in now…
There are also some more debatable questions still open, namely will getting out now help things or not? I personally am not sure, & think it’s a reasonable question to ask (if you care something about the Iraqi people). Too easy to say “Ok fellers good party, we’re off now, you guys clean up there, sorry about the mess we made”… So painting all those who question whether leaving now is right as blood-thirsty warmongers is a bit overly simplistic..
Bush himself is not sure what to do, he’s escalating now more under a sense of hope rather than conviction, & is in any case deciding based on what he thinks is best for him politically rather than for Iraq. Too bad, he’ll pay politically, others will with their blood.
Anyone thought of asking the Iraqi’s what they’d like? Oh silly me I forgot how they gonna hear us with all them car-bombs & shooting ringing in their heads..
Tragic.
File under “Mistakes to avoid in future” &, for the time being at least “How the f*!k we get outta this mess?”
Jack
El Grindio,
just FYI, the Hopkins study isn’t at all universally accepted. Scholarly yes, but based on household surveys (only about 1.800 & too many in the hard-hit Fallujah area), with plenty of extrapolations, the modelling technique they use is commonly adopted for epidemology – not for war, & yes their results are wildly different than others trying, in some way or other, to count casualties.
As there is no credible centralised tracking of all deaths in Iraq, funny as it sounds those gaining most credibility are independent web-based organisations (such as the Iraqi Body Count) that count reported casualties. They check incidents reported by at least 2 sources & tally the casualties. Figures they give are around the 60.000 mark. If the Hopkins figure was right that would mean the IBC & others tracking reported incidents are catching less than 1 in 10, that means 9 in 10 don’t even get publicised in any way.. Have a look at their databases & you’ll see plenty of entries for even 1, 2, 3 victims, so they’re not just counting the big incidents. They can’t be missing 9 in 10.
Iraqi authorities estimate 100-150.000
We’re on a dartboard my friend. What’s the right number?
Who knows?
Let’s just say too many, way too many..
Jack
I won't get into all the methodological problems w/ the Johns Hopkins report. You can read some of them from the people at Iraq Body Count here:
http://www.iraqbodycount.org/press/pr14.php
But I'll say this: If the figures in the Johns Hopkins report are correct (and there's a lot of scholarship to suggest it's not), then a larger percentage of Iraqis has died than the percentage of the Japanese population that died during the entirety of the Second World War.
mcentallas provides us with context that illuminates our understanding.
Jack provides us with an unsupported claim that "Iraqi authorities estimate100-150,000" which we are to take on faith. Then as a more credible source than John Hopkins University's medical school (the gold standard in medical schools), Jack holds out the web based musicians of which The Iraqi Body Count ("IBC") are mainly comprised as an authoritative source. How laughable.
When you compare IBC's musicians (and the others who lack any degrees in higher education in IBC) with John Hopkins University's medical school, there is no question on which data anyone not in the pay of the Bush propaganda machine would rely upon.
Let's not forget the methodology Jack wants us to accept. From IBC's website which seeks donations for the band, err "internet researchers":
"Casualty figures are derived from a comprehensive survey of online media reports from recognized sources."
That's right, if you die in Iraq and two or more of the "recognized sources" of the "online media" do not report it, then your death does not count.
I'll take the Hopkins University and their scientific methodology over the IBC and Jack's suspect suggestions. Although I would be willing to download and listen to one of the IBC's jam sessions. But, even if the IBC rocks, I would not rely on their data to disparage Jim's original claim.
How could the U.S. defend itself from terrorist acts? First of all it could stop terrorizing others. Like giving tons of weapons to Saddam Hussein in 1990, like training and giving of billions of dollars to the taliban and good old Osama. Oh yeah there's also the little thing in Iran when the US backed the Shah to overthrow Mossadegh who was the mostpopular politician in the country ever. The newly installed Shah had a CIA trained security force which had the worst human right's record on the planet. Hmmm could explain why th Iranians overthrew the Shah in 1979 and have supported ANTI-US presidents ever since. Hmmm, I seem to see a patern. The US government pisses everybody off and the sends its innocent citizens to defend us all from the freedom loving "towel heads, gooks, Hajis, etc..." My father is leaving Fort Benning Georgia today enroute to Afghanistan. He did a 4 month tour in Iraq in 2005. Anyone else have family members serving?
Kiko
Oops, I meant the freedom HATING "towel heads, gooks, Hajis, etc..." Damn them. I willfight to the death to be able to umm....hmmmm...wait I just got a summons 2 weeks ago and have to go to criminal court for riding my Bike on the sidewalk in my neighborhood and hey I got a 100 dollar ticket for walking my 5pound puppy without a leash in the park. Hmmm well in their country they probably would have been shot so long live AMERICA THE LAND OF THE FREEE!!!!.
Thanks Miguel, Jack, and Grindio for the ideas and references. 'Twas very interesting.
El Grindio: I said 60,000 to 100,000, not 30,000 as you claimed in your 11.19 comment. Also, I have a friend, a head faculty member at a prominent medical university, who tells me that he cannot accept the research of students who use Wikipedia as a source. Evidently the professional community considers Wiki to be an illegitimate resource. And why did you leave another comment at 3.23 after saying at 11.19 that you would ignore further posts?
I'm afraid you thought I was being critical with my questions as to how to develop democracy in Iraq. My intentions were not to attack Jim's views of the war. I pay little attention to American politics, and am honestly interested in learning new ideas for the furthering of democracy. Is that not the main purpose of this blog?
To Kiko: My godparents' son is serving in Iraq. He has a young wife and two little kids. And I also am opposed to leash laws... but that's another topic.
Chiarina
EG – I wasn’t saying 60.000 is the number you should take. I simply don’t know. The IBC itself says
“What we are attempting to provide is a credible compilation of civilian deaths that have been reported by recognized sources. Our maximum therefore refers to reported deaths - which can only be a sample of true deaths unless one assumes that every civilian death has been reported. It is likely that many if not most civilian casualties will go unreported by the media. That is the sad nature of war.”
In other words, assuming no-one is making up reported incidents, it’s a figure we should take as a Minimum. To which you need to add unreported incidents, or those not reported by at least 2 recognised sources.
Look at it say as a fairly reliable “Real But Incomplete” figure to which you need to ADD what’s missing. How much? That’s what no-one knows.
As Miguel’s link shows though, the problem with the Hopkins model is that it comes up with a huge figure arrived at purely statistically (whether done well or not) & which bears little resemblance to what’s been reported, the number of death certificates issued, hospital treatment records not to mention morgue estimates (which is what the Iraqi figures are based on).
But if you start by removing the half a million victims over & above the number of death certificates issued (ie that no-one knew had died…) you get 150.000.
So much playing with numbers on people’s deaths is kinda morbid, but finger to the wind & it looks like the figure could be somewhere between what Chiarina quite rightly quoted 60-100.000 & what the Iraqi authorities are saying 100-150.000.
Whatever it is, not the best place to be whichever side you’re on, best wishes for the safety of those of you have loved one’s there.
Jack
Hum, very interesting, Grindito, you said, “I'm not cool with Norman and Chiarina posting things that are blatantly false. (case in point: Norman claims there is "excess food in Bolivia".) When people like that refuse to acknowledge they were peddling misinformation (lies and falsehoods) and won't accept responsibility, it's hard for them to retain credibility.” In a previous post he said that he had or showed somehow “the evidence of severe hunger in Bolivia”.
I will like for you to show us your evidence, since you think that no one should post anything here if not backed by somebody else published point of view. Came on, bring it on, what is the percentage of Bolivians dying for the lack of food in the Country? Is it close to the one in Ethiopia?
Norman presented hard core evidence that there is an excess of food in a specific part of Bolivia when he wrote that there is food being thrown away in the Bolivian public markets, and that gives him reason to believe that we do not need more vegetables growing for internal consumption, that the Bolivian Regime is advocating for, to replace the big corporation highly yielding mono plantations for export.
But to you, if is not written by one of your favorite editorials, which for some estrange reason many times seem to be the same ones Jim publish in, it is no possible evidence.
Your postings, coming from someone that do not know the reality of Bolivia, do not go to our markets, to our towns and to our country site is as you put it, “blatantly false” and we can safely say that your are, as you also put it “refusing to acknowledge that you are pedding misinformation”. By the way, what the hell is pedding, did you mean peddling as in promote, mister I am the greatest English writer in this blog.
I believe the US should get out of Iraq and I agree with Jim in this post, but I surely will not count E-G as having in hand any credible source of information.
I agree that the hunger problem in Bolivia is not as severe as in parts of Africa. But the problem will get more severe if you rely on industrial agriculture and it's monocropping.
Big, mechanized, chemical intensive, monoculture is LESS productive than small, diverse polyculture when you take into account all the factors.
" The truth: small farms produce more agricultural output per unit area than large ones. Moreover, larger, less diverse farms require far more mechanical and chemical inputs, which are ruinous for the environment.
Proponents of industrial agriculture claim that 'bigger is better' when it comes to food production. They argue that the larger the farm, the more efficient it is. They admit that these huge corporate farms mean the loss of family farms and rural communities, but they maintain that this is simply the inevitable cost of efficient food production. And agri-business advocates don't just promote big farms; they also push big technology. They typically ridicule small-scale farm technology as grossly inefficient, while heralding intensive use of chemicals, massive machinery, computerisation and genetic engineering - the affordability and implementation of which are only feasible on large farms. The marriage of huge farms with 'mega-technology' is sold to the public as the basic requirement for efficient food production. Argue against size and technology - the two staples of modern agriculture - and, agri-business apologists insist, you're undermining production efficiency and endangering the world's food supply.
Small is bountiful
While the bigger-is-better myth is generally accepted, it is a fallacy. Numerous reports have found that smaller farms are actually more efficient than larger industrial farms. These studies demonstrate that when farms get larger the costs of production per unit often increase, because larger acreage requires more expensive machinery and more chemicals to protect crops. In particular, a 1989 study by the US National Research Council (NRC) assessed the efficiency of large industrial food production systems compared with alternative methods. The NRC's conclusion was exactly contrary to the bigger-is-better myth. 'Well-managed alternative farming systems nearly always use less synthetic chemical pesticides, fertilisers and antibiotics per unit of production than conventional farms,' the NRC found. 'Reduced use of these inputs lowers production costs and lessens agriculture's potential for adverse environmental and health effects, without decreasing - and in some cases increasing - per-acre crop yields and the productivity of livestock management systems.'
Moreover, the large monocultures used in industrial farming undermine the genetic integrity of crops, making them more susceptible to diseases and pests. A majority of our food biodiversity has already been lost. This genetic weakening of our crops makes future food productivity using the industrial model far less predictable and undermines any future efficiency claims of modern agriculture. Moreover, as these crops become ever more susceptible to pests, they require ever greater use of pesticides to produce equal amounts of food - a classic case of the law of diminishing returns. This increasing use of chemicals and fertilisers in our food production results in serious health and environmental impacts.
So, how does the bigger-is-better myth survive? Partly because of a deeply flawed method of measuring farm productivity that falsely boosts the efficiency claims of industrial agriculture while discounting the advantages of small-scale farming.
OUTPUT VERSUS YIELD
Agri-business and economists alike tend to use 'yield' measurements when calculating the productivity of farms. Yield can be defined as the production per unit of a single crop. For example, a corn farm will be judged by how many metric tons of corn are produced per acre. More often than not, the highest yield of a single crop like corn can be best achieved by planting it alone on an industrial scale in the fields of corporate farms. These large mono-cultures have become endemic to modern agriculture for the simple reason that they are the easiest to manage with heavy machinery and intensive chemical use. It is the single-crop yields of these farms that are used as the basis for the bigger-is-better myth, and it is true that the highest yield of a single crop is often achieved through industrial monocultures.
Smaller farms can rarely compete with this monoculture single-crop yield. They tend to plant crop mixtures, a method known as 'inter-cropping'. Additionally, where single-crop monocultures have empty 'weed' spaces, small farms use these spaces for crop planting. They are also more likely to rotate or combine crops and livestock, with the resulting manure replenishing soil fertility. These small-scale integrated farms produce far more per unit area than large farms. Though the yield per unit area of one crop - corn, for example - may be lower, the total output per unit area for small farms (often producing more than a dozen crops and numerous animal products) is nearly always higher than that of larger farms."
"Government studies underscore this 'inverse relationship'. According to a 1992 US Agricultural Census report, relatively smaller farm sizes are two to 10 times more productive per unit acre than larger ones. The smallest farms surveyed in the study, those of 27 acres or less, are more than 10 times as productive (in dollar output per acre) than large farms (6,000 acres or more), and extremely small farms (four acres or less) can be over 100 times as productive. "
Industrial farming gets left even more behind hen you take into account the largescale environmental degradation. Erosion, desertification, contamination of water, air, soil with toxins.
It appears that the turnout for the protest in Washington was substantially less than organizers had hoped.
While the National Park Service has not given an official crowd count, it appears to be substantially less than 100,000, perhaps somewhere between 10,000 and 50,000.
Judging from photos, it appears that Monday's "March For Life" (anti-abortion groups' annual commemoration of the Roe vs. Wade decision) drew more participants than Saturday's "Peace" rally.
In Washington, a "large" demonstration is one that has 300,000 to a million participants. While previous anti-Iraq war demonstrations have surpassed the 300,000 mark, this one didn't even come close - it would be a "medium sized" or even a "small" demonstration, by Washington standards.
Concerning excess food in Bolivia vs. hunger, let me go ahead and take some time to respond. This started several threads ago talking about planned agricultural reform where the President intends to reallocate land that is said to have been obtained fraudulently and/or held only as property and not put to use. A tangential discussion ensued about small (one family) farms being more efficient than larger single crop farms. I did not argue efficiency; I argued that Bolivia has plenty of food and can afford to have these single crop farms as well providing export income. E-G took umbrage at the assertion that there is excess food in Bolivia because my support for the claim came from personal experience whereas he countered that Bolivia has hunger citing published sources. I maintain that Bolivia has both; hunger and excess food. This is not a contradiction. Defeating hunger requires more than food; it requires getting the food to the hungry. That means a logistical infrastructure and sufficient wealth for 1) the hungry to purchase the food, or 2) charity.
First, let me address the existence of excess food. From personal experience, I have traveled Bolivia from Caranavi (north) to Camiri (south), from San Borja to the area of Illimani to the Chiquitanias. (This leaves out the altiplano, which is a big exception). Everywhere I’ve traveled, I’ve been amazed at the quantity of food available, both vegetable and meat, in the markets and restaurants (both high and low end restaurants). Portions are great. The majority of the people, particularly indigenous but with the exception of the mining areas, have appeared well fed. In the mining areas, I noted malnutrition. I did a brief search: I Googled the following phrase… Does Bolivia have enough food. At the top of the list was the following: http://www.foodfirst.org/pubs/backgrdrs/1998/s98v5n3.html which states: “Even most "hungry countries" have enough food for all their people right now. ... “For every Bangladesh, a densely populated and hungry country, we find a Nigeria, Brazil or Bolivia, where abundant food resources coexist with hunger.” If you read the rest of the page, you’ll find that it is anything but right-wing propaganda.
Bolivia’s population is about 8 or 9 million; roughly the population of New York City. The landmass of Bolivia is over 1 million square kilometers with an estimate 3% arable land (http://www.infoplease.com/ipa/A0107345.html). It is slightly larger than Egypt, a primarily desert nation and also with 3% arable land (http://www.infoplease.com/ipa/A0107484.html). Egypt however supports a population eight times that of Bolivia!
The hunger problem in Bolivia is not due to a lack of food production; IMHO, it is the inability to get the food to the hungry and the inability of the hungry to purchase the food that is available. My recommendation then would be to improve the transportation infrastructure. The issue is not supply; it is logistics.
Now, backing up a point, the issue is also $$. Bolivia gains income by selling products to include produce such as soy. These large farms may be less efficient than smaller ones but they are not less productive nor are they taking away from the ability of the small farmer to earn his living. To my original point, the Bolivian government should be extremely judicious in what it confiscates. Sorry to be so long winded and off topic.
E-G, I have no problem if it turns out that you are correct on a point and I am wrong. I am not trying to debate you or defeat you; I am trying to convince you. Sorry for being long winded. Now let’s move on to the next topic.
Now, since we won’t be discussing the Poncho Rojo paramilitary force recently given such distinction by Don Evo, (http://www.elmundo.com.bo/imagenes/evoponchorojo.jpg,
http://www.la-razon.com/versiones/20070124_005796/img/2070124160_070124.jpg,
http://www.redbolivia.com/images/Militares-A_230107_RB.jpg, http://www.redbolivia.com/images/articulos/EvoMorales-A_230107_RB20070123231216.jpg), let’s get on to Mr. Schultz’ chosen topic.
I’ve described myself before as a disenchanted Republican. To explain, I support in general the Republican platform (pro-life, smaller federal government, etc.) but have been disappointed in the current administration. Perhaps my disappointment does not fully coincide with yours. The United States was attacked on that infamous date. That attack changed forever the way that the US has to deal with terrorism. First, we had to respond and Mr. Bush was correct in going after Al Qaeda. I don’t think anyone debates that issue. Second though, we could no longer afford to absorb a first hit as we did before in New York and Washington. As such, I had no problem with Mr. Bush requiring Saddam Hussein to begin fulfilling his obligation to allow unrestricted access to weapons inspectors. I had no problem with sending the troops to mass on the borders of Iraq to let him know we were serious. This was necessary because the previous administration failed to hold Hussein to task and allowed him to stonewall all verification efforts. My problem with the current administration is that we went in when we did. At that particular moment, Mr. Hussein appeared to me to be cooperating fully out of fear of a US invasion. Entering at that time, without international backing, was premature. I believe that eventually Mr. Hussein would have returned to stonewalling, that it would have been undeniable, and at that it would then have been necessary to go in.
Concerning intelligence; I’m amazed that the very same people that accuse Mr. Bush of not heeding warning of an imminent attack before 9-11 then turn and attack him for acting on intelligence of an Iraqi chemical weapons build up. Iraq building up chemical weapons (again) seemed, to me, a very credible threat. Intelligence is never certain. There is often far too much information to be easily digested. In a military conflict, you use resources at hand to determine what the enemy course of action is likely to be. There are usually various conflicting reports and an enemy actively trying to conceal and deceive. It is up to the intelligence officer and the commander to determine the most likely course of action. Sometimes they are right and sometimes not. The same would be true in counter-terrorism intelligence gathering; both pre 9-11 and during the Iraq conflict. The cost of inaction (both on Mr. Bush’s part and the previous administration) was seen in New York and Washington. The cost of action based on inadequate intelligence was perhaps seen in Iraq. I hold Mr. Bush accountable for them though I don’t vilify him. We went from a virtual do-nothing administration to an over-the-top one. I’m ready for one that can find the middle.
I could go on much more on this topic, but it has nothing to do with the name of the blog. Jim, what is your take on what Mr. Morales did on the anniversary of his inauguration? (See my opening paragraph).
Norman,
Who knows and maybe Jim’s organization is part of the Regime’s propaganda apparatus under the command of the well know Peruvian terrorist Walter Chavez for the English speaking only readers; since you can surely say that for the past year his organization cannot be defined as a NON Governmental Organization. In effect these past weeks several important news have being silence by Jim, off course we can not really accuse him of miss informing the true, since he is just ignoring it.
Some off these interesting things are:
1) Your mention of the Regimen legalizing the armed Ponchos Rojos militia live in TV, living the door opened for more of this type of armed paramilitary to appear. Case in point, a couple of days or so after the event, a group of Campesinos Ponchos Rojos appeared en Sucre breaking windows and blocking the street demanding changes in a judicial decision.
2) The Peruvian senate officially asked Bolivia to explain the status of the Peruvian Walter Chavez, whom is working as the Propaganda and Communications guru in the Bolivian executive. Chavez is requested for Peru due to his terrorist connections with shinning path but works as Evo’s personal Joseph Goebbels.
3) Some Bolivian senators are also demanding the executive to explain the Chavez situation, since the regimen just expatriated a Cuban because he was asking publicly for autonomy; and according to the Regimen, he was involucrate in politics which is illegal due to a decree of Goni. More interesting, the same senators want the explanation of 5 foreign assessors the regime has, one of them a Gringo. Who knows and we will have Jim’s name all over the Bolivian day to day Spanish news in the near future. I am just guessing here.
4) The Bolivian senate presidency is now in control of the opposition to the Regime, in an alliance between UN, PODEMOS & MNR.
5) YPFB chief executive president Juan Carlos Ortiz renounced to his position because the MAS hard liners imposed their decision to make YPFB the same type of company that it was before capitalization; those, open for stealing and corruption. Ortiz is the person whom according to Evo made the new Hydrocarbon contracts that are so much prizes as the best thing the Regime did the past year.
There are more and I have no time, I do not wander any more why Jim didn’t want to write about Bolivia the past week, to many bad news for his side at the same time, its is just not fare for him.
Norman,
This why the case of Samarinto was so conspiciously ignored by Jim. Jim himself cannot be doing what he is doing. Under the current MAS regime and precedent, Jim should be in jail and on his way to Guantanamo. That the MAS is collaborating with a terrorist is not surprising. That the Democracy center cooperates with paramilitaries is also no surprise. These are not middle of the road, let's find a compromise type people. They'll sell out their convictions in exchange for power. You put forth a couple of great illustrations of their hyprocisy...but so what? nothing is new. Goni used Bolivia as his own little farm, Evo uses the country as his own little sindicate, and Jim takes pride in being a pimp of Bolivia 's misery.
Annon 10:05
PS Grindio...a little sip from the pierian spring is all you've taken and your immaturity makes this patent (BTW I love how to mock my typo and try to pass your bad english for a type, regardless, you still sound like a kid throwing a tantrum). Wiki, CIA factbook, and the Idiot's Guide Book series are fine reference tools...but don't ever under any circumstance must you cite them as sources. That's an automatic F in graduate school. Finally, you mock everyone, but answer none of their questions. Try this one: What is there to do in Iraq? or an easier one: Is Bolivia more democratic under Evo?
Briefly, here are MY problems w/ the popular use (often by people who don't understand statistics and haven't read the study itself) of the Johns Hopkins data on Iraqi mortality:
1) It's an estimate based on sampling. That means that they have a 95% confidence that their number lies somewhere between 392,979 and 942,636 have died, based on their cluster sampling. So the number could equally be between 400,000 and 900,000.
2) Their cluster sampling has been shown to be problematic, since it over-samples some areas over other (particularly areas where there is higher mortality).
3) Their study also required people tho show death certificates. These are issues by the Iraqi Health Ministry. The Iraqi health ministry has a record of how many death certificates they've handed out. These don't match up w/ the Johns Hopkins estimate. Which means that either: A) the Iraqis are showing fake death certificates or B) the Iraqi health ministry is lying or C) the Iraqi health ministry is issuign death certificates but not reporting or D) the sample is flawed.
4) The Johns Hopkins methodology (like most statistics) can tell us a lot about trends, but not much about actual people. So, yes, their finding is that -- when compared to their 2003 study -- the number of deaths has increased. But all reports tell us that (media, IBC, the UN, etc). What the Johns Hopkins report can tell us is the *rate of increase relative to their 2003 data*.
Just read the IBC criticism before you jump to conclusions. There have been many, many, many valid criticisms of the study. Why do you think the UN doesn't use it? Neither do many opponents of the war. Believing in data just because it fits your political agenda is as dangerous a thing for the right as for the left.
Before we end this of discussion of if, who, how many, relative to the US military action in Iraq, let's not forget the most relevant aspect of Jim's post. He linked himself publicly to the hard left. Specifically he directly his readers to a communist front group, United for Peace and Justice. In addition he advised his readers to join in the demonstration orchestrated by said communist front group. Their aim isn't to end the war for peace, it's to end the war with the US being defeated. What Jim was promoting wasn't a peace demonstration , it was an anti-American demonstration designed to weaken Bush and make it less likely that moderate Iraqis will support the American military. Bottom line, they are promoting US casualities in Iraq. Thanks Jim.
Some interesting stuff there from a number of you, I need to be brief so here goes:
1. on the Ponchos Rojos I share the same apprehensions, & add myself to the list of people who’d like this covered. If anyone can shed some light as to why setting up such groups could be positive for Bolivia let him speak up.
2. on hunger I agree with a lot of what Norman says, but the real issue is land distribution.
The weak point in your original argument Norman (Wal Mart vs Mom & Pop) is an ethical one; ie. is it reasonable to say to the 2,5 million landless in Bolivia “ok you can have some land to farm in the oriente but only if you can do it more efficiently than who is there already”? I don’t think so. The poverty gap is too wide & the qualification test too severe. Ofcourse it would be better that any redistributed land is farmed efficiently (whether that means big or small plots or something in between), but presumably there will be a strong self-interest from those that take over the land to do that anyway.
Secondly if logistics is the problem like you say (& it probably is) you can solve the problem backwards – ie get the people nearer the food (rather than the food to the people). So, once again, land distribution could be an answer. Logistics then becomes less of an issue - the food that serves those relocated to feed themselves has no need for logistics, & the food they cultivate to sell can go through the logistics that are already in place there.
What’s the problem with land distribution? Plenty, & here, as often, the fear stems from the uncertainty of what Evo wants to do - how much, where & affecting whom. I can share all the worries the people in the oriente have about this. Confiscation of land, the hurting of one of Bolivia’s few productive sectors, population relocation (nb. moving lots of people from west to east can also be a way of diluting government opposition in the oriente) – these are all sensitive issues, & Evo’s got some reassuring to do.
But let’s not forget my friends the land-wealth gap is very wide. On the one side, 14 families hold over 3 million UNPRODUCTIVE hectares - if I’ve done the maths right (I’m not sure I have) that means an area of 175km x 175km. On the other, 2,5 million people with nothing.
If these numbers are right they tell us at least a couple of interesting things:
a. if you give an average 500mx500m plot to each family of say average 5 people to work, that’s 20 people per square kilometre, means over 600.000 people you can relocate into these 3m hectares. You’ve dealt with a quarter of the landless population’s problem.
b. the 3m hectares though are still only about 4% of Bolivia’s territory, so there’s still plenty more available to fix the problem
Surely something can be done without pissing everyone off?
Jack
You both ignore the fact that giving people access to land will condem them to further poverty. The future is about combining human capital with the resources necesary. Having Bolivians farm with an mule pulled wooden plow, as the egyptians did, or with machinery as the cambas do is not competitive in the global economy.
Historically, Bolivia has been good with minerals, but also with commerce&trade. La Paz was built on trade so that is what Bolivia needs to focus on. They need to put all the contrabandistas from Eloy Salmon in the trade negotiation team and send them to Washington to negotiate a TLC and FTAA
Farming in Bolivia is competitive for both local consumption and export of staple items such as soy to Colombia, Venezuela, etc. While the percentage of GDP represented by agriculture is down (23% in 1987 [in large part due to contraband such as coca] to about 13% in 2004), it still remains a significant contributor to the economy.
Jack, getting the people closer to the food may be a bit idealistic. You will always have remote populations. For one, mining is still worthwhile in Bolivia and miners will need to be fed. The country’s road infrastructure however is decades behind where it needs to be. (In 2004 Bolivia had less than 4,000 km of paved roads and only 3,500 km of railway.) I do not agree with taking away property without due process, but if you are going to do it, do it right. Empower the small farmer to do the job well enough not just to subsist, but to make a living; get him the equipment and training necessary in order to succeed! Ensure his produce can reach a market (build a transportation infrastructure - vital for all commerce). As far as the demand side of the equation and whether the people can then afford to buy the food... that's another matter. The demand for the large, single-crop farm though, remains unequivocal. Those farms, whether run by the elite or not, need to be protected.
----
(Statistics obtained from the CIA World Factbook online and the Library of Congress)
Speaking of railways, is the Aiquile to Santa Cruz railway any closer to getting built?
"Farming in Bolivia is competitive for both local consumption and export of staple items such as soy to Colombia, Venezuela, etc."
I'm not sure this is entirely true. Bolivian soy farmers recieve diesel subsidies and they are about to loose the Colombian market to the US. There is a comparative advantage in quinoa and other indigineous goods. However, as a whole, my general feeling is that they are not. Don't really have the time to look up cost/ton or ton/htm ....but I insist, sending more people to work the land is a recepie for further poverty.
As well as a potential ecological disaster, as in Brazil.
Jack,
Ok, lets some objective reasoning about these land distribution issue, and I think your last sentence, “Surely something can be done without pissing everyone off?” is the key of the problem.
I don’t know where you got your calculations or numbers, but assume that the “14 families hold over 3 million UNPRODUCTIVE hectares - if I’ve done the math’s right (I’m not sure I have) that means an area of 175km x 175km.” Are you talking about agriculture and livestock? I raise this questions because the proponents of “give the land to the poor landless, kick out the filthy rich oligarchs” always inflate their numbers adding these completely 2 different areas in one. That way they can easily miss inform about the issue since livestock uses a lot more land that agriculture, but is graze land and should NOT be cultivates by any means, ancient or modern. The fact that several of the, you have 13 but I seen reports up to 100 “filthy rich families”, have invested in both, agriculture and livestock makes this miss information even easier. In respect to 3 million UNPRODUCTIVE land; that is another fallacy; since both graze land and agriculture land must “rest” after a period of production, so you cannot cultivate or graze all your land at the same time, you must “rotate” livestock and crops. This is only known by people that have some background in agriculture or animal husbandry.
Now, the “other, 2,5 million people with nothing.” Is just crazy since you are also referring about “families”, if I put a lower family household than you, to say of 4, you will have 10 million people waiting in list for a piece of land, we don’t even get to be so many in the whole country.
The true is that this “agrarian reform” is just a way, intent, to reduce the power, spatially economic, of a region that is not in the same trend than the regime. If that means that we might loose external markets, it’s Ok to Evo and company. Off course, I really believe that he things the regime can do what Chavez is doing in Venezuela; tightening the node to the private entrepreneur for them to declare bankrupts and the government to take over the business. Giving it to the workers, of course the Regime’s workers, to run it and continue the business, with the protection, subvention, of the government.
Why do you thing that all the people on line for the tropical land is the people that do not know the climatic and soil conditions to work it?; the local peasant, “campesinos” have it better working under pay that alone by their own in the jungle. I am not talking about the 4 month a year sugar cane workers that work under unacceptable conditions, they are the type of people the Regime should be helping. But no, they want to send their quechua and aymara to colonize what is already colonized. There is great quantity of land that can still be distributed, but as Norman said, there is no infrastructure to get to it. Dose, seams for the regime; that is easier to steal it, that is why they need their “Ponchos Rojos” and SS (Social Sectors).
If anyone want’s to see who much of Bolivia can still be colonize, just enter to the dozens of web pages with this information, here a couple of examples:
http://geology.com/world/bolivia-satellite-image.shtml
http://www.mapmart.com/scripts/hsrun.exe/Single/MapMart_New/MapXtreme.htx;start=HS_Handler
I never stop to amaze myself for the dimension of the cultivate land in Santa Cruz, for export, compared to the extensions in the valleys and altiplano, needed for our consumption; we are talking to different worlds that are in harmony and need no Regimen intervention. Off course, just move your cursor to Brazil and we are just nothing in terms of producing crops, we will have to see about Frank’s ecological disaster; but I am not implying at all we need to produce that much, I am just comparing.
Ok guys some off the hip comments & clarifications, may be away for next few days so interested in anyone else’s comments on the land issue while I’m away.
First (Anons 8,17 & 11,58) I’m not suggesting for a minute that people should be redirected from the service, industrial, mining or any other more value-added sectors to go & work the land. That would be counter-productive I agree, not the way to go. I was talking about giving something to those who have nothing (be it land, a job in anyway we’d understand that in the 21st century, or any other assets or equipment), & giving them something to WORK incidentally, not just HAVE.
Also, Norman, I was never suggesting we need to move everyone from the altiplano to the oriente, or everyone from the remote areas to bang next to the cultivation fields. The idea wasn’t to solve the problem for everyone, just to make an improvement. It’s not a pink idealistic cloudy dream I’m evoking, just plain ordinary progress. I stand by my belief that there is some more equitable distribution of land & wealth to be had in Bolivia. I also stand by my belief that this needs to be done carefully, doesn’t have to be done suddenly, or for everybody. But we need to work in that direction for sure.
Also, I’m not suggesting nothing needs to be done to improve roads & other logistics in Bolivia. I agree with all of you that it’s desperately needed in Bolivia (both internal infrastructure & that vital for exports), but we all know how topographically complicated Bolivia is, & these things take time (& money) to build. Both these resources, I think, are in short supply right now. So we can’t work just on this aspect.
Call it idealistic if you like, but I actually wager it’s quicker to send someone who lives remote up in the mountains somewhere nearer to the source of food, than asking him to wait till a proper road gets built to his village.
B-L, good post, I share your concerns that Evo could use the land issue for political ends. Also, I really share & value your pride in Santa Cruz & what the people there have shown can be done in Bolivia, with a bit of will & just wanting to get on with things. Instead of spending too much time reading little red revolutionary books, as if that was the answer to all our problems.. Yes, Sta Cruz is an example for the rest of Bolivia, no two ways about it. So I wasn’t suggesting that the land distribution should try to target this successful agricultural industry & deprive the people, that have worked hard & spent money to get something out of the ground & need it for a living, of their land or other assets.
Again, it’s a question of starting up SOMETHING for the 2,5 million people (not 2,5 million families B-L) that are said to own nothing in Bolivia. I can’t vouch for this figure by the way & no time to search for it by now, but it’s often quoted (I think even by Jim). Could be less, 2m say, could be Evo’s exaggerating? Maybe, I won’t argue with that now, but guys we all know there’s a lot of people in Bolivia with diddly jack squat.
I can though B-L give you one of the many links to the 3m hectares (yes, there is also an oft-quoted figure for the 100 richest families but haven’t got that to hand now).
http://www.comunica.gov.bo/index.php?i=noticias_texto&j=20061123200238
What is classified as unproductive I don’t know, but my understanding of unproductive is that it is being used for neither grazing or agriculture. Could be the figures are hyped (they’re quoted by Alex Contreras) I agree, but hey look at another thing the report mentions, which is truly astounding:
Of the 65 million productive hectares in Bolivia, 59 were redistributed to these same rich families.
Again, I leave room for hype margin. That said, if there’s some nut of truth in that statistic - THAT is one HECK of a lot of land (about 54% of Bolivia!?!?!? I’m not sure I believe that) - it means these guys, excuse me for insisting, have more land than they probably need to pay their bills at the end of the month. More to the point, if they have anything like 59m hectares, or even 10 or 20m hectares, it’s more than believable to me that just 3m of these could be unproductive, not being used, just sitting there.
I hope what I’m trying to say is coming through in a way that makes sense to you guys. This issue is really sensitive, I know, anytime you’re round a table with others discussing how to cut up the pie in a new way it’s delicate, & yes, Evo & his folk often don’t give you the feeling you’re gonna be invited to the table to discuss it. Not good. What I am trying to do though is, using a bit of common sense, a dash of honesty, & a few numbers so we can get a grasp of the size of the things we’re talking about, is get this issue away from the emotional zone, & closer to something we can look at it with a bit less fear & foreboding.
Just one more number for you guys, which I’m going off memory here but I think I recall correctly - Evo’s plan is to redistribute 20m hectares (about 20% of Bolivia) in his first term in office. Now that is a LOT. 20% of Bolivia changing hands!?!?! Cause for concern?
Look at it another way then. If there’s 59 million hectares with an elite rich (I can’t believe it can be that much, must be some MAS propaganda, but anyway until someone shows the right figure let’s accept it for the time being), Evo can take back 20 million easily without affecting anyone but the few really rich, & without killing them off either.
Hope we’re all feeling more comfortable now!
My best to you all, let’s look into the pond, there may not be too many monsters there, just our reflection in the water, should we be so scared of ourselves?
Jack
PS. If you’ll allow me just one dig - Anon 8,17 – it’s for you buddy, without straying hopefully too much off the subject. I don’t agree that Bolivia has a huge sector of its population ready to start competing with the world in semiconductors, plasma tv’s or other 21st century lines of business. And that we should get these people to start working like Egyptians instead coz that will make them richer. (I clarified that already above). But I also, & this is my point, don’t agree with the claim that Bolivia has a hugely successful trading history either. It’s a been a humongously resource-rich nation for 500 years but is still a poor country! That says it all to me. On that record, if Bolivia was a company, or even a charity, the sales-team for the last 500 years should definitely be fired! And further, I don’t think that doing more of the same that’s already been done before without too much success– trying to build your trading base with just a few rich countries who are MUCH more powerful than you, & with whom it’s always gonna be tough to get a good deal out of – is the only way to go. That’s not being anti-US or anti-Europe or Marxist or whatever Anon, don’t misunderstand. I’m not a basher of the rich world or a leftie. It’s just common sense again. I think you can probably get better deals from other places too, & it’s worth exploring these routes too. Brazil, Argentina, China, India, South Africa wherever you like. Try to split your trading cake into more pieces, do more smaller & profitable deals than before, don’t get overly dependent on one country if you can avoid it etc etc. That’s all for now, the trading zone issue takes us into another realm we can discuss some other time but believe me, I think there’s plenty that Bolivia can do to get richer in future. And thank bejezus that’s the case!
Who would Jesus bomb?
I live in Eastern Bolivia, where most of what the MAS call the 'elite' are based.
Aside from their general racism here (I had one university educated white Bolivian sit himself down next to me during a World Cup match between Angola and Brazil to tell me that the 'niggers were running around like they're hunting rabbits'), they are renowned, even amongst themselves, as being almost completely corrupt.I mean, they openly admit this to foreigners.That's how pointless it is for them to hide it.
I was told that in old government circles, land was handed out to friends and aquaintances of ruling families (this was a closed shop, freemarketeers - not any old negrito campesino could apply) at the rate of between 80 centavos and 1 Boliviano per hectare.A hectare is 10,000 sqm and a Boliviano is worth an eighth of a dollar.Having settled here, I can actually believe it, as outlandish as it may sound, given real estate prices by US standards.
The doctors are currently on strike in the state hospitals asking for Political Autonomy (from the nigger government in La Pa, as usual, or is it to protect democracy -I can never remember which) and they have started to move towards hunger striking.To what end, I can't understand.The point of a hunger strike, as the IRA knew, was to stick with the thing until you DIED or it's goddamn pointless, surely?
They've said this despite the fact they were caught on camera shipping in crates of beer at the beginning of the week to enjoy on their passage to martyrdom.Most of them will no doubt be OK, though, whatever happens - unlike their patients, who are largely indigenous or from the poor rural regions to the South or the hill country to the West and don't, frankly, have a pot to piss in, the Doctors are white graduates and have private healthcare.That thing about patients coming first is socialist bullshit anyway, isn't it?
And there's always the option of doing what Antonio Franco, the leader of the 'Parliamentary Cruceno Brigade' (whatever madeup bullshit organisation that actually is) did in the middle of his widely publicised hunger strike for democracy and against the dictatorship of this nigger,sorry, totalitarian government of illiterate peasants : he was filmed chomping on a supersize Whopper combo with onion rings when he thought noone was looking.But that's OK - he's the boss of Burger King in Bolivia.Viva Democracia!
Nice one, Antonio!
Una Libertad Para Llevar (grande)! por favor.
wow gold
wow gold
wow gold
wow gold
wow powerleveling
wow powerleveling
wow power leveling
wow power leveling
World of Warcraft Gold
World of Warcraft Gold
wow powerleveling
wow powerleveling
wow power leveling
wow power leveling
wow power leveling
wow power leveling
wow power leveling
wow powerleveling
wow power leveling
wow gold
wow items
feelingame.com
wow tips
Most Valuable WOW Power Leveling Service
wow power leveling faq
cheap wow power leveling
wow power leveling
wow powerleveling
wow power lvl
Archlord Gold
cheap Archlord Gold
buy Archlord Gold
cheap wow power leveling
cheap Warcraft power leveling
World of warcraft Power Level
World of warcraft PowerLevel
World of warcraft Power Leveling
World of warcraft PowerLeveling
Warcraft Power Level
Warcraft PowerLevel
Warcraft Power Leveling
Warcraft PowerLeveling
wow power level
wow powerlevel
wow power leveling
wow powerleveling
runescape power leveling
rs2 power leveling
runescape powerleveling
runescape power level
runescape money
runescape gold
buy runescape gold
buy runescape money
runescape items
runescape accounts
buy runescape accounts
buy runescape items
cheap runescape money
cheap runescape gold
runescape gp
dofus kamas
buy dofus kamas
Guild Wars Gold
buy Guild Wars Gold
GW Gold
rs2 money
rs2 gold
rs2 items
rs2 accounts
buy runescape money
buy rs2 money
buy rs2 gold
runescape Guide
rs2 Guide
rs2 accounts
buy rs2 accounts
runescape accounts
buy runescape accounts
陈楚生
http://www.vgoldseller.com
http://www.vgoldsupply.com
http://www.runescape4money.net
http://www.buylotrogold.org
www.runescapemoney-runescapegold.cn
www.runescape2vip.cn
www.runescape2store.com
www.rs2-accounts.com
www.buydofuskamas.com
wow gold
wow gold
wow gold
wow gold
wow power leveling
wow powerleveling
wow power leveling
wow power leveling
wow powerleveling
wow powerleveling
wow power leveling
wow power leveling
wow powerleveling
wow powerleveling
翻译公司
rolex
翻译公司
rolex replica
wow gold
wow gold
World of Warcraft Gold
World of Warcraft Gold
wow powerleveling
wow powerleveling
wow power leveling
wow power leveling
powerleveling
powerleveling
powerleveling
powerleveling
power leveling
power leveling
powerleveling
powerleveling
power leveling
power leveling
wow powerleveling
wow powerleveling
wow power leveling
wow power leveling
rs Gold
rs Gold
Runescape Gold
Runescape Gold
rs powerleveling
rs powerleveling
Runescape powerleveling
Runescape powerleveling
lotro gold
lotro gold
LOTRO US Gold
LOTRO US Gold
LOTRO EU Gold
LOTRO EU Gold
buy lotro gold
buy lotro gold
cheap lotro gold
cheap lotro gold
LOTRO Powerleveling
LOTRO Powerleveling
LOTRO Power leveling
LOTRO Power leveling
SilkRoad Gold
SilkRoad Gold
SilkRoad Powerleveling
SilkRoad Powerleveling
SilkRoad Power leveling
SilkRoad Power leveling
SR Gold
SR Gold
SR Powerleveling
SR Powerleveling
SR Power leveling
SR Power leveling
wow gold
wow gold
wow gold
wow gold
wow power leveling
wow powerleveling
wow power leveling
wow power leveling
wow powerleveling
wow powerleveling
wow power leveling
wow power leveling
wow powerleveling
wow powerleveling
翻译公司
rolex
翻译公司
rolex replica
wow gold
wow gold
World of Warcraft Gold
World of Warcraft Gold
wow powerleveling
wow powerleveling
wow power leveling
wow power leveling
powerleveling