The TV commercial for the Living Proof Project (linked here)–sponsored by the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation is currently being shown on major network stations across the US ( ABC/CBS/NBC/etc. ).
This commercial is the best development communication of its kind. It is also the first time in my lifetime that I have seen a positive commercial which advertises development assistance across the globe to the American people. This is groundbreaking people! Never has there been a US-wide campaign which seeks to sponsor, justify, and captivate the success of American aid in Africa, Asia, Latin America, and the Middle East.
Most importantly, this commercial is effective. The people’s faces are warm, healthy & smiling. You don’t see anyone with inflated stomachs, flies in their eyes, and expressions of depression and deep depravity –like we’re used to seeing on all of those Christain infomercials where they ask you to give a dollar a day to some kid in a poor country and you get their picture in return as compensation for your supposed generosity.
The truth of the matter is, the commercial is correct. We are making a difference. Health projects across the developing world ARE impacting people’s lives. The American Public deserves to hear that AND they NEED to hear that.
Moreover, what strikes me most about the commercial is that it fails to distinguish between public and private donors in the developing world that are providing aid assistnace. The commercial gives credit to everyone who is working to make a difference. This is awesome!
THANK YOU BILL AND MELINDA GATES…..
Anti-smoking activists are racing to head off an explosion of tobacco use in Africa as the world’s major tobacco companies increasingly seek to develop markets free from the kind of limits on sales, marketing and use of tobacco products in the developed world. Smoking rates in Africa have historically remained low as a result of poverty, but the ability of tobacco companies to innovate packaging for the specific African market by allowing Africans to purchase one cigarette at a time, or single sticks, is helping drive up consumption exponentially. The unfortunate point is that, many countries in Africa do not have the social infrastructure, rule of law, or strength of institutions (as we do in the US or in the EU) to campaign against the mega multi national tobacco companies and send them running with their tails between their legs in the courts…
for more info visit Time Magazines’ website —- TIME
THIS IS A GREAT ARTICLE by Robert Bridge…
The Great Bank Robbery: How the Federal Reserve is destroying America
As global leaders struggle to rescue their nations from economic breakdown, the legitimacy of the dollar as the world’s reserve currency is under attack. Perhaps the problem lies with the Fed. A large part of the “super” in the American superpower is based on the modern creed of liberal democracy, which serves as the motor of free-market capitalism. And the lubricant that keeps this colossal machine humming at full speed 24/7 is the US dollar. So before we risk any conjectures on the future prospects of America’s versatile banknote, which presently serves as the ‘world’s reserve currency,’ perhaps we should know more about who controls it.
In the Fed We Trust
It usually comes as a shock to people – especially diehard Americans who place infinite trust in their sacred Constitution – when they discover that the US dollar is not a product of the American government. That’s right, fellow consumers, that crumpled wad of dollars in your pocket is the product of the U.S. Federal Reserve, and despite the very official title, is about as “federal” as Federal Express. The reality is that the U.S. Federal Reserve is a profit-making venture just like Wal-Mart, General Motors or McDonald’s. Yet the US Constitution clearly states (Article 1, Section 
that one of the many functions of government is to “coin money, regulate the value thereof.” Indeed, this task was deemed so important that the Founding Fathers mentioned it ahead of the obligation to “raise and support armies.” The Constitution says absolutely nothing about outside parties being responsible for printing money or regulating interest rates.To quote Abraham Lincoln, the 16th president of the United States, “The privilege of creating and issuing money is… the supreme prerogative of government.” Today, a handful of blue-blooded American politicians (a very rare breed these days, it seems) are beginning to echo ol’ Abe on the very same issue.
Ron Paul, the congressman from Texas who made an unsuccessful bid for the 2008 Republican Party presidential nomination, represents a growing number of Americans who want to see the Fed severely tamed, or put out of business altogether. “Congress created the Fed although it had no constitutional authority to do so,” Paul told his peers during a recent House investigative meeting. “We forget that those powers not explicitly granted to Congress by the Constitution are inherently denied to the Congress and thus the authority to establish a central bank was never given. “Congress… has essentially given up its oversight responsibilities over the Fed: there are no true audits; Congress knows nothing of the conversations, the plans, and the action-taking in concert with other central banks. We get less and less information regarding the money supply each year,” Paul continued. Incidentally, but certainly not insignificantly, Paul, despite his huge grassroots popularity, was deliberately snubbed by the American media on numerous occasions, including during a primetime debate on Fox News. “Despite his $20 million and 10% showing in new Hampshire polls, Fox News excluded Paul from its Sunday night republican debate,” wrote Andrew Malcolm in his Los Angeles blog. “So Paul gets 10% in Iowa and gets excluded, but Rudy (Giuliani) gets 4% and sits on the left end of the Fox Box desk. Hmmm.” (To see why CNN probably won’t be hosting another ‘College Week’ political program in the near future, click here ). How does the US media justify the outright snub of a proven politician (Paul has served 10 consecutive terms in the House of Representatives)? The answer is simple: Ron Paul is one of the few men who poses a threat to the powers that be: The U.S. Federal Reserve System.
Top of the Pyramid
It is no secret that the power to print money and set interest rates constitutes the greatest power of any government. “Let me issue and control a nation’s money,” commented international banker Amschel Rothschild, “and I care not who makes the laws.” Henry Kissinger reduced the almighty powers of the Federal Reserve to one line: “Who controls money controls the world.” Former chairman of the Federal Reserve Alan Greenspan, who served for 18+ years in his position, was asked by political talk show host Jim Lehrer: “What should be the proper relationship between a chairman of the Fed and the president of the United States?” “Well, first of all, the Federal Reserve is an independent agency, and that means basically that there is no other agency of government (including the executive office) which can overrule actions that we take,” Greenspan responded matter-of-factly. “So long as that is in place… then, what the relationships are don’t frankly matter.” In light of the above statements, it is safe to say that it is not US Commander-in-Chief Barack Obama who holds the reigns of real power in America, but rather Ben Bernanke, the chairman of the Fed. Indeed, last December’s Newsweek magazine proudly announced that Bernanke was the “fourth most powerful person in the world,” behind Barack Obama, Hu Jintao and Nicolas Sarkozy, but ahead of Gordon Brown, Angela Merkel and Vladimir Putin (fourth, fifth and sixth place in the Newsweek power list went to central bankers, Bernanke, Jean-Claude Trichet (EU) and Masaaki Shirakawa (Japan), as opposed to national leaders)! But there is another infallible maxim that also dictates our political life. “Power corrupts,” said Lord Acton, “but absolute power corrupts absolutely.”
So guess who is in the hot chair today for (possibly) corrupting his absolute power? Yes, that’s right, Mr. Ben Bernanke, who appeared last week before the House Oversight and Reform committee to explain some irregularities in his office. At issue was the question of the Central Bank’s involvement in Bank of America’s controversial acquisition of Merrill Lynch. Shortly after the US housing markets tanked, Bank of America moved to acquire Merrill Lynch. However, once it became known (at least in financial circles) that the investment bank was suffering major losses, Bank of America CEO Kenneth Lewis balked on the merger. What happened next is the center of the congressional investigation. US lawmakers, armed with email correspondences taken from the Central Bank, argue that Bernanke overstepped his already-awesome authority by working behind the scenes to ensure that Lewis went ahead with the shotgun wedding. In one email, it appears that Bernanke threatened that the Federal Reserve would replace Bank of America’s management if Lewis decided to pull out of his planned acquisition of Merrill Lynch, or seek government aid to clinch the deal. Forcing bank mergers through outright coercion was never intended to be the function of the Fed. Bernanke, of course, denies any wrongdoing.
“I believe that the Federal Reserve acted with the highest integrity throughout its discussions with Bank of America regarding that company’s acquisition of Merrill Lynch,” Bernanke told the committee members, while reclaiming the moral high ground by arguing that the Fed’s actions “averted a major financial crisis.”
Nevertheless, US lawmakers are swirling around Bernanke and the Fed like sharks that sense blood. Congressman Dennis Kucinich, D-OH, criticized Bernanke for failing to provide information about Merrill Lynch’s huge losses in November so that shareholders could vote on the transaction. “If the Fed knew that there were losses before the government deal took place, why didn’t it provide information to the SEC (Securities and Exchange Committee) so that shareholders were informed?” Kucinich asked.
Bank of America closed the deal with Merrill Lynch on Jan. 1 after the US government agreed to a $138 billion aid package to help bank of America complete the acquisition. The closed-door deal cost American taxpayers a cool $20 billion dollars. Meanwhile, the House investigation into the Fed actions will continue for weeks.
US Department of Usury
Besides having lost the power to regulate its own currency, the United States must also pay interest on the dollars it borrows. Given that the current bailout (and buy-in) of the American economy is in the ballpark of 9 trillion dollars it will take incalculable generations to pay back this monstrous bill. “Henry Ford thinks its stupid and so do I, that for the loan of its own money the United States should be compelled to pay… interest,” complained the famous American inventor, Thomas A. Edison. “Why must we pay interest to money-brokers for the use of our own money!” Given the trillions of dollars that the Federal Reserve has pumped into the economy to jumpstart consumer spending (indeed, Capitalism itself), many generations of Americans will be struggling financially as the United States goes from creditor nation to debtor nation practically overnight. Yet somehow US President Barack Obama still promises to create a long overdue national healthcare plan. Much of the present financial stress began just after 9/11, some economists argue, when George W. Bush beseeched the American people to show defiance in the face of al Qaeda. Their recourse to action: ascend on the shopping malls in their Fords and Chevrolets en masse and shop! So the Federal Reserve, caught up in the euphoria, happily slashed interest rates and the banks, in cooperation with Wall Street, began to underwrite dangerously risky loans and subprime mortgages. Exactly how dangerous was revealed last year with the collapse of the US housing markets. The globe is still feeling the aftershocks, and some are predicting the arrival of yet another ‘big one’ before it’s all over.
For any American to see the US Constitution being arrogantly ignored to disastrous effect is enough to make a man want to activate other parts of the US Constitution – like form a standing militia and buy a rifle – and drive these pesky bankers straight out of town. To see how serious some Americans feel about the Fed and their shadow leaders, click here. A less drastic course of action would be to limit the powers of the Federal Reserve, but rather incredibly Chairman Bernanke is requesting the strengthening of the Fed.
The Chairman of the Senate Banking Committee, Christopher Dodd, said the request to expand the powers of the Federal Reserve’s powers as being like giving your son a “bigger, faster car right after he crashed the family station wagon.” But things seem to be heading in the opposite direction. As the Associated Press reported: “Obama wants to empower the Federal Reserve to oversee the largest and most influential financial firms.” It seems absolutely ludicrous that Congress would want entrust more powers to the Federal Reserve, an “independent agency” that is not answerable to Congress. “There’s not a lot of confidence in the Fed at this point,” Dodd commented after Obama’s speech.
End of the World’s Reserve Currency?
Since the start of the ongoing economic crisis, which caused a tremendous loss of confidence in the US dollar, there have been calls to rebuild the world’s financial architecture. “We must rethink the financial system from scratch, as at Bretton Woods,” said French President Nicolas Sarkozy in September.
In July 1944, with World War II drawing to a close, 730 representatives from over 40 nations assembled at the Mount Washington Hotel in Bretton Woods, New Hampshire, US. Here, the delegates agreed on financial legislation – including the creation of the International Monetary Fund and World Bank – that would dictate economic policy in the West for the next half a century. At the center of the agreement was the decision to make the US dollar the ‘world’s reserve currency,’ which was based on the gold standard. This system collapsed on August 15, 1971 when US President Richard Nixon “closed the gold window.” In other words, the dollar is no longer backed up by gold reserves, and to this day the US currency enjoys “dollar hegemony.” But for how long is another question. In October, Prime Minister Vladimir Putin rattled financial markets when he hinted to his Chinese counterpart, Wen Jiabao, that the two countries “stop using US dollars in Russian-Chinese settlements.”
RT reported that Putin has also called for a complete overhaul of the world’s financial system to “end monopoly in world finance.” China owns around $700 billion dollars of US debt in the form of Treasury Bonds, so it is understandable that the Chinese authorities are seriously considering what the heck to do with their investment at this point. A US delegation that met with central bankers in China early this month provided some insight. “It’s clear that China would like to diversify from its dollar investments,” said Republican Mark Kirk said at the Center for Strategic and International Studies, a Washington think tank. Kirk said the Chinese leaders were critical in private of the US Federal Reserve’s policy of “quantitative easing” – which is in essence a flooding of the financial markets with cash. China views this as a reckless policy of printing cash out of thin air. US officials estimate a deficit of $1.841 trillion for the 2009 budget. Whatever US officials finally decide to do with the Federal Reserve, they may wish to reflect upon the British economist John Maynard Keynes’ suggestion for a world reserve currency. Keynes suggested a ‘world currency unit,’ the bancor , which would regulate the international medium of exchange between nations. The famous supply-side economist envisioned the bancor being fixed upon the value of 30 commodities, with gold among them. Now there’s an idea worth banking on.
Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton is blaming an exhaustive White House vetting process for the fact that the Obama administration has not yet named a person to run the U.S. Agency for International Development.
Six months into the administration’s tenure without having appointed someone to the agency’s top spot, Clinton told USAID employees on Monday that several people had turned down the job due to overly burdensome financial and personal disclosure requirements that she called a “nightmare,” “frustrating beyond words” and “ridiculous.”
She also said the White House had turned down her request to announce on Monday that someone — expected by officials to be physician and Harvard University professor Paul Farmer who is well known for his work in Haiti — would be named to the post soon.
Having been through a security clearance process with the US government, I can attest to the miseries of the vetting process –but Clinton should in no way use this as an excuse for not being able to select and appoint a qualified person to direct one of the most important foreign policy arms of the USG. Paul farmer would be an awkward fit for the position…to say the least. On the one hand he is amazingly brilliant and has done great work in his life ( I recently read his book Mountains Beyond Mountains); he has long criticized USAID and its way of doing business as ineffective and full of red tape; at the same time he is also extremely arrogant and pompous. The development community is full of pompous overpaid bureaucrats; we dont need another one. Hillary— please keep looking and stop giving poor PR excuses for the lack of movement on this front.
Debate has increased in the last few weeks about the resiliency of America’s health care system. The House and Senate are trying to make ammends and agree on a comprehensive overhaul of one of the most corrupt health care systems in the world. I am not a public health expert by any means but I have however studied public health and worked in international public health enough to say that 1. US health care is not the best in the world and 2. we have a lot to learn from both developing and devloped countries alike.
Most of Europe has a nationalized healthcare system. Europeans get the care the need at a price they can afford. Peruvians have one of the most developed health care systems in the world. Cuba offers the highest quality care at the cheapest price…FREE. The governments of Ecuador and Brazil take healthcare to the people who live in rural communities deep in the amazon. All the while, Americans are paying a ridiculous percentage of their annual incomes for less than top notch care. There is a widespread myth that healthcare in the US is the best in the world. That is false. Medical companies such as glaxosmithkline, merk, and the ominous PhRMA lobby in Washington have unabatedly convinced most Americans that the US is the best and any change in the healthcare system is a zero sum game that equates to lower technology and a fall in America’s status as the country with the best healthcare technology in the world.
What we need is more informed debate. Somehow, we need to get the message out that there are better alternatives and we should look to other countries as an example. At the present, it seems the US government is taking a very arrogant approach to solving the US healthcare mess — assuming that all the answers lie within US borders. I am dumbfounded by the arrogancy and humbled by all that needs to be done.
The ever pending Doha round of trade talks within the WTO is doomed. Granted I am not the first person to share this opinion, but I have long held out hope and have now officially given up.
Trade is not even on the white house website’s 24 top agenda items. Moreover, Mexico has already signed and finalized a bilateral trade agreement with the EU, and Canada is in the process of negotiating a similar bilateral as we speak. What incentive is there then for a global trade agreement if countries continue to negotiate bilaterals on a piece meal basis? The “sticky” issues of farming and agriculture remain touchy as ever. And while it is true that President Obama has a lot of political capital, he hasnt shown any signs or any intentions of using it to push a trade agenda. He is going to run into a lot of protectionism in the democratically strong congress & senate — and unless there is some political motivation to sign a bilateral deal (i.e. colombia b/c of drugs and south korea b/c of kim jong il) then the chances of America expanding on its free trade agenda and further growing its export markets are slim to none. Unfortunately this comes at a bad time when the economy most desperately needs more access to foreign markets and impetus for home grown production and innovation.
Where’s my explanation? And my justification for the disaster of organization displayed by the security teams on the national mall on this historic event?…
As a DC resident for the past three years, I have seen special events in this big-little town come and go, but today’s inauguration was by far the most unorganized catastrophe ever to hit this city. There was an estimated 2 million or more people in town this weekend — all to witness the ever so historic event of the swearing in of President Barrack H. Obama. Without a doubt, the event and all of its side shows was by far the most moving and amazing thing I have ever encountered; however, I am still astonished at the lack of organization displayed by the security teams and the inauguration committee on this historic day. The city and the federal government had known for weeks that this was going to be a major event and millions of people were going to come to DC to be a part of history. The crowds should have not come as a surprise to anyone.
Given the exclusiveity of the special tickets distributed by each congressman/woman, I was lucky enough to get my hands on a purple ticket — which suppossedly granted access to the standing room zone in front of the Capital’s reflecting pool. I was thrilled at the possibility to get within camera view of President Obama and not have to stand in front of the national monument with the millions of other people about a mile away from the President to see his speech. When I showed up at the purple ticket gate this morning before the inauguration I was very dissapointed. Little did I know that the same purple ticket was also granted to tens of thousands of other people. The line to get into the security screening at the purple gate was over a mile long and about 10 people wide. The line started on First St. and Constitution Avenue and extended straight through the tunnel out into Virgina as far as the eye could see. People with tickets had been waiting in line since before 5am this morning. It turns out that the inauguration committee and its brilliant organizers ended up issuings THOUSANDS more tickets than there were seats or standing room available. I have found out that the purple ticket holders werent the only ones to experience this dissapointment. Unfortunately, this is the efficieny and the brilliance of our government at its finest. It makes me angry. Its really not rocket science to understand that IF you have room for X amount of people, you therefore issue X amount of tickets. Today however, they issued tens of thousands of tickets (purple, blue, etc.) and they only had space for a few thousand at most. After people had been standing in line at the purple gate for 4+ hours expecting to see one of the greatest historical speeches ever delivered, we all come to find out at 11:05am that the gates are closed and they are not letting anyone else in. This is not nearly enough time to go to the mall in front of the national monument to watch the speech from the jumbo trons because that is over 12 blocks away and we also hear by word of mouth from our fellow citizens that they are no-longer allowing people on the mall either. Ironically, the fact that they issued more tickets than they had room for is not what angers me. But what really makes me mad is the lack of respect for people, for their time and dedication, and for history by the security officials or the inauguration organizers. Not one single person was making any effort or any official announcements to all of us left stranded in front of the gate or to anyone on the streets. Not one single official had the audacity to stand up in front of the crowd and speak loudly to tell us the gates were closed and there was no more room. As soon as they shut the gates, the security officials disappeared just like rats when you turn on the kitchen lights at night. Every single secruity official, secret service agent, rent a cop, DC police person, or anyone with any kind of uniform quickly dissapeared and had no answers to our questions and had absolutely no clue about what was going on. Thousands of people just started turning around and walking in the opposite direction headed nowhere fast– it literally looked like a scene in a natural disaster movie where everyone was trying to make a mass exodus out of the city with no idea of where to go. I have never seen so many lost people in one place in my life. All throughout the day, I heard random people talking about how they had tickets and they couldnt get in. I had expected that the News or the media would have addressed the ticket issue this evening but I am yet to hear an explanation or an official word from anyone. The lack of respect is a disgrace.
The Bush administration is leaving behind so much resentment around the world that President-elect Barack Obama might be tempted to put off dealing with the nation’s extremely sour relations with Latin America.
Bolivia, Venezuela, and Ecuador are only the tips of the turmoil. The next four years present a unique opportunity to improve ties with a region that shares key interests and values with the United States. And given how bad relations are right now, it will not take much more than good sense and sensitivity to make progress.
For starters, the Obama administration could gain a lot of good will by supporting more aid for Latin American countries sideswiped by the financial meltdown. Obama should aim for fair and free trade and dump the no regulation principles of the Bush administration. For the sake of American business and American credibility, Congress must pass the trade agreement with Colombia. Congress should also seek to identify and pass other bilateral trade agreements in the region — starting first with Venezuela and Cuba. Declining oil prices, should make negotiations with Venezuela favorable, coupled with the decline of Fidel Castro, it might be time for the US to re-negotiate some of its trade embargos and relations with our southern neighbors.
The repetitive failure of the DOHA rounds and the slumping global economy makes these bilateral agreements all the more important.
Additionally, it would be good to disperse some Peace Corps volunteers in these new found friends. Using the Peace Corps not just as a PR tool, but for a fundamental step in economic development and improved health and education. I would love to see USAID in Cuba. There is so much local capacity in Cuba that a little help from USAID would do wonders for the entire social system.
President Obama….we all know you have great shoes to fill and many challenges to conquer. I hope that our southern neighbors stay within your vision of importance and that over the course of your presidency, the United States is able to take some steps in the right direction when it comes to the issues discussed here.
Surprisingly it was nicer than I expected
This is not what I imagined Africa would look like. It is definitely not what I imagined the Angolan coast line would offer. Luanda is a bustling city with lots of business, crime, tons of traffic, and miles and miles of cars waiting in lines at gas stations. Goats, sheep, and chickens regularly roam the streets. Indigenous dialects are spoken right alongside the most perfect beautiful Portuguese. There is good food everwhere, and its the only city in the world where the average person lives on less than a dollar a day and prices are insanely inflated where it is no exaggeration to find that hot dogs cost $25 each and a soda is close to $5 a bottle, and housing is $10,000 a month!
Thoughts and Notes from the field: The USAID Bolivia Communications Activity.
For the first time in the history of USAID in Latin America, there is a widespread PR campaign and promotional effort in Bolivia funded by USAID which aims to deflect any anti-US or anti-USAID sentiments distributed by the Government of Bolivia (GOB) which is led by Mr. Evo Morales.
The project is revolutional. If proven to be effective it could change the way USAID spends its money in Latin American rogue states forever; however, there are many faces which represent the challenges this specific project and others like it will encounter.
The first of which is within USAID itself. Until now, USAID in Latin America has not paid a contractor to conduct its promotional activities and PR efforts. Normally, both the US Embassy in a given country and USAID employ several communications specialists in each bureau that are tasked to work cohesively to promote USAID, and the United States of America. When USAID Bolivia contracted these activities to an outside contractor and a for-profit American firm, many feathers were ruffled both within the embassy and the mission in La Paz because traditionally “safe” jobs were being outsourced to American firms.
Second, the US Embassy in Bolivia is appalled the US Congress would actually allocate what is supposed to be designated as development funds for the promotion of the United States and it’s foreign aid policy. The project itself is contradictory to the mission statement of USAID. PR is not development. This project and others like it will have to petition vehemently to get funding and support in the future for similar activities, the likelihood of which are very grim.
Third, internally within the project itself and others like it in the future, the local employees who participate in the design of the technical activities risk the longevity of their careers because they are working in support of the US government and against their own president. It will be hard to staff these kinds of projects and harness the necessary local knowledge it takes to make these campaigns and communication efforts effective.
And finally fourth, support for the project becomes even more contradictory becuase Evo Morales recently kicked out the DEA from Bolivia and sent the US Ambassador running back to Washington with his tail between his legs. Shortly thereafter, President Bush told the Bolivian Ambassador he was nolonger welcome in DC and ordered every single member and participating officer of the Peace Corps back to the good ol’ U.S. of A. Now that there is no existing diplomatic relationship between countries, it will be evermore difficult for not only the Bolivia Communications Activity to move forward but also all of the existing USAID projects in country. Should the Bolivian Government discover that the Communications Activity exists, it is very likely that all of the USAID projects in Bolivia will cease to exist almost instantaneously. This last point is critical because it quickly forces one to imagine what Latin America would look like if diplomatic relations were cut in the region and USAID assistance was pulled from all of the leftist-leaning rogue states within our southern borders. Simply put, our southern borders would become breeding grounds for more pronounced terrorism.
The government of Bolivia and other leftist leaning administrations in the region will pose to be one of the greatest external challenges to projects like these. Most specifically in Bolivia, since his inauguration Evo Morales has led a movement within Bolivia that denounces the American way of life, our political motives, and foreign policy. Albeit that in the last 8 years under the Bush administration, there has been a lot of American fallacies to highlight, it is with great honor that I say the US remains a stanch supporter and investor in the Bolivian people. Bolivia represents one of the highest budgets for USAID in Latin America and one of our most important focal points in the region. If Evo decides to suspend the activities of USAID in Bolivia, like he did to the DEA over the last week, there is no question that the people he so vigorously claims to stand up for, will sincerely regret his motives and decisions.
When it comes down to it, like any other politician, Evo Morales is willing to put his personal political grievances before his people. Morales is in many ways just the like the Bush he regularly denounces in the media. What would you say Mr. Morales, if your people began to suffer when you condemned the presence of the single biggest benefactor in your country? What would you say Mr. Morales when your coffee farmers lost their export market? What would you say Mr. Morales when your children had no schools to attend? What would you say Mr. Morales if the US health experts were banned from your country to leave the future of Bolivian health clinics in shambles? What would that big audacious ego of yours say now Mr. Morales…
