Evo Morales and the rebirth of democracy

Bolivia - since the beginning of its history - has been a land subjugated by others. Conquered by the conquistadors of the Spanish Empire in 1524, stripped of its coastal waters by Chile, its oil-producing regions by Paraguay, and its rubber-rich forests by Brazil, Bolivia has made a history out of being controlled by others.
In 1985, that controlling force changed to become the United States. The nation's massive natural gas reserves quickly became the target of the Big Five (Total SA, Exxon Mobil, RD-Shell, BP, Conoco-Phillips) for profit. the remaining rainforests grabbed the attention of lumber companies, and the large indigenous populations were quickly seen as a source of cheap labour within the country.
Boliva's city of Cochabamba attracted world headlines during the 2001 Bechtel-Water-Wars, when the corporate giant Bechtel privatized the water resources of the city, making it illegal to even collect rainwater for personal use. The resulting riots resulted in several deaths, hundreds of injuries, and the tightening of the corporate grip around Bolivia. To those observing Bolivia in 2003, it would seem as though the country was going the way of military-dictatorship Argentina.
In 2005, that all changed.
In 2005, Evo Morales became the first indigenous president to ever hold office in South America, winning a landslide election campaigning on gas nationalization and self-determination. Since that time, he has faced a difficult battle, fighting both anti-drug American urges and autonomy-seeking regions. He has been a staunch ally of Hugo Chavez and Fidel Castro, earning him the hatred of many political pundits throughout the western world.
If you attended the World Social Forum (WSF), however, you would get a very different impression of the man (and the opinion that I have of him). In my mind, Morales has succeeded in restoring democracy to a region once ruled by brutal US-backed military dicatorships of the likes of Pinochet and the Argentinian Military of 1978-1990.
Only recently, Morales ejected American anti-drug forces from Bolivia, succeeded in several referendums that - if against him - would have deflated any possibility of nationalizing the natural-gas, and dismissed the American ambassador to Bolivia.
I am glad to see democracy in motion. It has been a long time in the making.

Dispicable: The disgusting whitewashing and pacifying of our history

Over the course of my nearly-continuous study of military history, I have made the conclusion that war allows us to witness both the worst and best of humanity. War and conflict create an atmosphere where incredible acts of heroism and self-sacrifice walk alongside unspeakable acts of cruelty and barbarism. Indeed, the study of military history gives us an opportunity to better understand humanity as a whole.

Looking at the curriculums of our public education system, however, would cause you to think differently. If you examine the textbooks, you'd think otherwise. From a quick perusal of my 1400 page history textbook (which, for the record, contains more BS than a fertilizer refinery!), the examination of military conflicts is miniscule and/or noexistant. Take, for example, World War I. WIKIPEDIA says more about World War I than the supposedly "reliable" 1400-page paper-weight in my backpack!

Examining the notes I received today for History 20 IB, the section on World War I reads something like this (heavily paraphrased):
1: Origins
2: Immediate Causes
3: NOTHING OF IMPORTANCE HAPPENS FOR 4 YEARS FROM 1914-1918....
4: Aftermath
It's crazy. To even suggest that nothing of importance happened in the four bloodiest years in human history is absurd, is insane. Not only does it create a society where one of the most important aspects of our history - conflict - is ignored, but it also spits on the graves of those who fought those wars. 20,000,000 people died during those four years, and the morons sitting up in Edmonton in the pathetic excuse of an Alberta Learning Group or the only slightly better IBO in Zurich have the balls to somehow tell me that those 20,000,000 deaths didn't matter, and that we're not gonna bother studying them, LET ALONE EVEN MENTION THEM DURING THE 90TH ANNIVERSARY WEEK OF THE WORLD WAR I ARMISTICE?!

this is rediculous. Why do our curriculum-developers feel the urge to whitewash and pacify our history? Is it because they're afraid we'll find it too gory? Hello, this is the generation that's grown up playing M-Rated video games and watching R-Rated movies, I don't think that's it. Is it because they deliberately want us to be ignorant? not likely.

Is it because they just don't think it's important?
If that is the case (and I'd be willing to wager that it is), then I am disgusted.

The Paradox of Conservative America

For 8-28 years (depending on whether you count Clinton, which is entirely justifiable), those of us of the left-of-center "persuasion" have had to deal with the conservative-right's continuous attacks of us being "kool-aid drinking liberal douchebags" or "asshole liberal fags" or of supporting "Obama the fag"; the list of insults and idiocies goes on and on like an overcharged Energizer bunny. Few of these attacks are in any way kind (indeed, this has only gotten worse since Ann "complete nutcase" Coulter unleashed"how to talk to a liberal") The point remains that, for the last 28 years, since the beginning of the neocon movement, conservatives have enjoyed nothing more than unleashing the scope for variety within the English language upon liberals, socialists, libertarians, and just about anyone who disagrees with the ultra-fascist ideologies of Rush Limbaugh & co. (which is effectively everyone outside of the Bible Belt).

Granted, the left has not sat idly by and allowed such abuse to go unpunished. Bill O'Reilly begot Al Franken, who begot Keith Olbermann. Yet the fact remains, that the last three decades have seen North America rot in right-wing purgatory.
When Bush stole won the elections of 2000 and 2004, liberals went ballistic. How could a man who thought our prime minister was Jean Poutine win not one, but TWO consecutive elections without having broken a few laws (the fact remains that he didn't). When the left went crazy about this, what did Conservative America do? Oh, they told us to "sit back and reap the whirlwind of democracy". They told us, over and over again, that "the people have spoken", and that GWB won 'fair and square'.

Tuesday, November 4, 2008, that all changed. That night, we truly saw the people speak ('bout bloody time, if you ask me!). Not only did the libs handily win Congress and the Senate, but Barack Hussein Obama became the first democrat nominee for president to win the popular vote in a very, very long time.

At the very least, this has given me an opportunity to watch, with glee, as the fascist right makes complete asses of themselves. I watch them do exactly what they claimed liberals did for the last three decades. They have accused the dems of being Muslim Nazi Socialists, of loving Hitler, of using the UN to rig the election, of ballot-stuffing, of allowing illegals to vote, of turning the country over to Bin Laden, of crucifying Jesus, of allowing martians to invade our planet, of every-conceivable-conspiracy-theory-and-slur-on-the-goddamn-planet; and it has been extraordinarily fun to watch. Here's a sample to all who are interested.

"GG Obama... you racist fuck.. you won..

now open up the borders.. let all the mexicans in...legalize them.... give them all tax payers benifits.. and have them vote Democrat"

"Obama is a radical Muslim who will turn this planet over to Adminijad and Bin Laden"

When we - the liberals, libertarians, socialists, and democrats protested Bush's policies, we did so with legitimate reasons. Conservatives, they don't need those. They threw logic and rational thinking to the wind long ago. They do exactly what they claimed we did for years.

It's fun to watch paradox in motion.