Morales, Bolivia’s first indigenous president, inaugurated

Jack Chang, Knight Ridder… Morales, Bolivia’s first indigenous president, inaugurated

Jack Chang, Knight Ridder Newspapers

LA PAZ, Bolivia – Evo Morales Aima, a peasant leader born into grueling poverty, assumed Bolivia’s presidency Sunday with an emotional speech that laid out the most complete picture yet of his leftist agenda.

The 46-year-old Aymara Indian, his troubled country’s first indigenous president, fleshed out controversial proposals he made throughout his historic campaign, including plans to nationalize Bolivia’s vast natural gas resources and block U.S.-backed anti-drug efforts.

After tearfully accepting the country’s red, green and gold presidential banner, Morales began his wide-ranging, 90-minute address with a minute of silence dedicated to leftist heroes such as revolutionary Ernesto “Che” Guevara, fellow activists and Bolivia’s indigenous people, who make up more than 70 percent of the country.

“We are here to change our history,” he said standing at the front of the Congressional chamber filled with newly elected representatives, loved ones and world leaders, including 11 heads of state. “This is the conscience of the people, our people, the fight of our people.”

With regular promises to be a “nightmare” for the United States, Morales has been a rising star of Latin America’s populist left and is closely allied to Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez and Cuban leader Fidel Castro, both ideological foes of the Bush administration. His election marked another significant challenge to U.S. policy in the region.

Suicide bombing poses challenge to acting Israeli prime minister

Dion Nissenbaum, Knight Ridder Newspapers

JERUSALEM – A young suicide bomber walked into a fast-food stall in a busy Tel Aviv market on Thursday and blew himself up, injuring 30 people and raising tensions less than a week before Palestinians are to elect a new legislature.

Thursday’s attack was the first to hit Israel’s biggest city in nearly a year, and it poses a new challenge for Israeli and Palestinian leaders at a delicate moment.

The bombing is the first to confront acting Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Olmert, who’s been gradually asserting his authority since taking over for Ariel Sharon, who’s been in a coma since he suffered a debilitating stroke two weeks ago.

At the same time, the attack undermined the credibility of Palestinian Authority President Mahmoud Abbas, whose weakened Fatah party is facing a serious challenge from Islamic militants in next week’s elections.

Abbas immediately condemned the attack as an attempt to “sabotage” the elections and the Palestinian Authority, but Israeli officials took aim at the Palestinian leader.

“Israel places the blame squarely on the Palestinian Authority, which continues to show a clear indifference to attacks against our citizens,” said David Baker, an Olmert spokesman.

Online privacy a fragile shield

Michael Bazeley, Knight Ridder Newspapers

SAN JOSE, Calif. – Steve Shaer is feeling more skittish about Internet companies these days.

Not only is he upset that the federal government subpoenaed reams of data from four Internet companies – Google, Yahoo, AOL and Microsoft – he’s now wondering which online companies he can trust to keep his personal information private.

Although Google is strenuously fighting the government’s request for the information, the other three Internet companies gave authorities at least some of what they were seeking.

“It definitely brings up the issue of trust in those companies when they will comply with a bogus subpoena without fighting it,” said the Miami real estate developer. “It does give me pause that they would roll over without a fight.”

Revelations last week that government officials asked the four large companies to provide information about the billions of Internet searches conducted on their sites has cast new light on the fact that online companies collect and store so much potentially personal information about people.

Authorities in this case never sought any personal information about any of the companies’ users, according to court documents and statements by government officials last week.

But the case has nonetheless sparked a dialogue about how much those companies can be trusted to guard information about their users and how forthcoming they would they be if the government were more aggressive in its information requests. And it also raises questions about how many times companies may have already turned over information to third parties, including the government, without the public knowing.