“Amazing. From some of the outlandish - and embarassing - comments here, seems some people need to do some serious research on Rio/Brazil. Anyone heard about the UPPs? Police units that have been placed in some of the most violent favelas in Rio - Complexo do Alemao, City of God, Borel, Santa Marta - in some cases getting rid of ALL organized crime in the community? Anybody remember judge Giovanni Falcone and Operation Mani Pulite? Violence, corruption - are they exclusive to "south of the border"? Seriously? Know that from 2003 to 2009 29 million Brazilians moved up into the "middle class" - which now forms over 50% of the population, and that over 10 million rose out of abject poverty? Don't believe the hype!
A final note: it's a pity someone deemed it necessary to sit on this article for over a month - Judge Acioli was murdered on the 11th of August. I'm sure her family would gained some comfort, however little, knowing it was news not only in Brazil. And before I forget, the World Cup and the Olympics are happening, and they'll be great.”
ChezMJ on Sep 18, 2011 at 01:56:47
“Sorry but Brazil's crime rate, while improving, is still extremely high. The murder rate is four times the US rate.”
blue3rdblues on Sep 17, 2011 at 20:53:04
“Don't forget we are talking about Americans' reading/ comprehension and capacity to interpret... people here in America can hardly understand what is right in front of their eyes... it is no surprise you will get plenty of comments of a diminished capacity nature... read the comments for a good laugh and you will be entertained, I promise you.”
“Wrong!!! Where have you been for the past decade? Fact is the middle class has swollen - poverty is shrinking! The Flat Tax - I believe your referring to the CPMF - doesn't exist anymore (expired years ago!)! Small government? Keep dreaming - the governments' everywhere (as well it should be!). Entitlements and Taxes? Public health care, public schools and universities, taxes way too high - I mean sometimes the Dems (the Republican party's equivalent here re-branded itself "Democrats" - amazing!) seem to be taking marching orders from Boehner with their whining! So get your facts right!”
ClassicLeft on Sep 17, 2011 at 22:27:56
“Look you have no idea what you are talking about. Compared to the USA the Brazilian government is VERY TINY, taxes are VERY LOW on the rich, and there is almost no investment in infra structure and education.
Fact: The USA spends 148.6 billion dollars a year in education. Brazil spends ONLY $70 million dollars!!!!!!!
Fact: Most of the Brazilian middle class would be considered POOR in the USA. In CALIFORNIA you are considered poor if you make less than $50000/year and you have rights to full FREE Medical Care. And it is not the kind of medical care you have in Brazil. We are talking about luxurious hospitals MRIs, catscans, etc.
Fact: The rich in Brazil pay very little tax. Taxation is not a proportional as it should be. The so called CPMF lasted for decades and put a huge toll on the middle class.”
“You are clueless! This "thuggery" was perpetrated by a corrupt police officers working in cahoots with militias who under the guise of "protecting" the communities are robbing them blind! I'll tell you this - without the unions, poverty in Brazil would be skyrocketing now, and not gradually (albeit not fast enough) being eradicated!”
“Sad sad sad the comments here - American exceptionalism and free speach gone awry! Fact: the jobs have always been there - no "real" american wanted them (or needed them), doubt they do now so quit the taking our jobs argument! Lets use prisoners - a beaut - I'm sure thats unconstitutional, and if it isn't it should be! Fact: America USEd to be the region of choice for the immigrant - not any longer (Americas status is now emigant - the American El Dorado's gone, folks are leaving, not arriving, contrary to popular thought!). Fact: excellence in technology, science - forgetaboutit - no cultural exchange, no advancemment, illiteracy on the rise - and you know it! And please, please, enough with the market will respond argument; the markets, or rather those who claimed to understand them (and who were followed blindly) produced the current doldrum! So welcome to the suck - rise to the occasion, which implies exactly that (proposing thought out solutions!), and not trashing (or blaming) this or that group - the founding fathers would not approve!”
Mabo on Jul 2, 2011 at 01:33:57
“Where have you been? They (illegal immigrants) ARE taking our jobs...ones that we ARE trying to keep. My father owns a painting company in Illinois. He competes (I use that term loosely) for business and has lost many a contractor to a cheap crew...cheap meaning that they are undercutting the job by thousands of dollars. They are working for nothing...just to work. They are putting good businesses owned by legal Americans out of business. The "they are taking our jobs" argument IS FACT. You...just want to pretend that they are just taking jobs nobody wants. That is a lie.”
“Exactly!! "Greed is good" - people just didn't get it! Just read an article somewhere: "China: the Worlds engineer" (aren't they supposed to be building in Fa?) - and here we are asking ourselves "What happened?"”
“"Derivatives became a problem only because the underlying mortgages were unsound" - WOW! Talk about blaming the messenger! So the argument here is "we had no idea", correct? Please - do not try to politicize this - we're in the business section! Remove Freddie and Fannie from the mix and what do you have - triple A, A2 ratings, greed, deregulation, banks who had NO business in dabbling in snake oil! Gambles were taken - knowingly, with other peopls money, dependent on a govt bailout. Real Bankers - especialy investment bankers - of yester year - would be ashamed!”
wsdave on Jul 2, 2011 at 02:14:59
“Gambles were taken because the bank had a guarantee that Fannie and Freddie would cover them by buying the "assets". If the government hadn't provided the guarantee, the banks wouldn't have gambled.”
“Sorry Verite and Frech queen13, but I believe the premise of the article is the double standard. The suffering of the victim - if it is proven she's a victim - was immediately assumed and touted, as was the guilt of the "offender" as you both well know! Due dilligence? She MUST be innocent, he MUST be guilty (the rich and powerful filanderer!) Presumed innocent? Who cares? Seems to me Mr. Strenger. But at the end of the day, if you know anyone that's suffered this kind of "media" bashing (as I do), you know that there are no come-backs. Scarred for life - except of course a little note on page 11 retracting the misinformation! How about if he were poor? And she was rich? Where would the assumption of guilt lie? Fact is it's the circus that's in question here, and it has to be curbed - I agree with Mr. Strenger.”
Verite on Jul 4, 2011 at 18:31:13
“While your post is mildly incoherent, I think I can follow you enough to respond to some of what you say...Mr. Strenger justifiably grouses about the abuse of the entertainment/news organs that trumpet this kind of story. I get that. But he is overly concerned with the effect this type of publicity has on the rich and/or powerful, and at no point in time does he show concern for what's happening to the woman in question -- her life is being upended as folks go in search of every sin she may have committed, from jay walking to having questionable taste in boyfriends.
I do not presume to know what happened in that room. I read the DA's letter, and found it wanting in clarity on every level, something I'm a bit familiar with after twenty years of practicing law. If I were a defending DSK or prosecuting him, I would be most interested in the taped conversation between the complainant and her friend being held for dealing dope. How does she characterize her encounter with DSK in this conversation?
As to agreeing with Mr. Strenger -- he ends by suggesting that we reconsider "privacy laws", this is a very dangerous idea. Start curbing free speech that way, and the least of our worries would be to end up like the land we declared our independence from, England, the venue of choice for libel lawsuits by some of the most decadent and depraved humans and their institutions.”
“The fact that this landmark decision, this move "in to the light of common sense and human decency" as NWBrunette aptly put it, caused no waves in Brazil (at least until now) is a tribute to the people here. No noise, no vigils, no "end of the world as we know it" rants - rising gas prices, that's what's really riling people up, what they're protesting (albeit with a lot of humor - buy 50 cents worth of gas and demand an invoice - lines going round the block!). So don't buy into Mr. Lichotas nonsense - the Brazilian people, in my opinion, HAVE spoken.”
1 - The Obama administration has always held that that federal courts are really the best place to try these five men;
2 - transfer restrictions temporarily prevent the administration from bringing Guantanamo detainees to the United States for trial;
3 - it's hard to imagine that this decision is going to help President Obama in his upcoming campaign; and
4 - the administration could have taken a few more months to press Congress to lift its purely political and nonsensical funding restrictions, and to explain to the American public why hiding prosecutions of terror suspects in inexperienced, far-away military commissions is a bad idea.
You assume the transfer restrictions are temporary - wrong. You assume a few more months is all it would take for congress to lift the funding restrictions - wrong again. "Explain" anything to the american public in this day an age - good luck with that! Lines have been drawn, "political and nonsensical" are the order of the day in congress! Health care (or not), unions (or not), social security (or not), consumer protection (or not), unemployment benefits (or not) - issues where "or not" has no place, but have somehow become "debatable" (read "expendable")? And you trust this congress to sort funding restrictions out in a "few more months"? Sorry, but thats no solution. And if "it's hard to imagine that it's really going to help President Obama in his upcoming campaign.", then how on earth do you conclude its a political move?”
“"Demanding that the US take ownership of every crisis will assure only one outcome: failure." thats emblematic and a welcome change from all the "wrong side of history" nonsense thats been going on! Mr. Allisons analyses makes sense. There is no way the Europeans (at least France, Britain and especially Italy) can sit this one out; they all have a stake in this. In a perfect world there would be no need for intervention - however, as Qaddafi said, "there will be no mercy", and one must not forget the Arab League asked for the NFZ, albeit to keep the status quo right in place, but it still adds legitimacy to the NFZ.
Unfortunately, as G. Friedman at "Stratfor" put it: "...in war, Murphy’s Law always lurks. What can go wrong will go wrong, in Libya as in Iraq or Afghanistan. Precisely what are Libyan air defenses and where they are located is (supposedly) unknown - regimes have deliberately placed their defense systems in residential areas or close to public facilities such as schools or hospitals to force what would and should - be considered an atrocity. Imposing a no-fly zone could rapidly deteriorate into condemnations (rightly so) for the killing of civilians by those enforcing the zone ostensibly for humanitarian purposes. Substantial casualties would turn humanitarian action into one of considerable consequence in both humanitarian and political terms. This will not be a walk in the park! http://www.stratfor.com/analysis/20110308-how-libyan-no-fly-zone-could-backfire”
“First of all, what???? Second, I seriously can't get over this beef with teachers! Unless one's advocating home schooling, its a sorry world where those to whom you entrust the welfare and safebeing of your kids are the ones you seek to "punish" for their oh so high salaries!”
“And don't anyone dare claim I'm anti-union! I honestly believe the American "dream" stems from the unions, the civil rights movement, the suffragette movement, the anti-war (Vietnam) protesters; sadly, it was lost with Bush v. Gore - a decision which, if it had taken place anywhere else, would have been considered the norm of "those banana republics" - probably said republic would be subject to an "invasion" to promote democracy!”
“...strikes that followed - including the Great Inco (of Vale Inco fame) Strike of 1978-1979 that shortly after its conclusion saw the permanent layoff of more than 20,000 mine workers. Moreover, the most powerful Canadian-owned corporations are also multinational, like Vale, scouring the globe for the best possible returns on their own investments at the expense of workers internationally." People forget - "When the Swiss-British mining conglomerate Xstrata, which owns Sudbury’s other nickel mining operations, settled with the Canadian Auto Workers...the USW and CAW hailed the deal, claiming that even though the company was foreign-owned, it followed “Canadian” bargaining traditions. That pro-company deal saw a two-year wage freeze with a meagre 20-cent-per-hour increase in the third year. Moreover, the union agreed with the company to enter a joint initiative to reduce future defined pension benefits and bowed to company demands to increase targets for reaching incentives."
Vale S.A. is not Brazil; it WAS a Brazilian company - it is now "Headquartered" in Brazil, and is the second largest mining company in the world, vertically integrated, owning its own transportation networks, ports and processing plants across the planet. Its mines and smelters can be found in Europe, Peru, Chile, Brazil, Indonesia, Guatemala, Mongolia, Congo, Guinea, Angola, Australia, New Caledonia, Mozambique and Namibia." I.E its a Multinational Corporation, and expecting anything else is just naive!”
cwebster on Feb 26, 2011 at 00:00:08
“I think there's a Canadian mining company in Mexico which is causing environmental problems right now. No corporation can be trusted.”