Pensamento do dia

A maior negacao da realidade é crer que o "nosso" político é melhor ou mais honesto que o dos outros...
(Helio Beltrão)

No fundo, políticos odiavam Zilda Arns

A prática de não anunciar os próprios feitos, fortemente abraçada pela Pastoral da Criança certamente não encontrava entusiasmo entre os políticos.
Com estes, a prática é anunciar com o nosso dinheiro primeiro, e quem sabe fazer algo depois.Solenidades para obras que sequer foram começadas espalham-se pelo país.
Alem disso, ao contrário do que os políticos gostam de mentir, salvar vidas é barato.Não é porque pagamos em dia nossos compromissos que milhões morrem de fome, é porque não há voltade de resolver o problema mesmo.A Pastoral é muito simbólica em mostrar e expor tudo que há de errado nos estados nacionais.Lá não há atravessadores, não há lideres, a grana é aplicada na atividade fim e tudo é feito de forma eficiente com pouquíssimos recursos.
A Pastoral dá certo porque ela não acredita no que o PT diz.Não faltam recursos ao governo brasileiro.Ele é voraz em roubar nossas riquezas..Falta vontade e sobra corrupção.
Lula no fundo deveria ter medo de Zilda Arns.Ele nunca conheceu uma pessoa que não viva as custas dos outros, como ele que aliás nunca teve um trabalho em sua vida.Ela ao contrário, viveu sua vida para ajudar os outros sem ganhar nada em troca.

Fechar as portas é burrice

Lexington

Bin Laden's legacy

Jan 14th 2010
From The Economist print edition

Terrorists hurt America most by making it close its borders

Illustration by David Simonds

HAVING removed his shoes, coat, gloves, hat, jacket, wallet and keys, Lexington walked through the metal detector. It beeped. Your columnist had forgotten to remove his belt. The two security guards in attendance began to shout and make disparaging remarks about his ability to perform simple tasks. This scene occurred outside the American embassy in London last month, when Lexington was renewing his visa. The rest of the process passed smoothly, but those boorish security guards were a poor advertisement for the greatest country on earth.

Americans are, by and large, a courteous bunch. Interactions with strangers are typically sweetened with a generous frosting of “Sir”, “Ma’am” and “Excuse me”. Yet in a survey commissioned by the travel industry, more than half of visitors found American border officials rude and unpleasant. By a two-to-one margin, the country’s entry process was rated the world’s worst. This is not a problem only for whingeing journalists and other foreign riff-raff. It is also a problem for America.

The system is geared towards keeping out a tiny number of terrorists. Fair enough—such people should indeed be kept out. But there should be a trade-off. An immigration official lives in fear of admitting the next Mohammed Atta, but there is no penalty for excluding the next Einstein, or for humiliating tourists who subsequently summer in France. Osama bin Laden has arguably inflicted more harm on America indirectly than directly. To stop his acolytes from striking again, the government has made entering America far more difficult and degrading than it need be.

This has slowed the influx of foreign brains. In 2001, 28% of students who studied abroad did so at American universities. By 2008 that figure had shrunk to 21%, though since the absolute number of globally mobile students grew by 50% over that period, the absolute number in America has flattened, not fallen. Does this matter? Well, foreigners and immigrants make up more than half of the scientific researchers in the United States, notes Edward Alden, the author of a fine book called “The Closing of the American Border”. Among postdoctoral students doing top-level research, 60% are foreign-born. Boffins flock to America because its universities are the best, but the ordeal of getting a visa prompts many to take their ideas elsewhere.

A similar problem afflicts even short-term visitors. Organisers of international scientific conferences are increasingly reluctant to hold them in America because not everyone they invite will be able to attend. Last year, for example, Alik Ismail-Zadeh, a prominent Russian geophysicist, applied for a visa to attend a meeting of the American Geophysical Union. He allowed three months, but did not get his passport back until after his plane had departed. Kathie Bailey-Mathae of the National Academy of Sciences says that the hassles have eased in the past year, but only somewhat. When foreign scientists run into problems repeatedly, they become loth to collaborate with their American peers, she says.

Barack Obama came to office promising to reform the immigration system. So far, he has made only small changes, such as ending commando-style raids on factories suspected of hiring illegal workers; other matters have demanded his attention. But behind the scenes there are rumblings about immigration. Chuck Schumer, a Democratic senator from New York, and Lindsey Graham, a Republican from South Carolina, are working on a comprehensive reform bill, which they may unveil soon. Angela Kelley of the Centre for American Progress (CAP), a think-tank closely aligned with the Obama administration, says she is optimistic that something will happen this year.

Last week her think-tank published a study touting the benefits of reform. Its author, Raúl Hinojosa-Ojeda of the University of California, Los Angeles, models what might happen if immigration laws are made more welcoming. First, he assumes that Congress creates a pathway for the estimated 12m illegal immigrants already in the country to earn legal status and eventually citizenship—by paying taxes, staying out of trouble, and so on. Second, he assumes that the current rigid cap on the number of visas issued to economic migrants is replaced with one that takes into account what the American labour market needs. These two changes would raise America’s GDP by $1.5 trillion over ten years, calculates Mr Hinojosa-Ojeda. A less generous programme (allowing only temporary work visas) would swell the economy by only half as much, he reckons. Mass deportation would cost more than the Iraqi and Afghan wars combined.

Fear not, said he

American blue-collar workers fear that Mexican immigrants will undercut their wages. Mr Hinojosa-Ojeda says they won’t if they are legal. The fear of deportation makes illegal workers accept worse conditions, he finds. Once legal, they demand higher wages, and no longer drag down those of the native-born. And once immigrants are confident that they can stay, they are more likely to invest in the future, for example by starting a business.

Such arguments may help nudge immigration reform through Congress. But it will be a heck of a fight. (When George Bush tried, nativists in his own party kneecapped him.) With a more Democratic Congress, reform may be easier. But it is unclear whether reformers will try to make the system more talent-friendly. In 2008, more than four times as many people earned green cards (ie, permanent residency) because of family ties to America than because of their skills. While other countries, such as Canada and Australia, seek to attract the best brains from around the world, America’s immigration system is a recipe for stagnation. In the long term, it poses a serious threat to America’s status as top nation, argues a report from the Council on Foreign Relations, a think-tank. But in the short term, it could be fixed.

Tiananmen square foi um massacre

A verdade é evidente: a China era e é uma ditadura que oprime seu povo e há 20 anos, como hoje, há pessoas que arriscam a própria vida pela causa da liberdade

A censura chinesa e a liberdade de expressão

Google to defy China over censorship

People congregate and take photographs at a make-shift tribute to Google outside the search engine’s office in Beijing.

Google has said it will end the controversial censorship of its search service in China and risk being thrown out of the world’s most populous internet market, following what it claimed were China-based attempts to hack into its systems and those of other international companies.

The group also said it had found evidence of attempts to break into its Gmail system, with partial success in two cases, and many other attempts to trick “dozens” of human rights activists around the world in order to access to their email.

The dramatic gesture, which Google discussed with the US government beforehand, marks a new low in the deteriorating cyber-relations between China and the rest of the world, following a spate of online attacks and efforts to tighten web censorship.

US intelligence officials believe hackers supported by the Chinese government have been behind major breaches at US defence contractors, who have in some cases been targeted using the same previous unknown software vulnerabilities as trick emails sent to Chinese dissidents.

Google said that in mid-December it had identified a “highly sophisticated and targeted attack” on its corporate systems “originating in China”. The group added that it had found evidence of similar attacks on “at least” 20 other companies in finance, the media and other sectors.

Chinese surfers react to Google decision

In China, internet users cheered Google’s announcement. Young people bowed their thanks and left flowers outside the company’s office in Beijing. But not all internet users were as gushing in their praise for the world’s largest search engine. Here is a selection:

“Google is an admirable company. What’s the difference between internet censorship and cutting off our country from the outside world? In the new world, falling behind the times deserves a slap in the face. How long do our leaders need to be slapped for them to wake up? They can talk about a harmonious society every day but they are just burying their heads in the sand. It’s deception.” You Cao You Ni Haiyou Ma on xcar.com.cn

“It’s a huge pity for a great company like Google to leave! The distance between Chinese netizens and the world will be further away. What Google is doing has deep meanings. It’s beyond satisfying what consumers want.”Unknown user on baidu.com

”It’s better to die in glory than live in dishonour.”Byyi on xcar.com.cn

“If Google really was to leave, it would lose the Chinese market. Would it really be willing to part with it? I don’t believe a large multinational company would give up a market with unlimited growth opportunities. Will Coca-Cola give up China? No. Will Pepsi give up China? No. Will Microsoft give up China? Absolutely not. So Google is the only one who is willing to give up? I don’t believe it.Google’s retreat is an unreasonable act. It is acting like a spoiled child.”Jiang Bojing on it.people.com.cn

“The tone of Google’s chief legal officer makes me sick. If you are pulling out because of economic reasons, just say it. Covering up yourself with whitewash, and then mentioning that Google was attacked by the Chinese, that the Gmail accounts of Chinese human rights activists were attacked, and then using these as your excuse to withdraw from China is an insult to the Chinese people. It can only satisfy those supercilious westerners who have not been to China, know nothing about China and yet like to make irresponsible remarks. Solaryf on baidu.com

One person close to Google said that the company had no evidence that the cyber-attacks were sanctioned by the Chinese government. However, another person familiar with its thinking said that it would not have taken such a drastic measure had it not believed the attacks had official backing.

A Google statement on its blog said: “These attacks and the surveillance they have uncovered – combined with the attempts over the past year to further limit free speech on the web – have led us to conclude that we should review the feasibility of our business operations in China. We have decided we are no longer willing to continue censoring our results on Google.cn, and so over the next few weeks we will be discussing with the Chinese government the basis on which we could operate an unfiltered search engine within the law, if at all. We recognize that this may well mean having to shut down Google.cn, and potentially our offices in China.“

“Tiananmen”, the Beijing square that was the site of the 1989 crackdown on student protesters as well as other historical events, was at the top on Wednesday of Google.cn’s “fastest rising search keywords”. Three searches related to Google’s China announcement were also in the top 10. Searches on the site continued to carry a message that search results were screened to comply with local law.

Hillary Clinton, US secretary of state, said: “We have been briefed by Google on these allegations, which raise very serious concerns and questions. We look to the Chinese government for an explanation. The ability to operate with confidence in cyberspace is critical in a modern society and economy. I will be giving an address next week on the centrality of internet freedom in the 21st century, and we will have further comment on this matter as the facts become clear.”

With just under a third of the market, Google is the second-largest search engine in China behind leader Baidu. Google shares fell 1.3 percent to $582.90 in early trading in New York on Wednesday, while those of Baidu, its Chinese rival, rallied 14 per cent to $441.14, as a withdrawal by Google would consolidate its dominance. Ironically, the Chinese website itself was attacked by Iranian hackers on Tuesday. People accessing Baidu.com in the morning found it was covered with a picture of the Iranian flag and other symbols and the words “Iranian Cyber Army”.

Ending the self-imposed censorship of its Chinese search service marks a reversal of one of Google’s most controversial decisions, its 2006 agreement to block certain websites in return for being able to run a local Chinese service.

That decision brought global criticism and led to considerable hand-wringing inside Google, with some senior executives led by co-founder Sergey Brin deeply uncomfortable about the move. The question of whether Google should pull out of China was given more serious consideration midway through last year, according to one person close to the company, though another said that the cyber-attacks had been the clear trigger.

”I think this is a significant step to underscore how the company feels about freedom of expression and privacy online,” said Arvind Ganesan, business and human rights programme director at Human Rights Watch. “More important, it underscores the lengths governments will go to to really close the internet, whether it’s censoring information or trying to get information on users, and in this case there was a transnational attack to try to obtain information.”

Rafal Rohozinski, a cyber-security expert who helped uncover Chinese eavesdropping on Skype, said that Google and the Chinese government were headed for a showdown that could fundamentally alter the web’s development. It would fragment the global internet if the country decides to block Google from indexing websites within China, he said.

A unica tristeza

Em Maio deste ano planejo me casar.
Particularmente nunca levei tão a sério a instituição em si do casamento.
Minha noiva porém é católica praticante e acredita no sacramento do matrimônio.
Alem disso, todos sabemos que o casamento é mais que a parte religiosa.É um compromisso perante a família, os amigos.É uma questão com fins práticos, religiosos e legais.
Nós dois nos amamos e queremos ter uma vida em comum.Queremos dividir planos e sonhos, objetivos e realizações.Por isso, o dia do nosso casamento é aguardado com muita expectativa e felicidade.Será o nosso dia, onde duas pessoas que se amam terão perante a sociedade o destino oficialmente unido.
Nós dois porem compartilhamos uma opinião: ninguem deveria precisar da autorização do estado para formar uma família.Todos deveriam ter este direito: inclusive pessoas que desejam se casar com outras do mesmo sexo.
Aliás, tanto não achamos que é necessário o consentimento estatal para se casar, que de certa forma ja fizemos isso.
Com efeito , ha 6 meses vivo com a mulher que escolhi viver.Se por acaso o governo tivesse o poder de me proibir de casar com quem eu quisesse, o fato é que continuaria vivendo com ela.
Mas por que será que devo eu ter o direito de me casar com a pessoa que eu amo se muitas pessoas, muitas das quais vivem ha mais tempo com seus respectivos entes amados, muitas das quais amam tanto seus parceiros quanto eu amo a minha mulher, não possuem este direito?
A unica resposta é que nos fazemos parte de uma sociedade neste ponto doente e que se importa demais com a vida dos outros...
O governo não deveria ter o poder de decidir com quem nos casamos.Esse direito deveria caber a nós mesmos.
O dia 22 de maio será um dia de imensa alegria para nós dois e nós torcemos para que no futuro todos os que desejam tambem possam ter o direito a esta alegria.

Há no Brasil um Partido Libertário, que tem entre suas muitas propostas, a previsão que dois adultos possam pactuar como quiserem sobre sua vida e se casarem com quem entenderem.
Há no mundo uma crescente corrente de libertários que acreditam em um ideal : a liberdade de escolha como direito sagrado de cada ser humano.

www.libertarios.com.br
www.catoinstitute.org

Freedom of press in Canada

(From NYTIMES)

Published: January 1, 2010

In a welcome move toward increased freedom of expression, the Supreme Court of Canada has issued two rulings that will give reporters a new legal defense for “responsible communication.”

Libel law in Canada has long been heavily tilted against the news media. It has been far too easy for corporations and rich individuals in Canada to sue over news reports they do not like. Canadian journalists have had to worry far more than their American counterparts about being hit with large damage awards.

Last month, the Canadian Supreme Court changed the rules. One of the cases involved a lawsuit by a forestry executive who won a judgment of about $1.5 million against The Toronto Star, a newspaper that published an article suggesting that he had used political connections to get approval for a golf course expansion.

The Supreme Court ruled that the judgment against the newspaper was improper because it had failed to give adequate weight to the value of freedom of expression. The court announced a new defense of “responsible communication on matters of public interest.” Journalists and other speakers can avoid liability, the court ruled, if they can show that the information they communicated — whether it turned out to be true or false — was of public interest and they were diligent in trying to verify it.

In the second case, a lawsuit by a former Ontario police officer against The Ottawa Citizen newspaper, the court reached a similar result. It reversed a jury award of $100,000 to the officer, who objected to the newspaper’s reports that claimed he had misrepresented his search-and-rescue work at ground zero in New York City after the attacks of Sept. 11, 2001.

In its opinions, the Supreme Court recognized the importance of free speech and a robust news media to a functioning democracy. That is good news for Canadians and all people who respect and value Canada’s press.