Avião da Malaysian derrubado por missil nos céus da Ucrânia, perto da fronteira russa e se há envolvimento russo, direto ou indireto, a sua posição no conflito ucranianao vai ficar seriamente abalada, pelo menos a nivel da opinião publica mundial.
Israel ataca a faixa de Gaza por terra mar e ar. Vai fazer limpeza de muitas rampas de lançamento de misseis e roquetes, vai destruir alguns tuneis, mas rapidamente o Hamas refará sua capacidade em material. É um ciclo que se repete e cujo fim ninguém vê.
No Brasil, a economia encolhe 0,18% em maio, apenas cresce 0,38% em relação a maio de 2013 e a criação de empregos é a pior para um mês de junho desde 1998.
quinta-feira, 17 de julho de 2014
terça-feira, 15 de julho de 2014
A derrota no contexto
Reproduzo opinião de Elio Gasperi no New York Times de hoje:
The Opinion Pages | Op-Ed Contributor
Brazil’s Dance With Defeat
By ELIO GASPARI
JULY 14, 2014
SÃO PAULO, Brazil — Last week, with great solemnity, Brazil’s president, Dilma Rousseff, told CNN’s Christiane Amanpour that “being able to overcome defeat I think is the feature and hallmark of a major national team and of a great country.”
So what happened to Brazil that was so dreadful? Was it something similar to the 1940 defeat that drove Charles de Gaulle to call for French resistance? Thankfully, it was nothing of the sort. It was just a soccer game — a national nightmare, during which Germany scored seven goals, four of them in under six minutes. Fortunate is a people that is capable of such commotion over a simple soccer match.
Since its independence, the nation of Brazil has suffered only two terrible defeats — both on home turf, in soccer. Headed for a draw with Uruguay in the 1950 World Cup final, the Brazilian team left itself open to a goal that silenced the country.
Six decades later, it was expected that Brazil, as the host nation, would finally vindicate itself in the eyes of the world. Last week’s loss to Germany, which went on to defeat Argentina and win the championship, was arguably worse than 1950. Goals ceased to be surprising; they took on a humiliating regularity. The word “humiliation,” recalled during the game and repeated throughout the world, informed Ms. Rousseff’s conversation with CNN. It would never occur to a Brazilian to emotionally distance herself from what had happened to the national team’s players. It’s basically a question of patriotism.
It may seem naïve to argue that the soul of a country can be deeply entwined with the result of a sporting event. Maybe so, but Americans still take pride in Jesse Owens’s victories at the 1936 Berlin Olympics under Hitler’s nose and Joe Louis’s knockout of the German boxer Max Schmeling during the height of Nazism. And in terms of cultural competition, Americans felt a sense of triumph when the pianist Van Cliburn won the International Tchaikovsky Competition in Moscow in 1958 just months after the Soviet Union had shocked and shamed the United States by putting the Sputnik satellite into orbit.
Many nations identify with sporting victories but seek military successes above all. Sometimes this is for the good of humanity, like the allied efforts in World War II. Sometimes it is a terrible waste, like French and American actions in Vietnam. No nation likes to talk about its military failures. Americans don’t like to remember that in 1814 the British torched the White House.
Brazilian national humiliations tend to occur within the four corners of the soccer field. Perhaps we can chalk this up to geography — after all, Brazil is far from that cauldron of trouble called Europe. Or perhaps it’s luck. Since the end of the 19th century, no Brazilian soldier has died in a war that expanded the nation’s borders. Nine generals have governed Brazil. Six of them never fought a war. It’s better that way.
Before the World Cup began, opponents of the government bet on the event’s infrastructural weakness. Later, the government got drunk on the fleeting success of the team, despite having little to do with it.
Today it’s generally believed that the “7-1” debacle (and a 3-0 drubbing by the Netherlands in the third-place match) will influence the results of the presidential election in October. Behind this conviction lies a certain skepticism toward the universal right to vote, or worse, a disbelief in Brazilians’ capacity to intelligently exercise it.
Brazilian governments that have seen World Cup defeats have won elections. And others have lost elections despite World Cup victories. Add it up, and you’ve got nothing. Soccer depends on a ball in a goal. Elections, a ballot in the box. One requires the prevalent use of one’s feet; the other, one’s head.
The World Cup has been awarded, but Brazil’s problems will remain just as they’ve always been. Ms. Rousseff will seek re-election amid dismal economic indicators: too little growth (1.4 percent in 2014), too much inflation (6.4 percent according to forecasts by the central bank). And, above all, she will rely on a religious faith in marketing.
Her victory would increase the Workers’ Party’s run in government to 16 years. Never before in the history of Brazil has a political party with this degree of cohesion held on for so long in government.
The two candidates running against Ms. Rousseff have not yet made their campaign platforms clear. If they are thinking about education, health care or transportation, her adversaries Aécio Neves and Eduardo Campos haven’t said so — despite the fact that tens of thousands of Brazilians took to the streets one year ago to demand better services in precisely these three areas. As with the failed national team, the opposition is running a hollow campaign.
If the soccer team’s performance teaches us anything, it’s to remember the familiar aphorism: You can’t win before the game is played.
Elio Gaspari, a columnist for the Brazilian newspapers O Globo and Folha de São Paulo, is the author of a multivolume history of Brazil’s military dictatorship. This essay was translated by Alexandra Joy Forman from the Portuguese
The Opinion Pages | Op-Ed Contributor
Brazil’s Dance With Defeat
By ELIO GASPARI
JULY 14, 2014
SÃO PAULO, Brazil — Last week, with great solemnity, Brazil’s president, Dilma Rousseff, told CNN’s Christiane Amanpour that “being able to overcome defeat I think is the feature and hallmark of a major national team and of a great country.”
So what happened to Brazil that was so dreadful? Was it something similar to the 1940 defeat that drove Charles de Gaulle to call for French resistance? Thankfully, it was nothing of the sort. It was just a soccer game — a national nightmare, during which Germany scored seven goals, four of them in under six minutes. Fortunate is a people that is capable of such commotion over a simple soccer match.
Since its independence, the nation of Brazil has suffered only two terrible defeats — both on home turf, in soccer. Headed for a draw with Uruguay in the 1950 World Cup final, the Brazilian team left itself open to a goal that silenced the country.
Six decades later, it was expected that Brazil, as the host nation, would finally vindicate itself in the eyes of the world. Last week’s loss to Germany, which went on to defeat Argentina and win the championship, was arguably worse than 1950. Goals ceased to be surprising; they took on a humiliating regularity. The word “humiliation,” recalled during the game and repeated throughout the world, informed Ms. Rousseff’s conversation with CNN. It would never occur to a Brazilian to emotionally distance herself from what had happened to the national team’s players. It’s basically a question of patriotism.
It may seem naïve to argue that the soul of a country can be deeply entwined with the result of a sporting event. Maybe so, but Americans still take pride in Jesse Owens’s victories at the 1936 Berlin Olympics under Hitler’s nose and Joe Louis’s knockout of the German boxer Max Schmeling during the height of Nazism. And in terms of cultural competition, Americans felt a sense of triumph when the pianist Van Cliburn won the International Tchaikovsky Competition in Moscow in 1958 just months after the Soviet Union had shocked and shamed the United States by putting the Sputnik satellite into orbit.
Many nations identify with sporting victories but seek military successes above all. Sometimes this is for the good of humanity, like the allied efforts in World War II. Sometimes it is a terrible waste, like French and American actions in Vietnam. No nation likes to talk about its military failures. Americans don’t like to remember that in 1814 the British torched the White House.
Brazilian national humiliations tend to occur within the four corners of the soccer field. Perhaps we can chalk this up to geography — after all, Brazil is far from that cauldron of trouble called Europe. Or perhaps it’s luck. Since the end of the 19th century, no Brazilian soldier has died in a war that expanded the nation’s borders. Nine generals have governed Brazil. Six of them never fought a war. It’s better that way.
Before the World Cup began, opponents of the government bet on the event’s infrastructural weakness. Later, the government got drunk on the fleeting success of the team, despite having little to do with it.
Today it’s generally believed that the “7-1” debacle (and a 3-0 drubbing by the Netherlands in the third-place match) will influence the results of the presidential election in October. Behind this conviction lies a certain skepticism toward the universal right to vote, or worse, a disbelief in Brazilians’ capacity to intelligently exercise it.
Brazilian governments that have seen World Cup defeats have won elections. And others have lost elections despite World Cup victories. Add it up, and you’ve got nothing. Soccer depends on a ball in a goal. Elections, a ballot in the box. One requires the prevalent use of one’s feet; the other, one’s head.
The World Cup has been awarded, but Brazil’s problems will remain just as they’ve always been. Ms. Rousseff will seek re-election amid dismal economic indicators: too little growth (1.4 percent in 2014), too much inflation (6.4 percent according to forecasts by the central bank). And, above all, she will rely on a religious faith in marketing.
Her victory would increase the Workers’ Party’s run in government to 16 years. Never before in the history of Brazil has a political party with this degree of cohesion held on for so long in government.
The two candidates running against Ms. Rousseff have not yet made their campaign platforms clear. If they are thinking about education, health care or transportation, her adversaries Aécio Neves and Eduardo Campos haven’t said so — despite the fact that tens of thousands of Brazilians took to the streets one year ago to demand better services in precisely these three areas. As with the failed national team, the opposition is running a hollow campaign.
If the soccer team’s performance teaches us anything, it’s to remember the familiar aphorism: You can’t win before the game is played.
Elio Gaspari, a columnist for the Brazilian newspapers O Globo and Folha de São Paulo, is the author of a multivolume history of Brazil’s military dictatorship. This essay was translated by Alexandra Joy Forman from the Portuguese
sexta-feira, 11 de julho de 2014
Novo Livro
Adolfo Maria, amigo de décadas, de grandes papos, debates e combates, acaba de publicar este romance:
Auto retrato
Todos estamos lembrados de ver em algum momento auto retratos de pintores antigos. Com a evolução da fotografia vimos tambem alguns auto retratos de fotografos com a maquina na mão em frente a espelhos. Com as câmeras nos celulares tivemos duas fases: a da auto foto sem ver o objetivo, tentando acertar e a fase atual em que é possível ver-se e clicar. Há dias li uma noticia de alguém que diariamente grava uma imagem de si próprio. Ao fim de alguns anos vai ver a inevitável evolução.
Por vezes também uso o iphone para fotografar, mas em geral apago. Desta vez guardei para verem que não perdi o humor com a derrota do Brasil por 7 a 1 e não posso deixar de sorrir quando escuto explicações hiper esfarrapadas sobre o acontecido.
Por vezes também uso o iphone para fotografar, mas em geral apago. Desta vez guardei para verem que não perdi o humor com a derrota do Brasil por 7 a 1 e não posso deixar de sorrir quando escuto explicações hiper esfarrapadas sobre o acontecido.
terça-feira, 8 de julho de 2014
a grande humilhação
A derrota do Brasil frente à Alemanha por 7 a 1 é a maior de toda a história do futebol brasileiro e a primeira vez que uma seleção é esmagada a esse ponto perto da final. Os supersticiosos dizem que foi fatalidade, um dos colunistas da UOL prefere não criticar demais para não dar a impressão de "chutar cachorro morto" e os alemães dizem que lamentam. O Kroos disse que até tinha pena do Brasil.
Impensável mas real. Inaceitável que uma seleção que defende o prestigio do Brasil tenha tido um apagão daqueles. Se foi isso que aconteceu - apagão.
Agora conto com a Argentina para honrar o futebol sul-americano e estabelecer mais equilibrio no futebol mundial.
Impensável mas real. Inaceitável que uma seleção que defende o prestigio do Brasil tenha tido um apagão daqueles. Se foi isso que aconteceu - apagão.
Agora conto com a Argentina para honrar o futebol sul-americano e estabelecer mais equilibrio no futebol mundial.
sábado, 5 de julho de 2014
Uma agressão de efeitos imprevisiveis
O Brasil venceu a Colômbia mas teve um ferido grave: Neymar. O árbitro olhou, viu o Zuñiga atacar de joelhada a coluna do Neymar e não fez nada. Já na partida contra o Chile ele tinha sido alvo de autentica caçada e o jogo foi decidido nos penaltis. Apesar de tudo isso alguns mentecaptos dizem que as arbitragens favorecem o Brasil
Na semi final vai ser preciso muito espirito coletivo e uma boa alternativa para o lugar do numero 10
De longe pelo twitter Rihana torceu pelo Brasil
quarta-feira, 2 de julho de 2014
Como o dólar se articula com a diplomacia
O banco francês BNP Parisbas foi multado nos USA em 9 bi de USD por ter violado regras de embargo dos Estados Unidos em relação a alguns países. Reproduzo um artigo do "New York Times" de ontem, explicando como a força da moeda norte-americana ajuda a politica internacional de Washington.
In BNP Paribas Case, an Example of How Mighty the Dollar Is
JULY 1, 2014
Neil Irwin - New York Times
Even if you are a bank as gigantic as BNP Paribas, $9 billion is a lot of money. Shareholders of the French bank know that all too well, as that is what they are paying in penalties to the United States for a conspiracy to allow money transfers to Sudan and other blacklisted nations.
The case is remarkable for the size of the penalty, which is a bit more than the bank’s total earnings for 2013. But it may be more interesting for the lesson it teaches about how the United States’ financial power goes hand in hand with its role in foreign affairs.
In short: The dollar is the global reserve currency, the bedrock of the world financial system. And that role gives the United States surprising power over what happens in the world even in spheres that would have little to do with finance.
In the case of BNP Paribas, a French bank was accused of (and has now admitted) facilitating transactions with Sudan, Iran and Cuba. These were engineered out of its Geneva office, which covered up transactions with Sudan.
Yet it is now facing a huge penalty and the forced resignations of 13 executives, who may be banned from the banking industry, because of actions taken by the Justice Department, the Federal Reserve and the New York State financial regulator. In other words, a French bank must comply with United States foreign policy, which set economic sanctions on those nations, or it will pay a very high price.
And for BNP Paribas, or really any bank of any size around the world, there is no choice but to comply. The dollar is by a wide margin the most widely used currency for international trade and for foreign governments, wealthy individuals or corporations looking to park cash.
If you are a bank in Paris or Jakarta or São Paulo, you can’t really serve your clients unless you are able to connect them to the global market for dollars. And you can’t do that unless you are in good standing with United States regulators. And you will very much not be in good standing with them if there is evidence you facilitated financing of terrorism or governments that the United States considers global threats.
That’s one of the important reasons that United States-led economic sanctions against Sudan or Iran carry weight. Those countries cannot easily gain access to the global financial system by going to a bank in a more sympathetic country.
Not surprisingly, this state of affairs does not always go over well overseas. The United States can seem heavy-handed, using its power in the financial sphere as a tool of foreign policy. President François Hollande of France reportedly gave President Obama an earful about the looming BNP Paribas penalty in a recent meeting, and French officials have vaguely threatened reprisals (“If all the U.S. authorities involved in this case do not treat BNP Paribas fairly, France will respond firmly to protect its fundamental interests,” French finance minister Michel Sapin told Les Echos.
This unique form of power the United States possesses won’t necessarily last forever. A century ago, the British pound had the dominant global role now held by the dollar. But the potential rivals for this position have problems of their own. The euro is only a couple of years removed from an existential crisis.
China is pushing to internationalize the renminbi, and while its currency is being used more for trade within Asia, it has a long way to go to become a truly global currency. (Among other things, China would need to develop a much deeper market for bonds denominated in its currency than now exists, and start allowing the freer transfer of capital into and out of the country.)
In BNP Paribas Case, an Example of How Mighty the Dollar Is
JULY 1, 2014
Neil Irwin - New York Times
Even if you are a bank as gigantic as BNP Paribas, $9 billion is a lot of money. Shareholders of the French bank know that all too well, as that is what they are paying in penalties to the United States for a conspiracy to allow money transfers to Sudan and other blacklisted nations.
The case is remarkable for the size of the penalty, which is a bit more than the bank’s total earnings for 2013. But it may be more interesting for the lesson it teaches about how the United States’ financial power goes hand in hand with its role in foreign affairs.
In short: The dollar is the global reserve currency, the bedrock of the world financial system. And that role gives the United States surprising power over what happens in the world even in spheres that would have little to do with finance.
In the case of BNP Paribas, a French bank was accused of (and has now admitted) facilitating transactions with Sudan, Iran and Cuba. These were engineered out of its Geneva office, which covered up transactions with Sudan.
Yet it is now facing a huge penalty and the forced resignations of 13 executives, who may be banned from the banking industry, because of actions taken by the Justice Department, the Federal Reserve and the New York State financial regulator. In other words, a French bank must comply with United States foreign policy, which set economic sanctions on those nations, or it will pay a very high price.
And for BNP Paribas, or really any bank of any size around the world, there is no choice but to comply. The dollar is by a wide margin the most widely used currency for international trade and for foreign governments, wealthy individuals or corporations looking to park cash.
If you are a bank in Paris or Jakarta or São Paulo, you can’t really serve your clients unless you are able to connect them to the global market for dollars. And you can’t do that unless you are in good standing with United States regulators. And you will very much not be in good standing with them if there is evidence you facilitated financing of terrorism or governments that the United States considers global threats.
That’s one of the important reasons that United States-led economic sanctions against Sudan or Iran carry weight. Those countries cannot easily gain access to the global financial system by going to a bank in a more sympathetic country.
Not surprisingly, this state of affairs does not always go over well overseas. The United States can seem heavy-handed, using its power in the financial sphere as a tool of foreign policy. President François Hollande of France reportedly gave President Obama an earful about the looming BNP Paribas penalty in a recent meeting, and French officials have vaguely threatened reprisals (“If all the U.S. authorities involved in this case do not treat BNP Paribas fairly, France will respond firmly to protect its fundamental interests,” French finance minister Michel Sapin told Les Echos.
This unique form of power the United States possesses won’t necessarily last forever. A century ago, the British pound had the dominant global role now held by the dollar. But the potential rivals for this position have problems of their own. The euro is only a couple of years removed from an existential crisis.
China is pushing to internationalize the renminbi, and while its currency is being used more for trade within Asia, it has a long way to go to become a truly global currency. (Among other things, China would need to develop a much deeper market for bonds denominated in its currency than now exists, and start allowing the freer transfer of capital into and out of the country.)
But as a practical matter, as long as all roads to the global financial system lead through New York, and the dollar-based payments systems, Americans will have a leg up in international affairs that other countries may not like very much, but can’t really do anything about.
Assinar:
Postagens (Atom)