interceptor

Novas mensagens, análises etc. irão se concentrar a partir de agora em interceptor.
O presente blog, Geografia Conservadora servirá mais como arquivo e registro de rascunhos.
a.h

Friday, August 24, 2007

Iraque ou A vida como ela é

O texto abaixo se refere menos sobre o Iraque e a política americana do que sobre metodologia. E este tema me é muito caro... Desde meus tempos em que descobri Weber e sua preocupação metodológica que fui devidamente "vacinado" contra as teleologias e proselitismos políticos disfarçados de "ciência social". A palavra "neutralidade" é uma das palavras mais prostituídas e vilipendiadas que conheço. Melhor seria se ela fosse banida dos dicionários ou figurasse em algum museu de léxicos. O fato, como fica magistralmente colocado pelos estrategistas abaixo é que a análise estratégica é algo radicalmente distinto do ofício político. O político deve se apresentar como imbuído de uma moral ao seu público e, no ideal, portá-la realmente. Mas, o analista não. Mesmo que torça ou penda para um dos lados em um drama geopolítico, por exemplo, ele deve olhar com todos pontos de vista envolvidos ou, ao menos, avaliá-los e mensurá-los. Neutro ele não é nem nunca será, especialmente se seu país ou tendência política estiver afetada ou ameaçada, mas para que sua função seja bem sucedida, faz-se mister poder demonstrar o poder de fogo e persuasão de cada lado. A objetividade consiste nisto, precisamente. Depois, ultrapassada a linha que divide seu trabalho da meta que deseja alcançar, pode vender seu serviço por dinheiro ou por dinheiro e vocação ideológica ou por mera opção política. Não é um buffet, mas um serviço a la carte. Não se misturam os pratos.
Para quem está cansado de ler textos apologéticos ou críticos em relação à guerra, esta é uma boa oportunidade de ver (e entender) as coisas como elas realmente são, um jogo de poder.
a.h


Iraq: New Strategies
May 17, 2004 23 59 GMT


By George Friedman
Last week, Stratfor published an analysis, "The Edge of the Razor," that sketched out the problems facing the United States in Iraq. In an avalanche of responses, one important theme stood out: Readers wanted to know what we would do, if we were in a position to do anything. Put differently, it is easy to catalogue problems, more difficult to provide solutions.
The point is not only absolutely true, but lies at the heart of intelligence. Intelligence organizations should not give policy suggestions. First, the craft of intelligence and state-craft are very different things. Second, and far more important, intelligence professionals should always resist the temptation to become policy advocates because, being mostly human, intelligence analysts want to be right -- and when they are advocates of a strategy, they will be tempted to find evidence that proves that policy to be correct and ignore evidence that might prove the policy in error. Advocating policies impairs the critical faculties. Besides, in a world in which opinions are commonplace, there is a rare value in withholding opinions. Finally, intelligence, as a profession, should be neutral. Now, we are far from personally neutral in any issue affecting our country, but in our professional -- as opposed to our personal -- lives, our task is to look at the world through the eyes of all of the players. Suggesting a strategy for defeating one side makes that obviously difficult.
That said, extraordinary times call for extraordinary measures. We normally try to figure out what is going to happen, what other people are going to do -- whether they know it or not -- and explain the actions of others. At times, people confuse Stratfor's analysis for our political position. This time -- this once -- we will write for ourselves -- or more precisely, for myself, since at Stratfor our views on the war range even wider than those among the general public.
The Mission
The United States' invasion of Iraq was not a great idea. Its only virtue was that it was the best available idea among a series of even worse ideas. In the spring of 2003, the United States had no way to engage or defeat al Qaeda. The only way to achieve that was to force Saudi Arabia -- and lesser enabling countries such as Iran and Syria -- to change their policies on al Qaeda and crack down on its financial and logistical systems. In order to do that, the United States needed two things. First, it had to demonstrate its will and competence in waging war -- something seriously doubted by many in the Islamic world and elsewhere. Second, it had to be in a position to threaten follow-on actions in the region.
There were many drawbacks to the invasion, ranging from the need to occupy a large and complex country to the difficulty of gathering intelligence. Unlike many, we expected extended resistance in Iraq, although we did not expect the complexity of the guerrilla war that emerged. Moreover, we understood that the invasion would generate hostility toward the United States within the Islamic world, but we felt this would be compensated by dramatic shifts in the behavior of governments in the region. All of this has happened.
The essential point is that the invasion of Iraq was not and never should have been thought of as an end in itself. Iraq's only importance was its geographic location: It is the most strategically located country between the Mediterranean and the Hindu Kush. The United States needed it as a base of operations and a lever against the Saudis and others, but it had no interest -- or should have had no interest -- in the internal governance of Iraq.
This is the critical point on which the mission became complex, and the worst conceivable thing in a military operation took place: mission creep. Rather than focus on the follow-on operations that had to be undertaken against al Qaeda, the Bush administration created a new goal: the occupation and administration of Iraq by the United States, with most of the burden falling on the U.S. military. More important, the United States also dismantled the Iraqi government bureaucracy and military under the principle that de-Baathification had to be accomplished. Over time, this evolved to a new mission: the creation of democracy in Iraq.
Under the best of circumstances, this was not something the United States had the resources to achieve. Iraq is a complex and multi-layered society with many competing interests. The idea that the United States would be able to effectively preside over this society, shepherding it to democracy, was difficult to conceive even in the best of circumstances. Under the circumstances that began to emerge only days after the fall of Baghdad, it was an unachievable goal and an impossible mission. The creation of a viable democracy in the midst of a civil war, even if Iraqi society were amenable to copying American institutions, was an impossibility. The one thing that should have been learned in Vietnam was that the evolution of political institutions in the midst of a sustained guerrilla war is impossible.
The administration pursued this goal for a single reason: From the beginning, it consistently underestimated the Iraqis' capability to resist the United States. It underestimated the tenacity, courage and cleverness of the Sunni guerrillas. It underestimated the political sophistication of the Shiite leadership. It underestimated the forms of military and political resistance that would limit what the United States could achieve. In my view, the underestimation of the enemy in Iraq is the greatest failure of this administration, and the one for which the media rarely hold it accountable.
This miscalculation drew the U.S. Army into the two types of warfare for which it is least suited.
First, it drew the Army into the cities, where the work of reconstruction -- physical and political -- had to be carried out. Having dismantled Iraqi military and police institutions, the Army found itself in the role of policing the cities. This would have been difficult enough had there not been a guerrilla war. With a guerrilla war -- much of it concentrated in heavily urbanized areas and the roads connecting cities -- the Army found itself trapped in low-intensity urban warfare in which its technical advantages dissolved and the political consequences of successful counterattacks outweighed the value of defeating the guerrillas. Destroying three blocks of Baghdad to take out a guerrilla squad made military sense, but no political sense. The Army could neither act effectively nor withdraw.
Second, the Army was lured into counterinsurgency warfare. No subject has been studied more extensively by the U.S. Army, and no subject remains as opaque. The guerrilla seeks to embed himself among the general population. Distinguishing him is virtually impossible, particularly for a 20-year-old soldier or Marine who speaks not a word of the language nor understands the social cues that might guide him. In this circumstance, the soldier is simply a target, a casualty waiting to happen.
The usual solution is to raise an indigenous force to fight the guerrillas. The problem is that the most eager recruits for this force are the guerrillas themselves: They not only get great intelligence, but weapons, ammunition and three square meals a day. Sometimes, pre-existing militias are used, via a political arrangement. But these militias have very different agendas than those of the occupying force, and frequently maneuver the occupier into doing their job for them.
Strategies
The United States must begin by recognizing that it cannot possibly pacify Iraq with the force available or, for that matter, with a larger military force. It can continue to patrol, it can continue to question people, it can continue to take casualties. However, it can never permanently defeat the guerrilla forces in the Sunni triangle using this strategy. It certainly cannot displace the power and authority of the Shiite leadership in the south. Urban warfare and counterinsurgency in the Iraqi environment cannot be successful.
This means the goal of reshaping Iraqi society is beyond the reach of the United States. Iraq is what it is. The United States, having performed the service of removing Saddam Hussein from power, cannot reshape a society that has millennia of layers. The attempt to do so will generate resistance -- while that resistance can be endured, it cannot be suppressed.
The United States must recall its original mission, which was to occupy Iraq in order to prosecute the war against al Qaeda. If that mission is remembered, and the mission creep of reshaping Iraq forgotten, some obvious strategic solutions re-emerge. The first, and most important, is that the United States has no national interest in the nature of Iraqi government or society. Except for not supporting al Qaeda, Iraq's government does not matter. Since the Iraqi Shia have an inherent aversion to Wahabbi al Qaeda, the political path on that is fairly clear.
The United States now cannot withdraw from Iraq. We can wonder about the wisdom of the invasion, but a withdrawal under pressure would be used by al Qaeda and radical Islamists as demonstration of their core point: that the United States is inherently weak and, like the Soviet Union, ripe for defeat. Having gone in, withdrawal in the near term is not an option.
That does not mean U.S. forces must be positioned in and near urban areas. There is a major repositioning under way to reduce the size of the U.S. presence in the cities, but there is, nevertheless, a more fundamental shift to be made. The United States undertook responsibility for security in Iraq after its invasion. It cannot carry out this mission. Therefore, it has to abandon the mission. Some might argue this would leave a vacuum. We would argue there already is a vacuum, filled only with American and coalition targets. It is not a question of creating anarchy; anarchy already exists. It is a question of whether the United States wishes to lose soldiers in an anarchic situation.
The geography of Iraq provides a solution.

The bulk of Iraq's population lives in the Tigris and Euphrates valleys. To the south and west of the Euphrates River, there is a vast and relatively uninhabited region of Iraq -- not very hospitable, but with less shooting than on the other side. The western half of Iraq borders Saudi Arabia and Syria, two of the countries about which the United States harbors the most concern. A withdrawal from the river basins would allow the United States to carry out its primary mission -- maintaining regional pressure -- without engaging in an impossible war. Moreover, in the Kurdish regions of the northeast, where U.S. Special Forces have operated for a very long time, U.S. forces could be based -- and supplied -- in order to maintain a presence on the Iranian border.
Iraq should then be encouraged to develop a Shiite-dominated government, the best guarantor against al Qaeda and the greatest incentive for the Iranians not to destabilize the situation. The fate of the Sunnis will rest in the deal they can negotiate with the Shia and Kurds -- and, as they say, that is their problem.
The United States could supply the forces in western and southern Iraq from Kuwait, without the fear that convoy routes would be cut in urban areas. In the relatively uninhabited regions, distinguishing guerrillas from rocks would be somewhat easier than distinguishing them from innocent bystanders. The force could, if it chose, execute a broad crescent around Iraq, touching all the borders but not the populations.
The Iraqi government might demand at some point that the United States withdraw, but they would have no way to impose their demand, as they would if U.S. forces could continue to be picked off with improvised explosive devices and sniper fire. The geographical move would help to insulate U.S. forces from even this demand, assuming political arrangements could not be made. Certainly the land is inhospitable, and serious engineering and logistical efforts would be required to accommodate basing for large numbers of troops. However, large numbers of troops might not be necessary -- and the engineering and logistical problems certainly will not make headlines around the world.
Cutting Losses
Certainly, as a psychological matter, there is a retreat. The United States would be cutting losses. But it has no choice. It will not be able to defeat the insurgencies it faces without heavy casualties and creating chaos in Iraqi society. Moreover, a victory in this war would not provide the United States with anything that is in its national interest. Unless you are an ideologue -- which I am not -- who believes bringing American-style democracy to the world is a holy mission, it follows that the nature of the Iraqi government -- or chaos -- does not affect me.
What does affect me is al Qaeda. Al Qaeda is trying to kill me. Countries such as Saudi Arabia permitted al Qaeda to flourish. The presence of a couple of U.S. armored divisions along the kingdom's northern border has been a very sobering thought. That pressure cannot be removed. Whatever chaos there is in Saudi Arabia, that is the key to breaking al Qaeda -- not Baghdad.
The key to al Qaeda is in Riyadh and in Islamabad. The invasion of Iraq was a stepping-stone toward policy change in Riyadh, and it worked. The pressure must be maintained and now extended to Islamabad. However, the war was never about Baghdad, and certainly never about Al Fallujah and An Najaf. Muqtada al-Sadr's relationship to Grand Ayatollah Ali al-Sistani and the makeup of the elders in Al Fallujah are matters of utter and absolute indifference to the United States. Getting drawn into those fights is in fact the quagmire -- a word we use carefully and deliberately.
But in the desert west and south of the Euphrates, the United States can carry out the real mission for which it came. And if the arc of responsibility extends along the Turkish frontier to Kurdistan, that is a manageable mission creep. The United States should not get out of Iraq. It must get out of Baghdad, Al Fallujah, An Najaf and the other sinkholes into which the administration's policies have thrown U.S. soldiers.
Again, this differs from our normal analysis in offering policy prescriptions. This is, of course, a very high-level sketch of a solution to an extraordinarily complex situation. Nevertheless, sometimes the solution to complex situations is to simplify them.


Essa eu quero ver no que vai dar...

Imagine esta notícia:


Os maiores projetos de cortes de emissões de gases-estufa preconizados pelo Protocolo de Kyoto têm contribuído para o agravamento do Buraco na Camada de Ozônio... Com isto cria-se um moto contínuo, pois países poluidores ao focalizar o combate a um tipo de gás desconsiderariam outros. Com isto aumentariam, indiretamente, suas emissões para solicitar mais créditos de carbono, o que lhes traria igualmente uma fonte de renda extra... Chamado de Mecanismo de Desenvolvimento Limpo (MDL), só no ano passado significou USD 5 bilhões... Tais gases cortados, como os HCFHs são mais potentes em termos relativos do que o gás carbônico, mas receber recursos para substituição dos primeiros é mais lucrativo. Como o segundo tipo é que é mais comum, a poluição continua simultânea ao recebimento de créditos. Daí se continua poluindo com o que é mais frequentemente utilizado, mas cortando aquele que, em termos absolutos, polui menos e dá mais crédito.
Este negócio com o dedo da ONU é uma sem-vergonhice só.
a.h





Chinese commuters make their way in heavy smog in Beijing, December 14, 2004. The biggest emissions-cutting projects under the Kyoto Protocol on global warming have directly contributed to an increase in the production of gases that destroy the ozone layer, a senior U.N. official says.
REUTERS/Reinhard Krause/Files
By Gerard Wynn

LONDON (Reuters) - The biggest emissions-cutting projects under the Kyoto Protocol on global warming have directly contributed to an increase in the production of gases that destroy the ozone layer, a senior U.N. official says.
In addition, evidence suggests that the same projects, in developing countries, have deliberately raised their emissions of greenhouse gases only to destroy these and therefore claim more carbon credits, said Stanford University's Michael Wara.
Kyoto is meant to curb emissions of the greenhouse gases blamed for global warming, but is undermining a separate pact called the Montreal Protocol, meant to phase out gases which harm the earth's ozone layer.
That layer in the atmosphere shields the planet from damaging ultra-violet rays that can cause skin cancer.
At the heart of the clash is a carbon trading scheme under Kyoto, worth $5 billion last year, whereby rich countries pay poorer ones to cut greenhouse gas emissions on their behalf, called the clean development mechanism (CDM).
The most popular type of project has been to destroy a potent greenhouse gas known as HFC 23, one of a family of so-called hydrofluorocarbons, in China and India.
The problem is that HFC 23 is a waste product in the manufacture of a refrigerant gas which damages the ozone layer, called HCFC 22, and chemical plants have used their CDM profits to ramp up production.
"This is certainly one of the major drivers now in the increase in production of HCFC 22," Rajendra Shende, director of ozone issues at the United Nations Environment Programme, which administers the Montreal Protocol, said on Monday.
HCFC 22 now risked undoing recent repair to the ozone layer, Shende said in an interview.
Chemical plants have used CDM profits to cut the sale price of HCFC 22, pricing out alternatives that don't deplete ozone such as carbon dioxide and ammonia.
"(U.N.) bodies need to work more together, to see the actions of one don't risk the actions of another," Shende said.
Governments signed up to the Montreal Protocol will likely vote next month to accelerate the complete phase out of HCFC 22 in developing countries by 2025 or 2030 from 2040 now, he said.
LUCRATIVE
CDM projects which destroy HFC 23 are especially lucrative because the gas is 12,000 times more potent a greenhouse gas than carbon dioxide (CO2), although its overall contribution to climate change is far less because CO2 is much more common.
As a result, destroying HFC 23 spawns far more money-spinning carbon credits than any other way of curbing greenhouse gas emissions.
Carbon trading isn't the only reason why HCFC 22 production is up, said Shende. A fund raised under the Montreal Protocol has paid makers of air conditioners and fridges to use HCFC 22 instead of more dangerous ozone-depleting gases, CFCs.
In addition, increasingly affluent classes in developing countries are now better able to afford air conditioners.
HOT AIR
The environmental credentials of HFC 23 projects are further undermined by evidence that chemical plants in China have deliberately "tuned" their factories to produce more of what should be a waste product, to make more money under CDM.
Chemical plants participating in CDM make twice as much HFC 23 as a proportion of the actual end product refrigerant than those in rich countries which can't participate in the scheme, said Michael Wara, research fellow at Stanford University.
"It doubles the flow of carbon credits, but there are real questions whether it's hot air," Wara said. The carbon credits are being used as carbon offsets to allow companies to continue to produce greenhouse gases in Europe.
"They've tuned the plants to double the amount of HFC 23 you would normally produce, for example in Europe or the United States. All CDM participant plants came in at 3 percent (HFC 23 versus HCFC 22), the Kyoto Protocol maximum, versus 1.5 percent in countries that can't participate in the scheme."
© Reuters 2007. All rights reserved.
ScienceBlogs : Combined Feed

Thursday, August 23, 2007


Gringos não perdem tempo. A expansão da atividade de produção de biodiesel pode encontrar no continente africano, uma alternativa à produção brasileira >>>
Americanos apostam em biodiesel feito de pinhão manso(JATROPHA)
Um grupo de representantes da empresa americana Blue Planet se reuniu nesta quinta-feira (16) com o secretário de Agricultura, Leonardo Veloso, para tratar da implantação de uma usina para produção de biodiesel no estado de Goiás. O projeto prevê a construção de uma indústria cuja...


A produção estatal também investe na possibilidade dos combustíveis alternativos >>>
Moçambique já produz biodiesel
Será inaugurado, hoje, na cidade da Matola, uma unidade de produção de biodiesel a partir de copra. A mesma unidade pertence à Petróleos de Moçambique (PETROMOC) e tem uma capacidade instalada para a produção de 40 milhões de litros de biosiesel por ano. A construção...


E a multinacional brasileira lança seus tentáculos no Índico >>>
Petrobras sonda entrada no mercado da energia e biocombustíveis
A Companhia petrolífera brasileira Petrobras pretende investir nas áreas de petróleo em Moçambique, devendo proximamente iniciar o processo de prospecção e distribuição de biocombustíveis. Essa pretensão foi manifestada recentemente pelo director para a área internacional da Petrobras, Nestor Cervero, e o director executivo, Luís da...

Patrimonialismo africano

Estadistas tornam países suas propriedades

A presidente da Fundação para o Desenvolvimento da comunidade, FDC, Graça Machel afirmou, ontem, que povo moçambicano não é tolo para continuar a apostar no partido Frelimo, mesmo depois da implementação do sistema multipartidário, no País.

Intervindo na apresentação do Papel do Mecanismo Africano de Revisão de Pares, MARP, para o desenvolvimento e boa governação, em África, Machel sublinhou que, no dia em que outros partidos provarem o contrário, em termos de projectos de governação, “o povo vai, sim, votar nesses partidos”, disse reagindo a uma pergunta lançada pelo secretário geral do Partido Independente de Moçambique, PIMO, Magalhães Ibramugy.

Sem indicar nomes, Machel disse que, no Continente Africano, existem presidentes que estão no poder há mais de três décadas, facto que os leva a transformarem os seus países em propriedades pessoais.

Esses presidentes, segundo Machel, acabam constituindo elites, políticas e económicas, em detrimento dos seus povos. “Eles ficam muito tempo, no poder, ou porque os povos estão a decidir para que eles continuem ou porque as outras forças políticas não decidiram o que querem”.

Download estadistas_tornam_pases_suas_propriedades.doc

22-08-2007 in Opinião

Bom senso

Até que enfim alguém que fala minha língüa! O estado pode (e deve) apoiar o setor privado. Se ele é um "mal necessário" que se faça algo bom com o mesmo...



http://www.polibiobraga.com.br/ - Porto Alegre, quinta-feira, 23 de agosto de 2007



Paulo Feijó, com o apoio deste site, apóia a guerra fiscal entre os Estados


O vice-governador Paulo Afonso Feijó acaba de postar mais um texto no seu blog (http://www.pauloafeijo.blogspot.com/), agora sobre guerra fiscal, defendendo a tese de que ela é necessária ao Rio Grande do Sul e que se trata de competição fiscal e não de guerra.
O editor desta página também defende a guerra fiscal entre os Estados.
Paulo Feijó informou que Argentina e Uruguai são mais competitivos que o RS porque enquanto na Argentina e no Uruguai a carga fiscal gira em torno de 25%, no Brasil chega na casa dos 40%.
"Não temos preços atrativos para os nossos países vizinhos. É só ir a qualquer cidade de fronteira gaúcha para ver o comércio fervilhando do outro lado", avisou o vice de Yeda.
Paulo Feijó montou uma equação de onde extraiu os valores exportados e encontrou este resultado assombroso: “Dentro do mercado doméstico, fica em média 4% mais caro se consumir qualquer coisa produzida no Rio Grande do Sul".
Isto tudo quer dizer que a economia e os produtos gaúchos não são competitivos e por isto não têm preço para bater ninguém.
Shoppings estão "se adiantando" para não ficarem sem possibilidade de novas incorporações. Se não houver nenhum tipo de articulação, o socialismo de miséria dos ecofascistas será uma realidade plena >>> http://www.ambientebrasil.com.br/noticias/index.php3?action=ler&id=33076


Os ambientalistas não só têm horror a qualquer tipo de desenvolvimento, eles são explicitamente (e alguns, sem o saber, implicitamente) favoráveis a um socialismo rural mítico que propague a pequena propriedade auto-sustentável. O que não sabem (e alguns fingem não saber) é que este tipo de ocupação de baixa tecnologia é que é altamente degradadora em termos ambientais >>> http://www.ambientebrasil.com.br/noticias/index.php3?action=ler&id=33010


Alguém deveria dizer ao Sr. de Boer que o pior tipo de poluição (que está na raiz de qualquer outra) é a miséria. Agora, justamente, os países com maiores déficits sociais serão obrigados a pagar a fatura?! Absurdo!! >>> http://www.ambientebrasil.com.br/noticias/index.php3?action=ler&id=33058


Sou fã da CVRD. O fato da empresa cobrar de suas consumidoras, o respeito à legislação que viabiliza desenvolvimento econômico e preservação ambiental está dentro do paradigma de equilíbrio entre os dois princípios que entendo como conciliáveis. Só com atitudes desse tipo os anti-desenvolvimentistas e ludditas do ambientalismo poderão ser colocados de escanteio >>> http://www.ambientebrasil.com.br/noticias/index.php3?action=ler&id=33061

Wednesday, August 22, 2007

Enquanto que no Brasil, os investimentos em energia do biodiesel vão de vento em popa, na vizinha Bolívia, empresas são obrigadas a fazerem investimentos de pouca rentabilidade. Me parece que as ações do cocalero são uma bomba-relógico para a falência.


Brasil:
Inauguran fábrica de biodiésel más grande del mundo
Con una inversión de más de US$ 20 millones, el grupo Bertin puso en operaciones la planta que tendrá una capacidad de producción de 110 millones de litros de biocombustible al año.Leer Artículo


América del Sur:
Petroleras que operan en Bolivia priorizarán mercado interno
El gobierno de Evo Morales llegó a un acuerdo con las 12 empresas transnacionales que producen crudo y gas en el país, como Petrobras, Repsol-YPF y British Gas, para que privilegien el consumo boliviano.Leer Artículo

Tuesday, August 21, 2007


“Com essa nova incorporação, o Brasil tem agora 109,5 milhões de hectares em 596 Terras Indígenas, o que representa 13% do território nacional. A maioria esmagadora dessas reservas (98%) se localiza na chamada Amazônia Legal, ocupando 20,67% do seu território.”

Em
E isto que sua população não chega a 0,3% do total do país...

América Latina al Día

www.americaeconomia.com
Edición 615
Martes 21 de agosto, 2007
América del Sur:


Mesmo como representante da chamada "social-democracia", o presidente peruano tem que se curvar às necessidades de movimentação de sua economia e privatizar monopólios estatais:
Gobierno peruano venderá su propiedad de Cemento Andino
La decisión contempla la venta del 23% de las acciones que posee el Estado en la cementera. Se trata de 278.386 títulos que serán subastados que implicaría una ganancia cercana a los US$ 55 millones.
Leer Artículo


Não sei onde o governo Bush quer chegar com estes encontros, pois um governo mexicano não conseguirá conter o gigantesco fluxo migratório. Mas, pode haver sim um desenvolvimento burocrático na questão ao agilizar a passagem (e o bloqueio) quando necessária.
Canadá:
Presidentes norteamericanos se reúnen en Ottawa
Ayer comenzó la cumbre que congrega a los mandatarios de México, Estados Unidos y Canadá. En la cita se espera que Felipe Calderón y George W. Bush traten el problema de inmigración, entre otros temas multilaterales.
Leer Artículo



A recente onda de frio fez com que aumentasse muito o consumo energético no país, o que levou a uma proibição do aumento da demanda industrial. Já liberada...
América del Sur:
Argentina levanta restricción energética
El gobierno de Néstor Kirchner terminó con la prohibición que pesaba sobre las industrias producto de la crisis energética que vive actualmente el país del Atlántico.
Leer Artículo


Agora, nossos hipócritas. O governo cocalero está tomando crédito externo... Vai ser ótimo quando a escassez de recursos para quitar seus débitos levar a sua queda. Aplaudirei com uma latinha de cerveja na mão.
AmSur:
Inyectan US$ 60 millones a economía boliviana
El gobierno del presidente Evo Morales tomó la decisión con el objetivo de reactivar el aparato productivo del país.


Sim, o que se deve, sem sombra de dúvida, àqueles que desafiaram a obscurantista corrente Deep Ecology que vê toda e qualquer atividade produtiva como degradadora do meio ambiente. Agradeça aos usineiros!
AmLat:
La región es una importante fuente de biocombustibles, según Cepal
Para el organismo, la región se ha convertido en una reserva energética debido a la potencial producción de combustibles a partir de cultivos.
8-20-07


Getting Out of Iraq: The Return of Tricky Dick?


By William Marina

Mr. Marina is Prof. Emeritus in History, FL Atlantic U., Research Fellow, the Independent Inst., Oakland, CA, & Exec. Dir., the Marina-Huerta Educational Foundation.


Today, Henry Kissinger must be smiling!


In a lead article in The Sunday New York Times (Aug. 12, ’07) assessing the positions of the Democratic candidates for president, the newspaper suggested that all of the various Democrats’ plans for leaving Iraq “may take years.”
This is “withdrawal?” It appears to be “déjà vu, all over again,” to quote that philosopher, pundit, Yogi Berra.


One is reminded that in 1968, Richard Nixon had a secret “plan” for getting the US out of Vietnam, that “quagmire” into which the Democrats had led the nation.
Some plan!


By 1973, when Kissinger and the Vietnamese negotiator shared a Nobel Peace Prize, over 22,000 more American soldiers had died in order that this non-existent plan be implemented.


Two years later, the Civil War there concluded with the North winning totally over the Franco-American backed South, and the remaining US forces rather unceremoniously fleeing Saigon.


That result could have been achieved in 1945, had the US not, in violation of its stated war aims of WWII, armed the French and allowed them to return to power in Vietnam, a decision even Gen. Douglas MacArthur called “despicable.”
A peace could have been achieved as well in 1955 after the defeat of the French, but at the Peace Conference the arrogant US Secretary of State, John Foster Dulles, refused even to shake the hand of the Chinese delegate, Chou En-Lai. The US proceeded to set up its own puppet, Ngo Dinh Diem, later killed by his own generals, only several weeks before the murder of John F. Kennedy on November 22, 1963.


One can understand how Dulles was rather optimistic about this “nation-building” effort to bring “Democracy” to many parts of the world. Two years earlier, in 1953, even before he officially took office, John Foster, and his brother, Allen W., the new director of the CIA, had engineered the overthrow of Mohammed Mossadegh, the Iranian prime minister, and placed Shah Reza Pahlevi in power.


The next year, 1954, saw an even easier overthrow of an elected government in Guatemala, so that the US did not have to deploy the thousands of Marines which President Dwight Eisenhower had off shore, just in case.


In the end, however, the American effort at neo-colonialism in Vietnam failed, at a cost of billions of dollars, a price inflation in the US, and the loss of over 58,000 soldiers. We need not mention the 3,000,000 Vietnamese who, Robert McNamara, the Secretary of Defense under Lyndon Johnson, acknowledges were killed in our bombing of the North and counter-insurgency tactics in the South aimed at “winning the hearts and minds” of the people.


Tricky Dick never openly discussed his “secret plan” to end the War, and, after all, which American would not trust a President, who later told us repeatedly, “I am not a crook!”


We are suffering through the last months of perhaps the most disingenuous of a whole host of American Presidents who have been less than candid about their actions in taking the nation into war, starting at least with James Polk, Abraham Lincoln, William McKinley, Woodrow Wilson, Franklin Roosevelt and Lyndon Johnson, simply to name several of the more obvious ones. So devious have these actions become since WWII, that none of our Presidents have sought a declaration of war from the Congress as prescribed in our Constitution. Ah well, so much for the idea of the rule of law.


Given that history, I suppose the Democrats are to be commended for their candor, in admitting that they don’t really mean withdrawal in the foreseeable future!
It is a sad commentary on the state of Democracy in America, however, that none of the candidates, with the exception of Ron Paul among the Republicans, or perhaps Dennis Kucinich and Mike Gravel among the Democrats, even attempts to discuss what has obviously been the major thrust of American history for over a century.


It is clear that the moguls who control the Republican Party and those presiding over the Corporate Media, are unhappy that someone named Ron Paul even exists.


The Democratic candidates need to level with the American people with regard to three questions:


1. How much will this add to our already bloated military spending which is already distorting the whole US economy?

2. How many lives will this cost in the years ahead?

3. And, most importantly, how will this really improve the incredible mess in the Middle East in which this nation has played a major role in creating since WWII?


The real issue is Empire, a project in which the US has now been engaged for over a century. Oswald Spengler was correct that Empire is “centralization unadulterated,” as was John Adams, that it is “despotism,” lacking “a rule of law.”
It is one thing to create a centralized welfare state, in which the Democrats have specialized since the New Deal,* and are now joined by the Republicans; it is quite another to create a vast military apparatus with which to go abroad in search of “monsters to destroy,” becoming in the process the world’s great, counter-revolutionary power.


We have, of course, done both, and “decentralization” hardly seems on the marching agenda of the Empire, in either area, or for discussion by either Party.
Cullen Murphy has written a rather insightful new book entitled, Are We Rome?, although I was rather surprised at the conceptual and factual sources that he ignored. I agree with him that Rome did not so much “fall,” as break off into Western Civilization. If the overextended US does not vaporize much of our planet with nuclear weapons first, it most likely will suffer a similar decline since it simply can’t continue to pay the bills for both its welfare state on the one hand, and its warfare state on the other. In the process it is apt to suffer considerable “blowback” from revolutionary forces, “out there,” however reactionary we may view them, for they see us as in that way as well.



Some suggestions for further reading, related to this article:

*HJ Haskell, The New Deal in Old Rome (1938. 1943).

Cullen Murphy, Are We Rome? (2007).

Carroll Quigley, The Evolution of Civilizations (1961, 1979).

Amaury de Riencourt, The Coming Caesars (1957).

_______________, The Soul of China (1958).

_______________, The Soul of India (1961).

_______________, The American Empire (1967).



Copyright 2007
Comments


US as Rome (#112448)

by Nancy REYES on August 20, 2007 at 8:53 AM

I've been reading similar essays like this since I started reading newspapers in 1956. Evil America spending all this money against made up enemies and spreading it's evil all over the place...

It is 2007, and the Iron curtain fell a generation ago. Isn't it time to put away the Chomsky and start reading David Friedman instead?

Viet Nam, after losing 2 million of it's intellectuals as boat people, and another half million in reeducation camps, and 300 000 as refugees when they ethnically cleansed their Chinese population, has now embraced capitalism...Intel in Hanoi, thanks to California dudes who were born in Saigon going home to help.

If Ho had been allowed to win in 1950, then the "insurgents" would have similarly taken over Malaysia and the Philippines, and instead of the Asian tigers, we would all be cute peasants working behind our water buffalo on a socialist farm, worrying about the next harvest instead of eating spaghetti at Jolibee.

Similarly, your analysis of the Middle East blames the US for the "mess". Does this mess include the Dubai Towers, the shopping malls in Mecca, and the Farsi internet?

The middle East has had problems for 5000 years. Blame the Ottoman Empire for setting Sunnis in charge of Iraq. Or blame Ghengis Khan for looting Baghdad, or Darius for making Iraqis worry about Persian expansion.

As for an American "empire", the main thing in common that the US has with Rome is that it keeps the peace.

The Pax Americana, like the Pax Romana, was a good thing for the average man, allowing trade, peace, and prosperity for the average man.

And it's a heck of a lot better for most people that we had a Pax Americana than a Pax Stalin or a Pax Mao.


Comment by William Marina (#112476)

by Editor . on August 20, 2007 at 9:05 PM

Dear Ms Reyes,

I have bracketed my responses to your observations.
I've been reading similar essays like this since I started reading newspapers in 1956. Evil America spending all this money against made up enemies and spreading it's evil all over the place...
[In no place did I say America was "Evil," although I did point out, I believe, some very mistaken policies by our leaders during a good part of the last century.]
It is 2007, and the Iron curtain fell a generation ago. Isn't it time to put away the Chomsky and start reading David Friedman instead?
[Nor did I refer to Noam Chomsky, or David Friedman, whom I met when he was a young physicist visiting the Institute for Humane Studies at a time in the mid-1970s when I was the Liberty Fund Senior Research Scholar there.]
Viet Nam, after losing 2 million of it's intellectuals as boat people, and another half million in reeducation camps, and 300 000 as refugees when they ethnically cleansed their Chinese population, has now embraced capitalism...Intel in Hanoi, thanks to California dudes who were born in Saigon going home to help.
[I would hardly call Vietnam an example of "capitalism," although much of the destruction of that society, some of which you mention, could have been avoided had the US honored its notion that WWII had something to do with self-determination in Asia. The Vietnamese had done a superb job of rescuing American flyers from the Japanese, whereas Chiang's troops often sold them to our enemy.]
If Ho had been allowed to win in 1950, then the "insurgents" would have similarly taken over Malaysia and the Philippines, and instead of the Asian tigers, we would all be cute peasants working behind our water buffalo on a socialist farm, worrying about the next harvest instead of eating spaghetti at Jolibee.
[This, of course, is simply speculative nonsense on your part, although I believe you mean 1945. You confuse nationalism, and anti-imperialism with socialism as did people like Dulles.]
Similarly, your analysis of the Middle East blames the US for the "mess". Does this mess include the Dubai Towers, the shopping malls in Mecca, and the Farsi internet?
[Here, again, apart from Dubai's oil money, what is the relevance of your observations to the mess?]
The middle East has had problems for 5000 years. Blame the Ottoman Empire for setting Sunnis in charge of Iraq. Or blame Ghengis Khan for looting Baghdad, or Darius for making Iraqis worry about Persian expansion.
[Again, irrelevant to the situation today.]
As for an American "empire", the main thing in common that the US has with Rome is that it keeps the peace.
[As Tacitus observed, the Romans destroyed an area and called it peace. We seem to be pretty good at that as well. We also call it "order."]
The Pax Americana, like the Pax Romana, was a good thing for the average man, allowing trade, peace, and prosperity for the average man.
[It was essentially a "slave" economy, which ultimately destroyed the middle class as even the welfare aspect disintegrated.]
And it's a heck of a lot better for most people that we had a Pax Americana than a Pax Stalin or a Pax Mao.
[There is no evidence the Soviet Union or Mao's China had the capability of carrying out such a policy, and little evidence either tried to do so.]


Secession is freedom (#112509)

by Rich superman on August 21, 2007 at 3:15 PM

"Keeping the peace" boy, that is funny. Not much into reading history I presume. Let's see, we keep the peace by killing all potential revolutionaries. and their families. Can't beat that logic.


Neste "governico", os caras não sabem nada. Não levam em consideração, as queimadas ao fazer o levantamento do desmatamento amazônico e ainda vêm arrotar que o mesmo caiu! E ainda dizem que não há como diferenciar o desmatamento "legal" do "ilegal"... Ora, não tem cadastro, registro, qualquer tipo de relatório que se faça para o que se considere LEGAL?!?!


Confira em:


http://www.ambientebrasil.com.br/noticias/index.php3?action=ler&id=33014

The Looming Central Asian Battleground



After 16 years of relative quiescence, Central Asia is about to become a major field of competition between the Russians and the Chinese.

Over the weekend, the Chinese government sealed a series of energy deals with the governments of Kazakhstan and Turkmenistan. Airy promises of cooperation on the windswept Asian steppe are about as common as cold winters, but these deals are different. China's offers are monumental in scope, strategic in nature and backed up by cold, hard cash.
The two most critical projects involve the final phase of an oil pipeline to link China to Kazakhstan's sector of the Caspian Sea. Once the line is completed, China will be able to tap multiple oil-producing regions throughout Kazakhstan, and ultimately ship 1.0 million barrels per day into western China. The 2,000-mile project is already two-thirds complete -- and over the weekend, Beijing bellied up to finance the final leg.
The second project would link Turkmenistan to China via a natural gas line. This project has been under discussion for some time, but the Chinese have always been coy in public about the deal's prospects. Now their interest is public and firm. Beijing also has explicitly said it wants the line to transit Uzbekistan, which would link Tashkent's energy and political desires into China's policy.
Taken together, the two projects mark a sea change in the geopolitics of the region. For the past several years, Central Asia has witnessed incessant maneuvering between Russia -- the region's most recent colonial power -- and the United States, which seeks to harness the region's energy potential to Western purposes -- in addition to staking out strategic outposts between Russia, China and the Middle East.
This is a fight that the Russians have more or less won. The region's autocratic governments' one-time friendliness to Washington disintegrated after the United States backed the Orange Revolution in Ukraine. (They feared they were next -- and one, Kyrgyzstan, actually was.) Add in that distance prevented the United States from coming to anyone's aid and that all meaningful pre-existing infrastructure from the Soviet period led north to Russia, and Central Asia quickly fell into lockdown.
That is, it would have if not for China. Moscow considers the presence of Central Asia in Russia's tight geopolitical orbit as the one bright spot on its list of ongoing geopolitical realities. As such, Moscow has focused the bulk of its military and economic efforts elsewhere. In contrast, China knows full well that it is working from an institutional, linguistic and infrastructure deficit -- and so has been spending billions to improve its chances.
The reason for the attention is simple. China is forced to import the majority of its energy from abroad. China fears many things, but few frighten it more than the possibility of having its maritime supply routes cut off by hostile powers. China lacks -- and will continue to lack for at least a generation -- the navy to protect its maritime interests and so its only option is to go inland. And that means Central Asia.
This means that, barring a bilateral divide-and-conquer plan in which the two share what they both exclusively need, a Chinese clash with the Russians has moved from the realm of the possible to the inevitable. Russian state natural gas firm Gazprom is currently the sole significant purchaser of Central Asian natural gas exports.
China's plans do not foresee exploiting many fresh sources of natural gas in the region, but simply diverting output from routes Russian to routes Chinese. This development, which could be in place as soon as 2009, would greatly interfere with Russia's strategic policies in a very real, sudden and broad sense.
Given Gazprom's technical limitations, without Central Asian natural gas, Gazprom can meet its export requirements for Europe or it can meet domestic demand -- not both. And considering that cheap energy acts as a panacea for social disruption at home and is a critical arm of strategic policy abroad, the Chinese decision to grab the ring will muck with Russian geostrategy in Europe, Central Asia and even at home.
The game is on.
Por esta eu não esperava. O lanche escolar em Moçambique é privilegiado aos homens!
20-08-2007
Crianças estudam esfomeadas

Governo não suporta lanche escolar

O governo de Moçambique não consegue suportar o programa lanche escolar nos estabelecimentos do ensino primário, tal como o programa escolar obriga o executivo a cumprir.

De acordo com o técnico do Programa de Alimentação Escolar no Ministério da Educação e Cultura da Direcção de Programas Especiais e Departamento de Produção Alimentar Escolar, Marcelino Matola, presentemente o governo custeia o lanche escolar em apenas 172 escolas em todo País, para um horizonte de mais 10 mil escolas daquele nível, e, mesmo assim, fá-lo com dificuldades alegadamente devido a falta de recursos materiais e financeiros.

Marcelino Matola disse que “no passado o Ministério da Educação e Cultura recebia apoios e outros recursos materiais e financeiros para suportar o programa lanche escolar”. “O programa lanche escolar nas três regiões do País nomeadamente Centro, Norte e Sul foi implementado em 2002 com o intuito de incentivar a rapariga a não desistir da escola por falta de alimentação”.

Segundo Marcelino Matola “antes de se implementar o programa lanche escolar nas escolas haviam muitas desistências da rapariga”.

Ainda segundo ele “implementamos o lanche escolar nas escolas de modo a alimentarmos a rapariga que não tem uma alimentação condigna no seio familiar”.

“Com o programa lanche escolar motivamos a rapariga para estudar e concluir com o seu nível”, disse Marcelino Matola.

Questionado pelo «Canal de Moçambique» sobre os critérios de selecção para o programa lanche escolar. Marcelino Matola disse que “as escolas contempladas para o lanche escolar foram as que apresentavam um elevado número de crianças vulneráveis à fome, e outras de longe da cidade, de entre outros aspectos concorrentes”.

(Conceição Vitorino) - CANAL E MOÇAMBIQUE - 20.08.2007
20-08-2007 in Ensino - Educação - Juventude


Comments

O problema do lanche escolar não pode ser visto como da rapariga, porque a desistência escolar da rapariga não é somente devido ao lanche mais sim devido a um conjunto de normas discriminatórias, da sociedade e da familia que previlegia a educação do rapaz.

Mas o lanche escolar afecta todas as crianças, porque reduz e completamente a concentração delas. reduzindo deste modo qualquer capacidade de percepção da matéria ministrada pelos professores.

É necessário que sejam melhoradas as condições de ensino o que implica não só no lanche mais de toda os mecanismo que fazem a articulação para que o ensino seja melhor, as infraestruturas, os salários dos professores a presença dos pais nas escolas com mais frequência.


Posted by: maira solange hari domingos 21-08-2007 at 16:36


Guerrilha rural brasileira monta arsenal



20 de agosto de 2007
O presidente se desmascara diante da sociedade consciente e ordeira, provê de recursos e manipula seu "Taleban", usado como movimentode pressão psicopolítica para conquistar apoio ao famigerado 3o.mandato, a desgraça da Nação.




Do Observatório de Inteligência

Por Orion Alencastro

A força nacional de guerrilha rural denominada MST e seus congregados movimentos orientados, doutrinados e treinados em armas brancas e de fogo por proselitistas, professores, instrutores externos, notadamente das FARC, e ex-estagiários em Cuba, teriam disponíveis em território nacional o equivalente a 180 mil armas, com predominância de fuzis de procedência estrangeira, novos e usados, em bom estado de conservação.
FARC: fazenda-escola aserviço do ditador HugoChávez.
O conhecimento do estimado arsenal disponível é parte de informações e avaliações integradas de serviços secretos do exterior, em operação na América Latina e desenvolvendo trabalho de campo especialmente no Brasil. O fato reforça a matéria publicada neste site, em 1 de agosto, intitulada "Movimentos sociais: Taleban do Palácio e do PT contra vaias e marchas", que apontou o “Taleban tupiniquim” do governo que não condena o terrorismo, tolera o contrabando de armas e o permanente narcotráfico, tudo parte de organizações subterrâneas de sustentação da esquerda no Brasil e na América Latina.
"A guarda do armamento e munições obedeceria rigorosa instrução passada a seleto grupo dos "pretensiosos guerrilheiros" e estaria acondicionada em instalações subterrâneas, distribuídas nos estados de São Paulo, Rio de Janeiro, Mato Grosso do Sul, Paraná e Rio Grande do Sul. A propósito, na operação de desocupação de propriedades invadidas, sob cumprimento de mandado judicial, as Polícias Militares não costumam dar buscas e nem revistam os retirantes e veículos à procura de armas, como vimos recentemente no oeste do Paraná.
O material bélico - armas, munições e artefatos - foi introduzido no país em lotes, via aérea e pelos caminhos da Tríplice Fronteira, e contou com a cobertura de agentes que aparelham o quadro de servidores dos ministérios e organismos vinculados às questões agrárias e trabalho, os mesmos que estimulam e protegem dissimuladamente as operações de invasões e ocupações de propriedades e os eventos congressuais do MST e similares.
Os recursos financeiros para a aquisição seriam procedentes de aportes oficiais, doações do exterior e do narcoterrorismo da América Latina. Os serviços secretos admitem que o Governo brasileiro é e será o grande responsável pelo fomento da guerrilha rural e suas ligações com outros movimentos deliberadamente marxistas revolucionários que estariam conduzindo o país para um conflito civil, fato este já conhecido da Presidência da República, sob o estímulo do presidente venezuelano Hugo Chávez. O comandante revolucionário da América Latina está, no momento, interessado em ser o interlocutor com as FARC na liberação de seus sequestrados, angariando as atenções da diplomacia e da mídia mundial.
Nelson Jobim faz da Anac e Infraeroseu desjejum, resta-lhe estar pre-parado para as audácias de movi-mentos sociais e ameaças à PazSocial, com inferências externas detoda ordem. O ministro, como juris-dicista, não quer tomar conheci-mento de que o adversário está noGoverno, no próprio Palácio doPlanalto.
Vaticano se acautela contra MST
A cúria romana, na sua visão global dos problemas agrários nas distintas regiões do planeta, acompanha com cautela a orientação do MST e não deseja envolvimento da Comissão Pastoral da Terra, vinculada à Igreja Católica, com eventuais acenos de radicalização nas questões do campo. Observa-se que a Pastoral da Terra se afasta do MST que se alinha no cumprimento de estratégias dissimuladas com o Palácio do Planalto, provedor de recursos para a movimentação organizacional na educação e formação de seus quadros, desde tenra idade. (OI/Brasil acima de tudo)

Tom Tancredo's Final Solution



Meet the biggest fool running for president.
By Timothy Noah
Posted Friday, Aug. 3, 2007, at 5:17 PM ET

Wouldn't you know it. The Weekly World News announces that it will cease publication (it will retain its presence on the Web), and within a week there surfaces irrefutable evidence that space aliens ate Tom Tancredo's brain. Addressing 30 people at the Family Table restaurant in Osceola, Iowa, the presidential candidate and Republican House member from Colorado outlined his highly original position on homeland defense:
If it is up to me, we are going to explain that an attack on this homeland of that nature would be followed by an attack on the holy sites in Mecca and Medina. Because that is the only thing I can think of that might deter somebody from doing what they would otherwise do. But as I say, if I am wrong, fine. … I would be happy to do something else. But you had better find a deterrent or you will find an attack. There is no other way around it. There have got to be negative consequences for the actions they take. That's the most negative I can think of.
A cynic might wonder whether Tancredo's proposal to take out the two holiest sites in Islam is a pathetic bid for attention by a candidate whose support among Republican voters is stuck at 1 percent, below Texas Rep. Ron Paul, former Health and Human Services Secretary Tommy Thompson, and Kansas Sen. Sam Brownback. If you listen to the audio, you'll observe that people in the restaurant had begun talking rather loudly among themselves when Tancredo brought this Mecca and Medina idea up (and, amazingly, scarcely piped down as he discussed it).
The problem with this hypothesis is that it wasn't the first time this imbecilic bigot displayed an inability to distinguish the relatively small group of active Islamist terrorists (numbering at best in the thousands) from the significantly larger group of people who are Muslims but do not intend to attack the United States (approximately 1 billion, representing about one-sixth of the world population, a few million of whom live here in the United States). Tancredo caused an uproar two years ago when he leveled the same threat on a talk-radio program in Florida. In a July 2005 op-ed, Tancredo answered his critics thusly:
Many critics of my statements have characterized them as "offensive," and indeed they may have offended some. But in this battle against fundamentalist Islam, I am hardly preoccupied with political correctness, or who may or may not be offended. Indeed, al-Qaeda cares little if the Western world is "offended" by televised images of hostages beheaded in Iraq, subway bombings in London, train attacks in Madrid, or Americans jumping to their death from the Twin Towers as they collapsed. … Until "mainstream" Islam can bring itself to stop rationalizing terrorist attacks … this war will continue. As long as this war goes on, being "offended" should be the least of anyone's worries.
Tancredo is, of course, right that many mainstream Muslims have rationalized terrorist attacks against the West. But (at risk of belaboring the obvious) many mainstream Muslims have not. How destruction of Islam's holiest sites could possibly represent appropriate punishment even for the trash-talkers is not immediately obvious. More prosaically, how exactly do you win a war against the world's second-most-popular religion? We tried it during the Crusades. It was a really good effort, but it didn't work. True, now we have nukes. But they have nukes, too, congressman. Ever visited Jerusalem? If not, I suggest you take the wife and kids there soon, because you won't have the opportunity after you put your homeland defense plan into action.
Timothy Noah is a senior writer at Slate.
Article URL: http://www.slate.com/id/2171667/
Copyright 2007 Washingtonpost.Newsweek Interactive Co. LLC

Assentamentos na Amazônia beneficiam madeireiras, diz jornal





Como a Reforma Agrária e o Plano de Desenvolvimento Sustentável têm induzido ao desmatamento: http://www.estadao.com.br/vidae/not_vid38218,0.htm