Brazzil

....that Brazilians politicians spits on the the citizens faces !
But how are the citizens reacting ?
They simply re-elect those spitting on their faces.

Brazilians enjoy your masochism.

........with President Luiz Inácio Lula da Silva in the role of Ali Baba."

I am afraid to be the source of this parallel !!!!!!!


Except that I was talking of 4000 thieves.....not 40 !

Low self esteem, no self respect.

No,John.The middle class people always knew what the result was going to be.They carried enough Kleenex tissues to clean their faces.What makes me feel better is that one senator from our state voted in booting out Renan.The other one who got elected in 2002,riding the waves of PT, opted to abstain,lie or vote in favor of Renan.

BTW,John, Renan is going to continue to be the President of Senate and contribute to the "welfare" of the Brazilian people.The "democracy" always wins in Secret votes!

Anyone who wants to bet against the CPMF being approved in both houses?

I really did not want to comment on this issue.But,since John insisted that the Senate spat on the face of the Brazilian people, I wanted to make it clear that a few millions carried Kleenex tissues

Low self esteem, no self respect.

On part of those Senators or the VERY few millions of Brasilian people who knew what the outcome was going to be?

I had to hold back from slugging co workers who were "surprised" with the Senate’s vote. I’m totally miffed at how anyone can spend any considerable amount of time in this nation and feel that justice will be done, or at the very least, be seen to be done.

With the Mensaleiros having to appear before a judge I can almost see how some optimism maybe allowed to ferment, but it’s just a sideshow to take away attention and everyone should know that it will be later swept under the rug, like everything else in Brazilian politics. (Please, I urge all to find John’s other articles on Brazilian politics – he’s got Brazil nailed down. Especially his article entitled “Brazil needs a mental revolution”)

As I saw friends and family feign outrage at the verdict, it became all the more evident to me that this too would be a passing moment in Brazilian middle class outrage, and I was correct, because the subject lasted about 2 minutes before being transformed into discussions about football and fashion. The all too famous ferret-like attention span that has plagued Brazilians for centuries kicked into high stride. Something else will happen tomorrow, people will be outraged for 20 minutes, forget, and move on; like they’ve been doing for centuries.

Brazil won’t change, because Brazilians don’t WANT to change. Our esteemed and learned friend João here may disagree with this defeatist attitude, but for me to be convinced to the contrary I can’t rely on words written in a forum any more, I need to see action in the streets, and until George Bush comes to visit, the streets will remain empty and the botecas full, and the chant of “Brasssssil”, chum chum chum, “Brasssil” chum chum chum, followed by that everpresent sound of fireworks (pop,pop,pop,pop, BOOM) will continue….

The land of missed opportunities…..

The land of missed opportunities

The land of miss d por nities

Gaps in accountability and potholes seems to be universal everywhere. Impunity, now that's another matter and one that won't be resolved anytime before the next election.

Our esteemed and learned friend João here may disagree with this defeatist attitude,

No Dr.Pinga.It is not a defeatist attitude,but a healthy one to discuss among your coworkers,friends and family members.You are doing a big favor to the Brasilians who are living in a temperory state of euphoria.Unless people like us question the complacency of the middle class,this country will always remain a land of missed opportunities.

Though I like to tease Cris Buarque, I think he is another great voice (Though Ch.c may not agree with me). I like Fitzpatrick´s articles too, as he does not have a defeatist attitude either.

As our disappeared friend "A Brazilian" mentioned, we lost our moral values. "The Brazilian Dude" also says the same thing.

Keep up your good work,Dr.Pinga. I really cant imagine you to be a defeatist (it does not fit your personality)

(Please, I urge all to find John’s other articles on Brazilian politics – he’s got Brazil nailed down. Especially his article entitled “Brazil needs a mental revolution”)

1) I took some time off to read Pinga´s suggestion to read this article. I loved it and hope lots of other Brazilians read it too.

2) Among other articles written by Fitzpatrick is the interview he had with late Mario Henrique Simonsen, in 1995. This is another must for all the readers.

3) It is a pity that not many Brasilian readers have commented on this article "Senate Spits in the Face of the Brazilian People"

It doesn't surprise me one bit, while MULA is in Spain, good tactics MR. Al-Mula bin Lula!

something to consider...


September 18, 2007
Is ‘Do Unto Others’ Written Into Our Genes?
By NICHOLAS WADE
Where do moral rules come from? From reason, some philosophers say. From God, say believers. Seldom considered is a source now being advocated by some biologists, that of evolution.
At first glance, natural selection and the survival of the fittest may seem to reward only the most selfish values. But for animals that live in groups, selfishness must be strictly curbed or there will be no advantage to social living. Could the behaviors evolved by social animals to make societies work be the foundation from which human morality evolved?
In a series of recent articles and a book, “The Happiness Hypothesis,” Jonathan Haidt, a moral psychologist at the University of Virginia, has been constructing a broad evolutionary view of morality that traces its connections both to religion and to politics.
Dr. Haidt (pronounced height) began his research career by probing the emotion of disgust. Testing people’s reactions to situations like that of a hungry family that cooked and ate its pet dog after it had become roadkill, he explored the phenomenon of moral dumbfounding — when people feel strongly that something is wrong but cannot explain why.
Dumbfounding led him to view morality as driven by two separate mental systems, one ancient and one modern, though the mind is scarcely aware of the difference. The ancient system, which he calls moral intuition, is based on the emotion-laden moral behaviors that evolved before the development of language. The modern system — he calls it moral judgment — came after language, when people became able to articulate why something was right or wrong.
The emotional responses of moral intuition occur instantaneously — they are primitive gut reactions that evolved to generate split-second decisions and enhance survival in a dangerous world. Moral judgment, on the other hand, comes later, as the conscious mind develops a plausible rationalization for the decision already arrived at through moral intuition.
Moral dumbfounding, in Dr. Haidt’s view, occurs when moral judgment fails to come up with a convincing explanation for what moral intuition has decided.
So why has evolution equipped the brain with two moral systems when just one might seem plenty?
“We have a complex animal mind that only recently evolved language and language-based reasoning,” Dr. Haidt said. “No way was control of the organism going to be handed over to this novel faculty.”
He likens the mind’s subterranean moral machinery to an elephant, and conscious moral reasoning to a small rider on the elephant’s back. Psychologists and philosophers have long taken a far too narrow view of morality, he believes, because they have focused on the rider and largely ignored the elephant.

Dr. Haidt developed a better sense of the elephant after visiting India at the suggestion of an anthropologist, Richard Shweder. In Bhubaneswar, in the Indian state of Orissa, Dr. Haidt saw that people recognized a much wider moral domain than the issues of harm and justice that are central to Western morality. Indians were concerned with integrating the community through rituals and committed to concepts of religious purity as a way to restrain behavior.
On his return from India, Dr. Haidt combed the literature of anthropology and psychology for ideas about morality throughout the world. He identified five components of morality that were common to most cultures. Some concerned the protection of individuals, others the ties that bind a group together.
Of the moral systems that protect individuals, one is concerned with preventing harm to the person and the other with reciprocity and fairness. Less familiar are the three systems that promote behaviors developed for strengthening the group. These are loyalty to the in-group, respect for authority and hierarchy, and a sense of purity or sanctity.
The five moral systems, in Dr. Haidt’s view, are innate psychological mechanisms that predispose children to absorb certain virtues. Because these virtues are learned, morality may vary widely from culture to culture, while maintaining its central role of restraining selfishness. In Western societies, the focus is on protecting individuals by insisting that everyone be treated fairly. Creativity is high, but society is less orderly. In many other societies, selfishness is suppressed “through practices, rituals and stories that help a person play a cooperative role in a larger social entity,” Dr. Haidt said.
He is aware that many people — including “the politically homogeneous discipline of psychology” — equate morality with justice, rights and the welfare of the individual, and dismiss everything else as mere social convention. But many societies around the world do in fact behave as if loyalty, respect for authority and sanctity are moral concepts, Dr. Haidt notes, and this justifies taking a wider view of the moral domain.
The idea that morality and sacredness are intertwined, he said, may now be out of fashion but has a venerable pedigree, tracing back to Emile Durkheim, a founder of sociology.
Dr. Haidt believes that religion has played an important role in human evolution by strengthening and extending the cohesion provided by the moral systems. “If we didn’t have religious minds we would not have stepped through the transition to groupishness,” he said. “We’d still be just small bands roving around.”
Religious behavior may be the result of natural selection, in his view, shaped at a time when early human groups were competing with one another. “Those who found ways to bind themselves together were more successful,” he said.

Dr. Haidt came to recognize the importance of religion by a roundabout route. “I first found divinity in disgust,” he writes in his book “The Happiness Hypothesis.”
The emotion of disgust probably evolved when people became meat eaters and had to learn which foods might be contaminated with bacteria, a problem not presented by plant foods. Disgust was then extended to many other categories, he argues, to people who were unclean, to unacceptable sexual practices and to a wide class of bodily functions and behaviors that were seen as separating humans from animals.
“Imagine visiting a town,” Dr. Haidt writes, “where people wear no clothes, never bathe, have sex ‘doggie style’ in public, and eat raw meat by biting off pieces directly from the carcass.”
He sees the disgust evoked by such a scene as allied to notions of physical and religious purity. Purity is, in his view, a moral system that promotes the goals of controlling selfish desires and acting in a religiously approved way.
Notions of disgust and purity are widespread outside Western cultures. “Educated liberals are the only group to say, ‘I find that disgusting but that doesn’t make it wrong,’ ” Dr. Haidt said.
Working with a graduate student, Jesse Graham, Dr. Haidt has detected a striking political dimension to morality. He and Mr. Graham asked people to identify their position on a liberal-conservative spectrum and then complete a questionnaire that assessed the importance attached to each of the five moral systems. (The test, called the moral foundations questionnaire, can be taken online, at www.YourMorals.org.)
They found that people who identified themselves as liberals attached great weight to the two moral systems protective of individuals — those of not harming others and of doing as you would be done by. But liberals assigned much less importance to the three moral systems that protect the group, those of loyalty, respect for authority and purity.
Conservatives placed value on all five moral systems but they assigned less weight than liberals to the moralities protective of individuals.
Dr. Haidt believes that many political disagreements between liberals and conservatives may reflect the different emphasis each places on the five moral categories.
Take attitudes to contemporary art and music. Conservatives fear that subversive art will undermine authority, violate the in-group’s traditions and offend canons of purity and sanctity. Liberals, on the other hand, see contemporary art as protecting equality by assailing the establishment, especially if the art is by oppressed groups.
Extreme liberals, Dr. Haidt argues, attach almost no importance to the moral systems that protect the group. Because conservatives do give some weight to individual protections, they often have a better understanding of liberal views than liberals do of conservative attitudes, in his view.
Dr. Haidt, who describes himself as a moderate liberal, says that societies need people with both types of personality. “A liberal morality will encourage much greater creativity but will weaken social structure and deplete social capital,” he said. “I am really glad we have New York and San Francisco — most of our creativity comes out of cities like these. But a nation that was just New York and San Francisco could not survive very long. Conservatives give more to charity and tend to be more supportive of essential institutions like the military and law enforcement.”
Other psychologists have mixed views about Dr. Haidt’s ideas.
Steven Pinker, a cognitive scientist at Harvard, said, “I’m a big fan of Haidt’s work.” He added that the idea of including purity in the moral domain could make psychological sense even if purity had no place in moral reasoning.
But Frans B. M. de Waal, a primatologist at Emory University, said he disagreed with Dr. Haidt’s view that the task of morality is to suppress selfishness. Many animals show empathy and altruistic tendencies but do not have moral systems.

“For me, the moral system is one that resolves the tension between individual and group interests in a way that seems best for the most members of the group, hence promotes a give and take,” Dr. de Waal said.
He said that he also disagreed with Dr. Haidt’s alignment of liberals with individual rights and conservatives with social cohesiveness.
“It is obvious that liberals emphasize the common good — safety laws for coal mines, health care for all, support for the poor — that are not nearly as well recognized by conservatives,” Dr. de Waal said.
That alignment also bothers John T. Jost, a political psychologist at New York University. Dr. Jost said he admired Dr. Haidt as a “very interesting and creative social psychologist” and found his work useful in drawing attention to the strong moral element in political beliefs.
But the fact that liberals and conservatives agree on the first two of Dr. Haidt’s principles — do no harm and do unto others as you would have them do unto you — means that those are good candidates to be moral virtues. The fact that liberals and conservatives disagree on the other three principles “suggests to me that they are not general moral virtues but specific ideological commitments or values,” Dr. Jost said.
In defense of his views, Dr. Haidt said that moral claims could be valid even if not universally acknowledged.
“It is at least possible,” he said, “that conservatives and traditional societies have some moral or sociological insights that secular liberals do not understand.”

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/09...nted=print

I guess, most bankers in "your country have not "developed" the do onto others gene

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/09/18/world/18nations.html

Shelly, I buried Haidt in philos 101. Well maybe I got away with it because I was only up against the TA and a bunch of L&S undergrads. Anyway, pay attention to the title and think more deeply. Producing long excerpts of others contributions while academically proper and perhaps relevant is exceedingly boring for us slow readers to get through and see there's nothing new originating from the poster's own formulation. It's easier to skip through ch.c's blasting tirades and find something of unique and potentially revolutionizing thought processes valuewise even if it's coming from such a p head.

John,
Congratulations on a superb article.

If you ever get tired of having insults thrown at your articles in www.brazzil.com, then this article shows you how to ensure receiving compliments.

Stick it too these mongrel politicians, and I guarantee you will receive supporting and congratulatory writings.

These pig swines in Brasilia that suck our blood, f**k over every poor person in Brasil, are a disgrace to the human race. I know there are some good politicians in Brasil, but they so overwhelmed by the filth like Jader B, Fernandor Collor, etc and the other North Easterners, they are just the lowest form of life you can imagine. I remain the eternal optimist, and hope that justice will be done (yes, call me a fool); but having a strong press and jounralists who write articles like this is essential insurance to our democracy in Brasil.

Thanks for the long boring comments. I am saving them for some night when I have insomnia, should put me right to sleep.

and the other North Easterners, they are just the lowest form of life you can imagine.

Just try to say that in public in Brasil, espeacilly to some sergipano, as Bo always say. You'll go to jail. But what do you expect? That they recognize that they are? and then they can't understand why the southterners want to separate The south from the rest...

Brazil won’t change, because Brazilians don’t WANT to change. Our esteemed and learned friend João here may disagree with this defeatist attitude, but for me to be convinced to the contrary I can’t rely on words written in a forum any more, I need to see action in the streets, and until George Bush comes to visit, the streets will remain empty and the botecas full, and the chant of “Brasssssil”, chum chum chum, “Brasssil” chum chum chum, followed by that everpresent sound of fireworks (pop,pop,pop,pop, BOOM) will continue….

The land of missed opportunities…..

LOL...well, you nailed that one! It's an unfortunately reality, but an accurate one! I just got back from a month in the states, and let me tell you, there are Brazilians that take action.....they're in America!! They've obviously realized and taken action on the obvious.....Brazil is never going to change in their lifetimes! So, they've went to america AND are flourishing there....believe me!

Just try to say that in public in Brasil, espeacilly to some sergipano, as Bo always say. You'll go to jail.

You just may get shot.