Brazzil

Such as Cristovam Buarque...by his own definition !!!!!
-)

George W. Bush, the head of state sponsored terrorism. Short live he...

THE BOOK "A INCONVENIENT TRUTH" Is Fiction...Global Warming is a leftist anti america agenda ...The Propaganda of idiots....

I thought Nero had burned a third of Rome in order to build his own personal palace, because he thought of himself as God.

That Brazil is also the place for the minority elite who built their own personal palaces ?
Of course that is the sad reality. Instead of burning the cities, they just make sure that regular chaos happens such as the ones in SP and Rio. Or by the killings of hundreds of innocent citizens yearly. Or by not providing good education and healthcare to their slaves !!!!

YESSSS THE BRAZILIAN POPULATION ARE THE SLAVES OF THEIR MINORITY ELITE AND LULA IS YOUR NERO !!!!!

and who suffers the most by our world incineration-not the rich, they are not prepared to go without. maybe this is what it takes to right the wrongs of the wealthy. the poor will have their day. despite all the negativity directed towards you at times...mostly American based...you appear to have compassion for your country. how do you explain the poor results in your campaigns? I am curious.

just read the articles on the far left column of this page site :

- In Brazil, the Worker President Became Emperor
- Brazil's Budget, an Instrument of Inequality
- Brazil, a Land of Plenty for the Few
- Brazil's Lula Confesses Venial Sins and Hides Mortal Ones
- Brazil Is Falling Behind, But We Keep Talking About Our Progress
- Terror and Development, According to Brazil's Cardoso
- Lula's Missed Chance of Cutting Illiteracy in Half in Brazil
- Lula Was Never the Leader He Should Have Been. And Brazil Is Much Poorer for That.
- We Brazilians Are Deaf, Incapable of Feeling Indignation
- Dreamers of Brazil, Wake Up!
- The Elite Failed Brazil: Intellectuals Don't Think, Politicians Don't Lead.
- Lula's Education Program for Brazil: a Grim Comedy of Errors
- Inequality Is As Brazilian As the Weather and the Beaches
- Brazil Agrees It Needs More Education But Nobody Wants to Foot the Bill (Some say why provide even basic education to people destined to be sugarcane cutter or pig iron worker anyway)
- Brazil Has a Pact of Mediocrity in Economy, Society and Culture (laugh....laugh...laugh isnt it what I am telling you for quite a long time ?)
- Brazil Celebrates Slow Progress While the World Zooms Fast Ahead
- Decade After Decade, Brazil Stumbles from One Missed Opportunity to Another
- While Brazil Seems in a Civil War Congress Only Cares for Pay Hike

And these are only a small part of all articles on that subject on this site !!!!!!


And please....please....please....if you disagree with the contents, send your critics directly to the author(s).....AND NOT TO ME !
I have invented nothing against Brazil and Brazilians....contrary to what you may believe or may suggest ! reality is much darker than what you believe.
You are in a state of anarchy ! Simple as that !

And be proud of your wealth inequality and read :
- Brazil Among World's 10 Most Unequal Countries.
Written by Lílian Macedo
Thursday, 08 September 2005
The United Nations Human Development Report analyzed 177 countries and concluded that Brazil ranks eighth (from worst to best) in terms of social inequalities.

Your neighbours in the rankings are sub saharan African countries ! Be proud to be compared to them !!!!

And even Paul Wolfowitz World Bank President said publicly while in Brazil :

"Something like 10 percent of the population lives on less than a dollar a day - what we define as extreme poverty. "
Wolfowitz says about 25 percent of the population in the region lives on less than $2 a day.
"It does have, I think, the most severe inequality of any region in the world except for sub-Saharan Africa."

DONT BE SO PROUD OF YOUR COMPARATIVE RANKINGS !!!!

WAKE UP STAND UP...OR ARE BRAZILIANS CITIZENS...... BORN MASOCHISTS ???????

Global warming labeled a 'scam'
By Al Webb
THE WASHINGTON TIMES
March 6, 2007
LONDON --
LONDON -- With a packet of claims that are almost certain to defy conventional wisdom, a television documentary to be aired in Britain this week condemns man-made global warming as a myth that has become "the biggest scam of modern times."
The program titled "The Great Global Warming Scandal" and set for screening by TV Channel 4 on Thursday dismisses claims that high levels of greenhouse gases generated by human activity causes climate change. Instead, the program suggests that the sun itself is the real culprit.
The documentary, directed by filmmaker Martin Durkin, is at odds with scientific opinion as outlined in a United Nations report in February, which blames mankind for global warming.
In his program, Mr. Durkin rejects the concept of man-made climate change, calling it "a lie ... the biggest scam of modern times."
The truth, he says, is that global warming "is a multibillion-dollar worldwide industry, created by fanatically anti-industrial environmentalists, supported by scientists peddling scare stories to chase funding, and propped up by compliant politicians and the media."
Channel 4 says that the program features "an impressive roll-call of experts," including nine professors, who are experts in climatology, oceanography, meteorology, biogeography and paleoclimatology.
It also says the experts come from prestigious institutions such as the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, the National Aeronautics and Space Administration, the Pasteur Institute in Paris, the Danish National Space Center and universities and other schools in London, Ottawa, Jerusalem, Alabama, Virginia and Winnipeg, Canada.
"It's very rare that a film changes history," says Martin Durkin, "but I think this is a turning point, and in five years the idea that the greenhouse effect is the main reason behind global warming will be seen as total bunk," he says.
His program collides sharply with the premise outlined in former Vice President Al Gore's Oscar-winning documentary, "An Inconvenient Truth," which presents a bleak picture of how a buildup in greenhouse gases such as carbon dioxide affects the global climate, with potentially disastrous consequences.
"Al Gore might have won an Oscar," says Mr. Durkin, in a preview of the documentary, "but the film is very misleading, and he has got the relationship between [carbon dioxide] and climate change the wrong way around."
One of the filmmaker's experts, paleontologist professor Ian Clark of the University of Ottawa, says that global warming could be caused by increased activity on the sun, such as massive eruptions, and that ice-core samples from Antarctica show that, in fact, warmer periods in Earth's history have come about 800 years before rises in carbon dioxide levels.
Mr. Clark's findings appear to contradict the work of other scientists, who have used similar ice-core samples to illustrate that raised levels of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere have accompanied the various global warming periods.


Page 1 of 2 next »

"The fact is that [carbon dioxide] has no proven link to global temperatures," says Mr. Durkin. "Solar activity is far more likely to be the culprit."
Scientists in the Channel 4 documentary cite what they claim is another discrepancy involving conventional research, saying that most of the recent global warming occurred before 1940, after which temperatures around the world fell for four decades.
Mr. Durkin's skeptical specialists view this as a flaw in the official view, because the worldwide economic boom that followed the end of World War II produced more carbon dioxide, and therefore should have meant a rise in global temperatures -- something he says did not happen.
"The Great Global Warming Swindle" also questions an assertion by the U.N. Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change's report, published last month, that it was backed by some 2,500 of the world's leading scientists.
Another of Mr. Durkin's professors, Paul Reiter of Paris' Pasteur Institute, an expert in malaria, calls the U.N. report a "sham" because, he says, it included the names of scientists -- including his own -- who disagreed with the report and who resigned from the panel.
"That is how they make it seem that all the top scientists are agreed," he says. "It's not true."
Mr. Reiter says his name was removed only after he threatened legal action against the panel. The report itself, he adds, was finalized by government appointees.
Yet another expert in the Durkin documentary, Philip Stott, professor emeritus of biogeography at the School of Oriental and African Studies in London, is more circumspect.
"The [climate] system is too complex to say exactly what the effect of cutting back on [carbon dioxide] production would be or, indeed, of continuing to produce [carbon dioxide]."
"The greenhouse effect theory worried me from the start," Mr. Stott says, "because you can't say that just one factor can have this effect."
"At the moment, there is almost a McCarthyism movement in science where the greenhouse effect is like a puritanical religion, and this is dangerous," he says.

and as proof of my above statements......
written by ch.c., 2007-03-16 02:05:12

just read the articles on the far left column of this page site :

- In Brazil, the Worker President Became Emperor
- Brazil's Budget, an Instrument of Inequality
- Brazil, a Land of Plenty for the Few
- Brazil's Lula Confesses Venial Sins and Hides Mortal Ones
- Brazil Is Falling Behind, But We Keep Talking About Our Progress
- Terror and Development, According to Brazil's Cardoso
- Lula's Missed Chance of Cutting Illiteracy in Half in Brazil
- Lula Was Never the Leader He Should Have Been. And Brazil Is Much Poorer for That.
- We Brazilians Are Deaf, Incapable of Feeling Indignation
- Dreamers of Brazil, Wake Up!
- The Elite Failed Brazil: Intellectuals Don't Think, Politicians Don't Lead.
- Lula's Education Program for Brazil: a Grim Comedy of Errors
- Inequality Is As Brazilian As the Weather and the Beaches
- Brazil Agrees It Needs More Education But Nobody Wants to Foot the Bill (Some say why provide even basic education to people destined to be sugarcane cutter or pig iron worker anyway)
- Brazil Has a Pact of Mediocrity in Economy, Society and Culture (laugh....laugh...laugh isnt it what I am telling you for quite a long time ?)
- Brazil Celebrates Slow Progress While the World Zooms Fast Ahead
- Decade After Decade, Brazil Stumbles from One Missed Opportunity to Another
- While Brazil Seems in a Civil War Congress Only Cares for Pay Hike

And these are only a small part of all articles on that subject on this site !!!!!!


And please....please....please....if you disagree with the contents, send your critics directly to the author(s).....AND NOT TO ME !
I have invented nothing against Brazil and Brazilians....contrary to what you may believe or may suggest ! reality is much darker than what you believe.
You are in a state of anarchy ! Simple as that !

And be proud of your wealth inequality and read :
- Brazil Among World's 10 Most Unequal Countries.
Written by Lílian Macedo
Thursday, 08 September 2005
The United Nations Human Development Report analyzed 177 countries and concluded that Brazil ranks eighth (from worst to best) in terms of social inequalities.

Your neighbours in the rankings are sub saharan African countries ! Be proud to be compared to them !!!!

And even Paul Wolfowitz World Bank President said publicly while in Brazil :

"Something like 10 percent of the population lives on less than a dollar a day - what we define as extreme poverty. "
Wolfowitz says about 25 percent of the population in the region lives on less than $2 a day.
"It does have, I think, the most severe inequality of any region in the world except for sub-Saharan Africa."

DONT BE SO PROUD OF YOUR COMPARATIVE RANKINGS !!!!

WAKE UP STAND UP...OR ARE BRAZILIANS CITIZENS...... BORN MASOCHISTS ???????

Good post ch.c, I give it a 9.8, if you could've squeezed in "tropical mud" it would have gotten a perfect 10!

Nero was one of the greatest Roman emperors of all time. He was not the one who burned Rome. Fires were quite common back then in a a city where slums were all made of wood. Christians have trashed his rep**ation making up all sort of lies about him. He was one of the few emperors that supported the rule of law even regarding trials involving his enemies and often preferred exiles to capital punishment . During his reign shows where gladiators killed each others were prohibited and wild beasts used intead. He was loved by the masses and hated by the oligarchy of senators and would have never done something as crazy as alienating the support of the people in a time when Roman senators plotted against him on a daily basis.
Unfortunately christian along teh centuries have rewritten history according to their "historical needs" so we should be more cautious in determing who the bad guys really were.

Brazil's police 'execute thousands'
By Angus Stickler
BBC News, Rio de Janeiro


Rio's police are heavily armed in many areas of the city
Hundreds, possibly thousands of people are shot by police every year in Brazil, a BBC investigation has found.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/4463010.stm

The authorities say it is mainly criminals caught in military-style raids on drug gangs but according to a former senior official, new evidence suggests that many of the shootings are cold-blooded executions conducted by the police.

Former police ombudsman Professor Julita Lemgruber has told BBC World Service's Assignment programme that, in the state of Rio alone, the police killed 983 people last year. The figure is similar for Sao Paulo.

"The federal government should be challenging the various state governments in Brazil about the hundreds of people that the police kill in this country," she says.

Victims

As a former ombudsman, Professor Lemgruber was responsible for investigating the police as part of a previous crack down on corruption.

In the past five years, the number of fatal police shootings has more than doubled. Based on her experience as a government official, Professor Lemgruber says she believes the police are free to act with impunity.


It's all premeditated - very cold-blooded and calculated
Former military policeman
"You couldn't really investigate complaints because you knew there was this curtain of silence that was always present," she says.

She adds that she had personally dealt with cases in which summary executions had happened.

The authorities in Rio dismiss these allegations. They say most people killed by the police are criminals, shot in military-style raids.

But in the spring of this year events took a sinister turn when, on 31 March, two men entered a bar and started shooting, not once or twice, but again and again. Most of the victims were shot at close range - in the chest and in the head.

In all, 29 people were shot dead, apparently not by members of a criminal drug gang - but by off-duty police officers.

Executions

A former military policeman, Gordinho (not his real name), says executions by police death squads are common.

"Everyone knows the police here in Rio de Janeiro... nearly all of them abuse their authority," he says.


Most people killed by police are criminals caught up in raids, officials say
"When you get excited you feel you are the law... The shooting cases you hear about, most of them are executions.

"It's all premeditated - very cold-blooded and calculated."

After the killings in March, Marcello Itagebah, Secretary of State for Public Security and the man ultimately responsible for policing in Rio, promised to take a "meat cleaver" to police corruption. Following the investigation, 11 police officers were arrested.

"That shows to the people that we can conduct a very good investigation and that we can arrest police officers that committed crime," he said.

"We already have arrested more than 500 police officers, and we have expelled about 200 since last February. That is a job that has to be done every day."

But executions by death squads appear to be a traditional feature of Rio policing. While the authorities no longer give them official backing, evidence from the city morgues suggests they continue.

"Around 60% of the bodies of people that were killed by the police had more than six shots," explains Professor Lemgruber.

"Most of them [were shot] in the head and in the back - mostly executions."

Brazil is a deeply religious nation. Leaders of the Catholic Church have spoken out against corruption in politics and in the police force.

And among the congregations in the favelas, there is growing anger. They are determined to fight for change.

"You see children playing in the streets, and the people all happy - but when the cops come here - pop pop pop - some people are killed," says one resident, Paolo Cesar.

"They kill everybody. They got bad cops - bad cops."

Another resident insists that "we are fighting really hard for justice because the guilty people have to pay".

The crucial test now for Brazil's politicians is whether they have the will and ability to overturn a longstanding and lethal police culture of justice by bullet.

He should get a raise equal to the raises the the congress gave themselves.

There should be a bounty for every cop that is routed out for Marcello. . .there should be an Internal Affairs established if it does not exist. The salaries of the police should be increased.

To pay pennies to the police is to lose dollars to corruption.

Think of the police as a valuable infrastructure whose importance is greatly and financially underestimated. Increse the apptitude testing, increase the salaries, increase the quality of the force.

It is self evident that to invest money in the salaries and equipment of the police can only serve the populice and improve the quality of life in Rio and Brazil. It is an investment in Brazil as important as the $750,000 invested in a pipeline for ethanol by Petrobras.

You could have even put more than a perfect 10 if I . would have added "James from Philadelphia" comment in the other post regarding the falling toursits arrivals :

Get your Merda together, Brasil

that is even more accurate and appropriate than........ Tropical Mud !!!!!

Can you find a contributor trying to upgrade Nero´s bad press and make the Christians the bad guys? This is great stuff.

Applause, mingled with boos and hisses, is about all that the average Brazilian is able or willing to contribute to public life.

At least he came from abject poverty to the presidency of the republic. Your president instead is the poster child for favoritism.

But you are right brazilians don't contirbute as much for the public life as americans. For example we don't hate blacks, we don't hate whites, we don't hate muslims, we don't hate anybody while pretending to be a "good christian". Hate is your main form of contribution.

The only difference between the Democrats and the Republicans is that the Democrats allow the poor to be corrupt, too.

NO you just ignor them till you need a slave to do something for free or robe them and then place the blame on someone else

we dont hate i have seen brasilians on theis site using the N word more then any gringo.

I have seen more gringos in making bigoted comments than any brazilian.

BTW, how are those slave immigrants doing in the US? Are they working hard in the farms?

And the "N word" is n****r. Just say it. It's not derogative if you don't have the self confidence as that of a frog.

Global Warming Denier: "Scientists are the Bad Guys"
by Steven D
Tue Mar 6th, 2007 at 08:08:14 AM EST

Scientists are the Bad Guys.
This is the new talking point for the Exxon-Mobil lobby, as evidenced by the director of a new "documentary" to be shown on British television entitled "The Great Global Warming Swindle". Here's how that director, Martin Durkin, characterized his film:


Controversial director Martin Durkin said: "You can see the problems with the science of global warming, but people just don't believe you - it's taken 10 years to get this commissioned.
"I think it will go down in history as the first chapter in a new era of the relationship between scientists and society. Legitimate scientists - people with qualifications - are the bad guys.

"It is a big story that is going to cause controversy. "It's very rare that a film changes history, but I think this is a turning point and in five years the idea that the greenhouse effect is the main reason behind global warming will be seen as total bollocks.

Total bollocks? Interesting claim. So who exactly is Martin Durkin, the man who claims he will change history by slaying the evil dragon myth of global warming? Here's what The Independent has to say about him in its report on the film:


Martin Durkin, for his part, achieved notoriety when his previous series on the environment for the channel, called Against Nature , was roundly condemned by the Independent Television Commission for misleading contributors on the purpose of the programmes, and for editing four interviewees in a way that "distorted or mispresented their known views".
Channel 4 was forced to issue a humiliating apology. But it seems to have forgiven Mr Durkin and sees no need to make special checks on the accuracy of the programme. For his part, the film-maker accepts the charge of misleading contributors, but describes the verdict of distortion as "complete tosh."

Complete tosh (I love these British expressions by the way)? This from a man with a known history of distorting science in order to deceive the public. And not just about global warming either. Here's what he sold to Channel 4's science series as a rep**able report in 1998 that claimed scientific studies proved silicon breast implants not only were safe, they actually reduced the risk of breast cancer:

cont. http://www.boomantribune.com/s...8814/25388

see also:http://www.badscience.net/?p=381

The real global warming swindle
A Channel 4 documentary claimed that climate change was a conspiratorial lie. But an analysis of the evidence it used shows the film was riddled with distortions and errors
By Steve Connor
Published: 14 March 2007
A Channel 4 documentary that claimed global warming is a swindle was itself flawed with major errors which seriously undermine the programme's credibility, according to an investigation by The Independent.

The Great Global Warming Swindle, was based on graphs that were distorted, mislabelled or just plain wrong. The graphs were nevertheless used to attack the credibility and honesty of climate scientists.

A graph central to the programme's thesis, purporting to show variations in global temperatures over the past century, claimed to show that global warming was not linked with industrial emissions of carbon dioxide. Yet the graph was not what it seemed.

Other graphs used out-of-date information or data that was shown some years ago to be wrong. Yet the programme makers claimed the graphs demonstrated that orthodox climate science was a conspiratorial "lie" foisted on the public.

Channel 4 yesterday distanced itself from the programme, referring this newspaper's inquiries to a public relations consultant working on behalf of Wag TV, the production company behind the documentary.

Martin Durkin, who wrote and directed the film, admitted yesterday that one of the graphs contained serious errors but he said they were corrected in time for the second transmission of the programme following inquiries by The Independent.

Mr Durkin has already been criticised by one scientist who took part in the programme over alleged misrepresentation of his views on the climate.

The main arguments made in Mr Durkin's film were that climate change had little if anything to do with man-made carbon dioxide and that global warming can instead be linked directly with solar activity - sun spots.

more: http://news.independent.co.uk/...355956.ece

if you call $800 US a month slave wages with house and medical
I KNOW of about 3.8 million brasilians here working for that you ask them if they want to come back to brazil

and no there are words not spoken by my family about any person .
and if you use it and you are not black than why do you use it

I won't get quiet and will keep posting here even if you people keep banning my posts

US representatives of US corporations and US interests living in Brazil must be the ones who write at this site among others probably US consultes employees. officials....

As I said, workers working in the fields don't have that luck. You seem to use to two types of logic when it is convenient, you claim "slaves" in Brazil referring to someone working in a farm in the middle of nowhere, and then cite "illegal immigrants" living in big cities as a comparison.

And U$ 800,00 is a ridiculous wage. How can someone pay a rent in the US with that?

I KNOW of about 3.8 million brasilians here working for that you ask them if they want to come back to brazil

I am sure you personally know 3.8 million people and asked them that yourself. You are not making it up at all.

This possible fact would make anyone who gets confused understand this forum... Notice how they attack anyone against US corporative and therefore the US political interests.

its curious that you change a bit your bias once theres no one criticizing these Americans who write here. Is this a correct impression?

the superPower AMERICAN IMPERIALIST STATE represents US oligopolies, systematically violates political economic autonomy of Latin American countries preventing their improvement spreading STARVATION POVERTY IN THESE NATIONS. AMERICANS ARE THE RESPONSIBLE ONES.

I didn't understand the question.

Brazilian . you go to the states and find one farm hand working for $5.00 than his boss will go to jail .
also most farms and daries in the US give houseing to there hands
another thing the monium wage in the US will be $7.50 an hour in 18 months
as it stands know

they dont block post they drop some as if you ask any one that post here they have lost some also

and to be able to change ones mind like the brazilian does some times shows an open mind
is called free will and if you beleive in god that is what we were given

Fifty Slaves Rescued in Brazil
Brazil Steps Up Search for Slave Workers

Are you saying that the immigrants are illegal but for some reason the laws are enforced preventing them from being exploited? How if they officially aren't there?

That is impossible.

Forrest
written by A brazilian, 2007-03-18 11:05:10

Are you saying that the immigrants are illegal but for some reason the laws are enforced preventing them from being exploited? How if they officially aren't there?

Yes a brazilian you can bet that is what forest is saying. He already showed how open minded he is

didn't understand the question

Hmm, i think i made a mistake. BTW, what you think about the opinion of some that global warming is an anti american hype, a communist/socialist attempt to influence with liberal airs business markets around the world or even that it is not man-made? I'd like to know your opinion about this pleaze. thks

I said I am not a leftist, but I think this idea of global warming being "an anti-american campaign" and not real at all is pure stupidity. These people are out of their minds, this is a mixture of patriotism and bigotry against science evidence.

Yes, for me global warming is very real. I also don't agree also with the characterization of the left made by people like LVB, he is completely brainwashed. His view is so narrow and simple (like "us vs. them") that it's difficult to be polite.

See how he uses the term "civilization" all the time to separate the world in two factions, all the time using "us", "we" and speaking as he were part of some herd. Some americans are insane, but there's no action without consequence and sooner or later they won't be able to run from it.

I never ever would think that any American would make such a desperate claim: global warming is anti american, anti capitalism, anti market no global warming or man made global waring exists.What a shame. No comments, maybe thay want to sell the world another definetely-there-are-mass-destruction-weapons-in-Iraq. How Great! This is not patriotism and bigotry only this is whole corporate interests being defended.

Leftism... Science is supposed to be objective knowledge.

Why Did Americans Attack Iraq? Was It…

1) To Unearth And Destroy Weapons Of Mass Destruction?
2) To Remove A Cruel Dictator?
3) To Bring Peace And Democracy To A Troubled Region?
4) Oil?

Non scientific survey. Thank you for your participation.

Americans wanted only $ OIL$

This is a remarkably easy question to provoke. One might, for instance, expose elements of this nation's brutal foreign policy. Ask a single probing question about, say, U.S. complicity in the overthrow of governments in Guatemala, Iran, or Chile and thin-skinned patriots (sic) will come out of the woodwork to defend their country's honor by accusing you of being "anti-American." Of course, this allegation might lead me to ponder how totalitarian a culture this must be to even entertain such a concept, but I'd rather employ the vaunted Arundhati defense. The incomparable Ms. Roy says: "What does the term 'anti-American' mean? Does it mean you are anti-jazz or that you're opposed to freedom of speech? That you don't delight in Toni Morrison or John Updike? That you have a quarrel with giant sequoias?" (I'm a tree hugger remember? I don't argue with sequoias.)

When pressed, I sometimes reply: "I don't hate America. In fact, think it's one of the best countries anyone ever stole." But, after the laughter dies down, I have a confession to make: If by "America" they mean the elected/appointed officials and the corporations that own them, well, I guess I do hate that America-with justification.

Among many reasons, I hate America for the near-extermination and subsequent oppression of its indigenous population. I hate it for its role in the African slave trade and for dropping atomic bombs on civilians. I hate its control of institutions like the United Nations, World Bank, International Monetary Fund, and World Trade Organization. I hate it for propping up brutal dictators like Suharto, Pinochet, Duvalier, Hussein, Marcos, and the Shah of Iran. I hate America for its unconditional support for Israel. I hate its bogus two-party system, its one-size-fits-all culture, and its income gap. I could go on for pages but I'll sum up with this: I hate America for being a hypocritical white supremacist capitalist patriarchy.

After a paragraph like that, you know what comes next: If you hate America so much, why don't you leave? Leave America? That would potentially put me on the other end of U.S. foreign policy. No thanks.

I like how Paul Robeson answered that question before the House Un-American Activities Committee in 1956: "My father was a slave and my people died to build this country, and I'm going to stay right here and have a part of it, just like you. And no fascist-minded people like you will drive me from it. Is that clear?"

Since none of my people died to build anything, I rely instead on William Blum, who declares, "I'm committed to fighting U.S. foreign policy, the greatest threat to peace and happiness in the world, and being in the United States is the best place for carrying out the battle. This is the belly of the beast, and I try to be an ulcer inside of it."

Needless to say, none of the above does a damn thing to placate the yellow ribbon crowd. It seems what offends flag-wavers most is when someone like me makes use of the freedom they claim to adore. According to their twisted logic, I am ungrateful for my liberty if I have the audacity to exercise it. If I make the choice to not salute the flag during the seventh inning stretch at Yankee Stadium, somehow I'm not worthy of having the freedom to make the choice to not salute the flag during the seventh inning stretch at Yankee Stadium. These so-called patriots not only claim to celebrate freedom while refusing my right to exploit it, they also ignore the social movements that fought for and won such freedoms.

There's plenty of tolerated public outcry against the Bush administration and the occupation of Iraq, but it's neither fashionable nor acceptable to go as far as saying, no, I do not support the troops and yes, I hate what America does. Fear of recrimination allows the status quo to control the terms of debate. Until we voice what is in our hearts and have the nerve to admit what we hate...we will never create something that can be loved.

Concerned Citizen of the World

I'm confused, it must your writing style, is English your first language? What exactly is your position because it doesn't seem to be clear.
Are you saying you believe global-warming is not a good scientific thesis but is instead the result of anti-American leftist sentiment?

Dana asked an inteligent question and A Brazilian gave an honest answer.

I whole heartedly agree with what Mr.Brazilian said. I am of the same opinion.

Global warming is real and present (and furture) danger.

WTF is Dana on about?
written by Dandruff, 2007-03-18 19:48:10

What Dana wants to say is that Global warming is just like Dandruff.You know the effects on your head.

It doesnt matter if English is her first language.I wonder if it is yours. She and A Brazilian made their points on one of the important issues of our time.

Can you let her answer the question please, you are doing nothing to clarify this persons position - or your own for that matter.

A brazilian
written by Dana, 2007-03-18 17:45:51

I never ever would think that any American would make such a desperate claim: global warming is anti american, anti capitalism, anti market no global warming or man made global waring exists.What a shame. No comments, maybe thay want to sell the world another definetely-there-are-mass-destruction-weapons-in-Iraq. How Great! This is not patriotism and bigotry only this is whole corporate interests being defended.


IF IT IS SO, THE EX VP OF U.S.OF A IS ANTI AMERICAN?


LMAO

actually you did supply your own opinion, I missed your previous post.

Scroll up and read the question Dana asked "A Brazilian" and his reply. They are very clear about their views on Global Warming.

Let me ask you this question that I am very curious. Do American people KNOW that the US government was the responsible for and sponsor of all the murderous and criminal dictatorships and the end of democracy in Latin American countries in the 60s and 70s? If they are not aware, why aren't they? Do your history books don't teach your nation's foreign police? have they heard of the Big Stick police in South America in the early 20th century? Americans for much time referred to South American countries as Banana republics, but do they know their government financed the political elites and trained their polices? Is this news to Americans as Mcnamara wrote a book on the theme and participated in a documentary?

http://noticias.uol.com.br/ult...brefoto=18

When I was 12 or 13 we studied The Monroe Doctrine and the concept of Manifest Destiny. That it was Manifest Destiny that the U.S. was 'lord and master' over the Western Hemisphere. I thought that a most strange assumption verging on an absurdity, equally when Thomas Jefferson wrote 'that all men are created equal', but kept slaves, there was something intrinsically wrong with that, or when African Americans were given the vote it was 3/5 of a person that they were to be considered. The whole thing smacked of something terribly wrong with the whole thing. But then we get into the Spanish American War, The Civil War, World War I, World War II and its conclusion of atomic weaponry that the whole thing becomes out of control of a high school student. Most American's are not concerned with anything other than their mundane lives, they are not concerned with geo politics until Pearl Harbor or the Cuban Missle Crisis or September 11, 2001. The Cold War and the theat of nuclear annihilation was the 'raison d'etre' of all that the United States did in the world. Go to this link, it is all declassified 'Top Secret' information, in it you will hear the telephone conversation of President Johnson 'urging taking every step that we can to support overthrow of Joao Goulart'.
http://www.gwu.edu:80/~nsarchi...ndex.htm

American's can barely read and comprehend let alone write and think coherently. That is perhaps 80%, reading a book is done by perhaps 10% of the populace. Global political analysis is for graduate students at Georgetown University or Harvard School of International Relations, maybe 3% of the population. We trust in 'truth, justice and the American way'. We as a nation believe that our government is honest, moral, just, and that Santa Claus is a fairy tale. We are concerned with the mundane task of earning a living, raising our children. The government is run by the people in the government, and we believe them to be just and honorable men. Even Ted Kennedy and Chapaquitic. It is all about 'need to know' and you will be told what you 'need to know'. 'When we want your opinion we will give it to you'. But in the U.S. you are free to find out, but it's 'too much trouble' and I'm late for work. No the American citizenry doesnt even know that it doesnt elect the President, that the Electoral College does and they are not required by law to represent the vote in their state, at least in not all states. This was Thomas Jefferson's idea, he had no faith in the 'common man', didn't trust him. No American's in perponderance have no idea what the U.S. is doing only that the end justifies the means, 'more or less'. Is the world better off, better fed, healthier, as a consequence, probably. Did Russia and the 'Evil Empire go down' as a consequence to all of this, probably. Is China the thriving economy that it is and not the Marxian threat that it was ten years ago probably. There is an old saw that is 'you gotta break some eggs if you want to bake a cake.' f**k war, f**k man's inhumanity to man, and f**k 'manifest destiny'. As they say in New Hampshire's state motto 'Be free or die', good idea for everybody.

Concerned Citizen

I loved your post. Sensitive, reasonable, humane. Demonstrated the best abilities a man can develop. Congrats.

AES

Charles Baudelaire already said modern men possessed weak will as a component of their personality. We are now all postmodern ppl and carry at least a drop of this feature. Your post was great and the motto is perfect, although in human race being free is not so well seen as echoed or not understood at all or understood as a threat and can be hardly punished. It is a complex real thing such as life.

Global Foaming...

Afterall, we are all the same human race.

I'm a brazilian living in the states. I can attest the United States is a much more compassionate society than Brasil.
There's just no comparison.
Brasil brutalizes and oppresses it's own poor and minorities. Blacks have no opportunities in Brasil.
Despite racial descrimination I see black people driving nice cars, living in nice homes and having good jobs and decent education.
In Brazil? Only if they're football players or drug dealers.
Yet some Brazilians feel the need to attack the USA instead of attacking th evils in our own society.
Why is that? Is it envy what's creating a blind hatred?
Most of you are probably acting out to your own personal grievances and seeking a scapegoat to vent your frustrations.
Under the light of reason, none of your anti american arguments hold water.
Most of you are living in that great Egyptian river.

By the way the only SERIOUS, PROVEN cientific evidence of global warming is the one that point to peak activity of the sun correlating to peak temperature increases on earth just what the Channel 4 documentary claims.
Would an ex-president of the US be against his own country? Never underestimate Al Gore's need for power and attention.
Who knows waht agenda he's driving. One thing is for sure, it's all based on JUNK SCIENCE!

It is not only Brazilians but the entire world that has a great distaste towards the United States due to their absurd abusive foreign policy, in every continent on this planet, so don't run your mouth off without any dimensions!

Good day.

You are talking through your ass re:Channel Four, do your homework about this documentary and it's director before you come on here spouting crap about Global Warming.

Are you a brazilian called "Mark"? Or you an american that happen to have brazilian parents? Or you are just another american?

Your description of Brazil is incorrect by the way.

Mind your manners.You didn´t want to participate further in the discussions about Global Warming. You were questioning if Dana´s first language was English and I said it hardly mattered.

Santos, you better pay little more attention to what "A Brazilian" and Dana say about Global warming. I dont think that they are easily swayed , without evidence.

And don´t scold Mr.Al Gore. He is from TN and he talks sense too.

Sorry, my previous comments were meant for you both.

Santos, You are a gentleman and a scholar. Mr AES: You are a bitter man, do you have kids? Did you have kids during the Cold War/ Cuban Missile Crisis? Oh, and you left out the Truman Doctrine. I wish we all lived in John Lennon's Utopia, but that is only in one's dreams, imagine that. Jango and Janio were communist, Janio gave Che Brazil's highest honor, the USA was at war with communist, still is, so to speak, and like it or not, as the evil General Sherman said, "war is hell" always was always will be...It sucks, I know. And Concerned Citizen: You just need to learn - if you are gonna dish it out, you need to learn how to take it. If someone is pointing a gun at you, threatening your family, or your way of life - what are you gonna do, take it? Fight back? Or Run away? Quit your crying and do something about it if you feel so strongly about how evil the USA is/has been. Talk is cheap. For every attack all you people make on the USA I will give ten more for other/your countries.

"The problem with “The Great Global Warming Swindle”, which caused a sensation when it was broadcast on Channel 4 last week, is that to make its case it relies not on future visionaries, but on people whose findings have already been proved wrong. The implications could not be graver. Just as the British government launches its climate change bill and Gordon Brown and David Cameron start jostling to establish their green credentials, thousands of people have been misled into believing that there is no problem to address."
http://fanonite.wordpress.com/2007/03/13/global-warming-and-the-channel-4-swindle/

"One intriguing element to the whole affair is the link to the Revolutionary Communist Party, also known as the Living Marxism group, also known as the Institute of Ideas, also known as Spiked Online, also known as Sense About Science. Phew! It’s hard to keep up, even for an ex-DL member, so for an introduction to the bizarre and murky world of this sect which went so far left it came out the other side, check out George Monbiot’s pieces and ‘The Revolution has been Televised‘ and ‘Invasion of the Entryists‘, as well as Nick Cohen’s ‘The rebels who changd their tune to be pundits‘. All of these pieces highlight the role played by RCP members and friends in Durkin’s films and, while it isn’t claimed that Durkin is a member of the RCP, an article on the group by What Next states that “The day after (a piece on Against Nature appeared in The Guardian), the paper reported Martin Durkin, the Against Nature producer, saying that the RCP had been dissolved a year previously. Not known as an RCP member or supporter, it’s not clear how he was privy to such information”.

It’s hard to do justice to the sheer strangeness of the ideology behind this group in its various guises. Essentially, it presents an uber-libertarian view of the world, where everything suggestive of state intervention in private lives, or which might limit scientific exploration or experimentation to any degree is charged with being ‘politically-correct’ or totalitarian, part of a creeping statism which aims to control the actions of everyone on the planet. Whatever you’re for, these professional controversialists will be against it. Indeed, if John Waters scrubbed himself up a bit, he might even be admitted as a member".
http://cedarlounge.wordpress.com/2007/03/04/swindlewatch-07/

"Martin Durkin has quite a track record in this kind of programme. George Monbiot writes about him here, pointing to his some of his previous output including a report on how silicone implants reduce the risk of breast cancer (initially proposed to the BBC’s Horizon but dropped when the commissioned researcher contradicted the claims, then shown by Channel 4), a series (again for Channel 4) called Against Nature, which essentially argued that environmentalists were proto-Nazis out to control the world (which misrepresented the views of many of those interviewed, for which Channel 4 was forced to apologise) and a programme (once again, Channel 4) on genetically-modified foodstuffs which one of the participants described as having “rendered great disservice to science generally and to the scientific debate on GM-food particularly“. For someone with no scientific background, one has to wonder how Martin Durkin keeps being commissioned for programmes like these. Or, as Private Eye wrote at the time “What does Channel 4 do with programme makers condemned by the TV watchdog,the Independent Television Commission (ITC), for using underhand editing techniques? The answer is, er, hire them to make another programme.”
http://cedarlounge.wordpress.com/2007/03/04/swindlewatch-07/

Fred Singer.
Despite the caption on the programme, Singer has retired from the University of Virginia and has not had a single article accepted for any peer-reviewed scientific journal for 20 years. His main work has been as a hired gun for business interests to undermine scientific research on environmental and health matters. Before turning to climate change denial he has argued that CFCs do not cause ozone depletion and second hand smoke does not cause cancer (more… ). In 1990 he founded “The Science and Environment Policy Project”, which aggressively contradicts climate science and has received direct funding from Exxon, Shell, Unocal and ARCO. Exxon is also among the funders ($20,000 in 1998 and 2000)

Patrick Michaels
is the most prominent US climate change denier. In the programme he claimed “I’ve never been paid a nickel by the old and gas companies” which is a curious claim. According to the US journalist Ross Gebspan Michaels has received direct funding from, among others German Coal Mining Association ($49,000), Edison Electric Institute ($15,000), and the Western Fuels Association ($63,000) an association of US coal producing interests (more…). The WFA is one of the most powerful forces in the US actively denying the basic science of climate change, funding, amongs other things, the Greening Earth Society which is directed by Patrick Michaels. Tom Wigley, one of the leading IPCC scientists, describes Michaels work as “a catalog of misrepresentation and misinterpretation”. (More on Michaels…)

Philip Stott
was captioned as a Professor at the University of London although he is retired and is therefore free of any academic accountability. Stott is a geographer by training and has no qualifications in climate science. Since retiring Stott has aimed to become Britain’s leading anti-green pundit dedicating himself to wittily criticizing rainforest campaigns (with Patrick Moore), advocating genetic engineering and claiming that “global warming is the new fundamentalist religion.”

Patrick Moore
is Stott’s Canadian equivalent. Since a very personal and painful falling out with Greenpeace in 1986 Moore has put his considerable campaigning energies into undermining environmentalists, especially his former friends and colleagues. Typical of his rhetoric was his claim in the programme that environmentalists were “anti-human” and “treat humans as scum”. Throughout the 1990s Moore worked as lead consultant for the British Columbian Timber Products Association undermining Greenpeace’s international campaign to protect old growth forest there. Whenever he has the chance he also makes strong public statements in favour of genetic engineering, nuclear power, logging the Amazon, and industrial fishing- all, strangely, lead campaigns for Greenpeace (more on Moore..)

Piers Corbyn
has no academic status and his role in such programmes is to promote his own weather prediction business. He has steadfastly refused to ever subject his climatological theories to any form of external review or scrutiny.

Richard Lindzen.
As a Professor of Meteorology at the credible Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Lindzen is by far the most rep**able academic among the US climate deniers and, for this reason, he is heavily cited by sympathetic journalists such as Melanie Phillips and Michael Crichton. His arguments though are identical to the other deniers – for example an article in the Wall Street Journal (June 11 2001) he claims that “there is no consensus, unanimous or otherwise, about long-term climate trends or what causes them”.
He is strongly associated with the other people on the programme though co-authored reports, articles, conference appearances and co-signed statements.

Tim Ball
was captioned as the University of Winnipeg. In fact he left in 1996 since when he has run political campaigns through two organisations he helped found: the Natural Resources Stewardship Project and the Friends of Science which, according to their websites aim to run “a proactive grassroots campaign to counter the Kyoto Protocol”; and “encourage and assist the Canadian Federal Government to re-evaluate the Kyoto Protocol”. Ian Clark is also on the board of the NRSP.

http://climatedenial.org/2007/03/09/the-great-channel-four-swindle/

"On Thursday March 8th, the UK TV Channel 4 aired a programme titled "The Great Global Warming Swindle". We were hoping for important revelations and final proof that we have all been hornswoggled by the climate Illuminati, but it just repeated the usual specious claims we hear all the time. We feel swindled. Indeed we are not the only ones: Carl Wunsch (who was a surprise addition to the cast) was apparently misled into thinking this was going to be a balanced look at the issues (the producers have a history of doing this), but who found himself put into a very different context indeed [Update: a full letter from Wunsch appears as comment 109 on this post]

So what did they have to say for themselves?


CO2 doesn't match the temperature record over the 20th C. True but not relevant, because it isn't supposed to. The programme spent a long time agonising over what they presented as a sharp temperature fall for 4 decades from 1940 to 1980 (incidentally their graph looks rather odd and may have been carefully selected; on a more usual (and sourced!) plot the "4 decades of cooling" is rather less evident). They presented this as a major flaw in the theory, which is deeply deceptive, because as they and their interviewees must know, the 40-70 cooling type period is readily explained, in that the GCMs are quite happy to reproduce it, as largely caused by sulphate aerosols. See this for a wiki-pic, for example; or (all together now) the IPCC TAR SPM fig 4; or more up-to-date AR4 fig 4. So... they are lying to us by omission.

The troposphere should warm faster than the sfc, say the models and basic theory. As indeed it does - unless you're wedded to the multiply-corrected Spencer Christy version of the MSU series. Christy (naturally enough) features in this section, though he seems to have forgotten the US CCSP report, and the executive summary which he authored says Previously reported discrepancies between the amount of warming near the surface and higher in the atmosphere have been used to challenge the reliability of climate models and the reality of human induced global warming. Specifically, surface data showed substantial global-average warming, while early versions of satellite and radiosonde data showed little or no warming above the surface. This significant discrepancy no longer exists because errors in the satellite and radiosonde data have been identified and corrected. New data sets have also been developed that do not show such discrepancies. See-also previous RC posts.

Temperature leads CO2 by 800 years in the ice cores. Not quite as true as they said, but basically correct; however they misinterpret it. The way they said this you would have thought that T and CO2 are anti-correlated; but if you overlay the full 400/800 kyr of ice core record, you can't even see the lag because its so small. The correct interpretation of this is well known: that there is a T-CO2 feedback: see RC again for more.

All the previous parts of the programme were leading up to "so if it isn't CO2, what is it?" to which their answer is "solar". The section was curiously weak, and largely lead by pictures of people on beaches. It was somewhat surprising that they didn't feature Svensmark at all; other stuff we've commented on before. Note that the graph they used as "proof" of the excellent solar-T connection turns out to have some problems: see figure 1c of Damon and Laut.

Along the way the programme ticked off most of the other obligatory skeptic talking points: even down to Medieval English vineyards and that old favourite, volcanoes emitting more CO2 than humans.

It ended with politics, with a segment blaming the lack of African development on the environmental movement. We don't want to get into the politics, but should point out what the programme didn't: that Kyoto exempts developing nations".

[Also: other discussion at InTheGreen, Stoat, The Guardian and
Media lens.]
[Update: What Martin Durkin really thinks!]


http://www.realclimate.org/index.php?p=414

"Two eminent British scientists who questioned the accuracy of a Channel 4 programme that claimed global warming was an unfounded conspiracy theory have received an expletive-filled tirade from the programme maker.

In an e-mail exchange leaked to The Times, Martin Durkin, the executive producer of The Great Global Warming Swindle, responded to the concerns of Dr Armand Leroi, from Imperial College, and Simon Singh, the respected scientific author, by telling them to “go and f*** yourself”.

The tirade has caused Dr Leroi to withdraw his cooperation from another Channel 4 project with Mr Durkin on race, The Times has learnt.

The programme, broadcast by Channel 4 last Thursday, featured a number of scientists who disputed the consensus on the causes of global warming.

Dr Leroi was particularly concerned about a segment that featured a correlation between solar activity and global temperatures, which was based on a 1991 paper in the journal Science by Eigil Friis-Chris-tensen. He was surprised that the programme failed to mention that while these findings look convincing superficially, they have been revealed as flawed by subsequent research by Peter Laut.

Dr Leroi e-mailed Mr Durkin about his use of data, concluding: “To put this bluntly: the data that you showed in your programme were . . . wrong in several different ways.” He copied Mr Singh into the exchange.

Mr Durkin replied to both later that morning, saying: “You’re a big daft c**k.” Less than an hour later, Mr Singh, who has worked for the BBC, intervened to urge Mr Durkin to engage in serious debate. He wrote: “I suspect that you will have upset many people (if Armand is right), so it would be great if you could engage in the debate rather than just resorting to one-line replies. That way we could figure out what went wrong/ right and how do things better/ even better in the future.” Mr Durkin replied nine minutes later: “The BBC is now a force for bigotry and intolerance . . . Since 1940 we have had four decades of cooling, three of warming, and the last decade when temperature has been doing nothing.

“Why have we not heard this in the hours and hours of s**t programming on global warming shoved down our throats by the BBC?

“Never mind an irresponsible bit of film-making. Go and f*** yourself.”

Last night Dr Leroi said that he was amazed at the rudeness of Mr Durkin’s reply.

“It was rather a shocking response,” Dr Leroi said. “It was my intention to make a film with Martin Durkin and [the production company] Wag, but that is something I am seriously reconsidering now. I am no climate scientist, but I was very concerned at the way that flaws in these data were brushed over.”

He said that the global warming film had glossed over flaws in data that it used to make its case, and that it was critical that a documentary about a subject as controversial as race and biology did not make similar mistakes.

“As the subject of our proposed film was race, it is such a sensitive topic that it requires great care and great balance. That he has shown so little respect for scientific consensus and such little nuance is a cause for great concern. I cannot imagine it will go ahead now.”

The film would have addressed Dr Leroi’s thesis that race is a biologically meaning-ful and medically valuable concept, a view that is highly controversial among scientists.

Last night Mr Durkin apologised for his langauge. “As far as I was concerned these were private e-mails. They arrived when I was quite tired having just finished the programme in time for transmission,” he said.

“Needless, to say, I regret the use of intemperate language. It is so unlike me. I am very eager to have all the science properly debated with scientists qualified in the right areas and have asked Channel 4 if they will stage a live debate on this subject.”

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/uk/science/article1517515.ece

And your completely irrelevant point is...?

dips**ts like you are living in denial, I guess, can't you f**king read nutty? So you see an attempt at trying to clarify just how much bulls**t there is in said programme as irrelevant? a*****e, people like you are costing us the planet. Best we exterminate you before you can actually kill the rest of us with your ingnorance.

Oh right, that was for someone else, apologies, but hey, anyone who is in denial about the facts of Global Warming, the above message is for you. Choke on it.

Remember the pimple you had in your arse???? Well, it turnout to be a brain tumor.... Hehehehe

If I ever want your monkey-brained opinion I'll rattle your cage!

Good day, sweet tities....

Nero
Indulged himself, while fire ravaged Rome for six days
July 18, 64 AD

Bush
Indulged himself, while New Orleans drowned
August 29, 2005

Of the Burning Bush. Don't irritate him. He can find out who you are since the www/internet belongs to the USA, and smash you like a bug.
Get Smart, GS. Forget about ever applying for a visa. They know who you are.

"Global Warming" is the new Religion, and you better believe it or else...

Not sure why you guys make this so complicated.... it's all Bush's fault!

Oh, I'm soooooooooooooo scared!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

And this is what Americans think of their president. Ops, I meant, non-retarded Americans:

•Why do we need to get out? Where are our spoils?
We should at least get a permanent base and a good share of the oil. Hell, we conquered them!
Otherwise, what have we gained??
— Posted by TeamAmerica
•America has spoken. This war should end soon. It is time for this President to heed to the will of the people.
— Posted by bhaiyagi
• A veto will simply show the powerlessness of this lame-duck President.
He has no domestic agenda. No foreign policy that anyone (in or out of America) can comprehend or embrace.
After a lifetime of getting his own petulant way, he is — for the next 20 months at least — going to have grow up and deal with adults.
It’s going to be a painful process for him. And us.
— Posted by RAS
•Why can’t he just disagree without getting all frothy and bombastic? How can we model democracy to other nations when he is so clearly disdainful of the results of democracy here? Somebody needs to tell him that it’s not the Democrat’s money or the Republican’s money; it is our money and right now it is being used for no good reason to put our young soldiers in harm’s way. I don’t hear him saying anything that he is doing to reduce the deaths of young American soldiers. Apparently their deaths are of no importance to him or his supporters. The only thing for him is to ’stay the course’ regardless of how many die for his stubbornness and incompetence.
— Posted by Dan
http://thecaucus.blogs.nytimes.com/2007/03/23/bush-vows-veto/#comments

•Why do we need to get out? Where are our spoils?
We should at least get a permanent base and a good share of the oil. Hell, we conquered them!
Otherwise, what have we gained??

And that just goes to show you how much a good portion of the public, and idiots like you, know about the situation in Iraq. We have already built 14 permanent bases in Iraq, they are there, they currently exist, and they will never be abandoned in our lifetime. Not by the Dems, not by the Republicans, not by the U.S. gov't. or the U.S. military. That now puts the number of U.S. military bases around the globe at approximately 750.

If you write an article and include a public figure in the lead title, you should include them in your article. I understand your attempt at analogy, but, it comes off as another typical Bush bashing diatribe. I don't like my president. Bush is attempting to make the US a third world country, so far he's doing a great job. I could go on, but, I'm sure most of you lack the understanding of US constitutional law, it's ok, I lack even basic comprehension of Brazilian constitutional law.

I do find it humorous, that Brazilians hate Bush, for the obvious reasons, and yet support left leaning American politicians. Those same left leaning politicians, like Gore, would invade your country to "save the rainforest", if given the chance. Yet, i'm sure you're all too smitten to realize this. I know plenty of nice little "Save the Planet" rich white girls who have mentioned military intervention in Brazil - and this was in the 1990's. I just love the hypocracy of the Left: "stop war, unless we're waging it"

Also, to the genius who claimed other people were costing us the planet, please lead by example and turn off your computer, you're wasting resources.

The original Cristovam’s text headline is Todos Neros (All Neros). In one of the sentences he mentions Bush as the greatest Nero of all. Supposedly the author was writing to a specific public and probably counting with the readers’ baggage about the contrary position from the Bush administration regarding reductions of greenhouse gas emissions in the globe. Cristovam could have reminded the readers this to make his text broader, and he could have gone further. Like for example, he could have placed an interesting question like if it is just a coincidence that the White House doesn’t sign the Kyoto protocol and at the same time deny an anthropomorphic global warming?

Now I will tell you why I don’t find humorous have Brazilians supporting a democrat politician. If democrats choose the same old path America has taken for years, they will not differentiate themselves from republicans and the practices they hate so much and they will be known just as that, big hypocrites, setting a championship of who is phonier. But, there are always new elections and politicians and there will always be room for hope and change, unless people want to see the same diseases, unless people want to live in the past, neither the present nor dream about a future. Now, although it is hard to see, some politicians may have positive points even if you don’t agree with many other points or weak sides, and if you don’t empower these better politicians then those less capable to deliver something decent and favorable predominate since no one cares. It is going to be difficult to find one politician who you agree one hundred per cent, although when it’s election time suddenly politicians start talking the same language as one desires. That was two, a third reason is, it is better exist even a few small points of interests or similar beliefs or even one than none; this is good for the cause the two countries or individuals embrace within a political spectrum of thought. Now, if this sounds too simple or naïve, I have no interest to make things more complicated than that. It is depressing (for them) to hear rich white Americans wanted to invade the Amazon just like that. If they were really willing to help they wouldn’t buy products from regions that don’t make reforestation.

Recently, an American politician said frankly, that he didn´t think the USA would ever leave the Iraq oil fields. I wonder if it really makes any real difference to Bush and Company whether the dems make us draw down most troop deployment in the near future, since anyone in the know is aware of the fact that the bases will remain, as Bo stated above, and those bases are there partly to defend the oil fields.

The left is dumber than the tractors in the movie, Cars.

written by Dana, 2007-03-27 17:57:39



Now I will tell you why I don’t find humorous have Brazilians supporting a democrat politician. If democrats choose the same old path America has taken for years, they will not differentiate themselves from republicans and the practices they hate so much and they will be known just as that, big hypocrites, setting a championship of who is phonier. But, there are always new elections and politicians and there will always be room for hope and change, unless people want to see the same diseases, unless people want to live in the past, neither the present nor dream about a future. Now, although it is hard to see, some politicians may have positive points even if you don’t agree with many other points or weak sides, and if you don’t empower these better politicians then those less capable to deliver something decent and favorable predominate since no one cares.

Dana, the principle problem in brazil is not "who" to elect or not elect, it is the "system" itself. Which is one of systematic corruption in the pursuit of personal wealth. It's difficult to compare brazil to the united states, although both "democracies", brazils democratic system functions very differently than that of the U.S. And, I'm not saying that corruption doesn't exist in the U.S., it does. But it fuctions in a way that is not the outright stealing of public monies going directly into a politicians bank account. It functions in the form of the military industrial complex. To change this system in brazil would be a major undertaking, not to mention extremely dangerous for anyone or any group attempting to do so. Afterall, they would be attempting to replace the current group that is in power. The last american president who seriously threatened the "establishment" was Kennedy, and he was killed, as was his brother.

IMO the most raidcal way that the system can be changed in brazil without a revolution is through education. And it may very well lead to a revolution, once the majority of the masses are educated. One thing is for certain, the ideologies that most brazilians hold need to change. Politicians are representatives of the people, not the other way around.

It is depressing (for them) to hear rich white Americans wanted to invade the Amazon just like that. If they were really willing to help they wouldn’t buy products from regions that don’t make reforestation.

And what you wrote above is another problem Dana. You can't expect people to "not buy" products because the way in which they were produced. 99% of the people have no idea how they're feijoada was made nor do they care. If slave labor is being used to produce a line of clothing in the garment district in new york city it is the responsibility of the city and state of new york, as well as the federal gov't. of the united states, to remedy this problem. It is not the responsibility of some rich old lady in sao paulo to stop buying these items.

Countries, and peoples of countries need to take responsibility for themselves. Laws need to be enforced and respected. Brazil has a long way to go.

Countries, and peoples of countries need to take responsibility for themselves. Laws need to be enforced and respected.

If someone knows that a certain product is done using slave labor then buying it makes you an accomplice, because this way the "slave owner" will prosper and you are making sure that those slaves will continue to be slaves for a very long time.

The greatest buyers of wood from the Amazon are the americans and europeans, if there weren't demand for it then there wouldn't be any business and any reason to do it.

Americans may complain about illegal aliens but the greatest benefited by them are the american businesses, and they know that those people are illegal.

If there weren't demand for drugs then there wouldn't be drug traffickers everywhere. The rich people helps them by "financing" the trafficker's business whenever they buy some drug.

Anyone in the know will tell you that the vast majority of lumber extracted from the Amazon rainforest goes into domestic comsumption. Only a small percentage is exported.

Check the docks in Manaus, Santarem and Belem. Note the piles of legally cut, dimensioned, kiln dried, marked and bundled wood ready for export. Then go the highways and count the number of semis taking wood to the NE and South Brazil. There is no comparison. And much of the wood for the domestic market is undervalued, under weighed, and misreported as to type, on the bills of lading.

Phoney companies, phoney documentation, but real wood. Lots of it. And most Brazilian houses only use wood for roof and trim materials, not for the framework.

Maybe some are not aware that it is illegal to ship logs to foreign countries, only finished lumber, and kiln dried. So Brazilian workers are benefitting from jobs in those sawmills and factories.

If we dont move - the moves our last
We deprive ourselves of our only chance
Now once and for all, the right must go
Now all for one - register to vote
Its a chance to show, that you cant be bought
Whatever you think - whatever you thought
Youve got the choice, for what its worth
You know a third terms gonna cut the earth
Disregard the cost is the party line
A nation filled with apathy, suits fine
To be unemployed and stay alive
No torys gonna tell you one in five
One in five or one in three
The difference is they dont lose no sleep
Now once and for all the right must go
Now all for one - register to vote

The power that you need is in your hands
Or a one party state is how well stand
Every vote wasted, is our hopes lost
Make it your decision and your cross
X marks the spot, that could change your lives
Every vote cast for a better time
Now once and for all the right must go
Now one for all - register to vote

In other words you who accept everything, you are making the Amazon evaporate to eat your fried Amazon soy fed chicken fast food. Live with it!

Oh yeah Ric, people like you sell themselves for a bowl of chickenitos! Live with it!

Tem chickenitos aqui nao. Nem sei o que é.

Who do you think you are talking to? Today we took out a few açai trees, had to go, we eat farinha dáqua at every meal, xibé com peixe salgado no interior quando naõ tem outra opção, had fried piranha com pirão awhile back.

But we aint cuttin down no trees in the rainforest. Não é negócio.

Denouncing the Indian Tribe of Brazil on Brazil's East coast in the past and their
(fewer in numbers) presence. He has defamed my own race identity and an accomplice to the truth as to why he HATED Bernadette Nata so much when his PC Excel investigators covered the truth as to what was taking place in my residence.
Also in this agenda the biggest racist cop Dennis Clisham of Naugatuck, CT known for porn, racial comments and yet the Union defends this trash who retired with billions on a polic chief salary that's justice and America. Money talks.

The Ana Mota story line and Ms. Orange instead of being honest regarding any affair they sided with these big wigs on the ground that Bernadette Nata would be stripped of her credibility while the ex Francisco Nata would go out and play with his friends and whatever. This is illegal to use billions, attorneys, lobbying, and influencing to interfere in a private marriage and to promote Anti Indian behavior on Brazil.

The massacres of these Indians are being ignored by black extremists and Gates How much more bloodshed is it going to take to substantiate a theory of racelines or existance? Who is doing the killing and for what.

We are all people the world is not compromised of just black and white.
My family was never black and white so why do they not listen.
The Indians on the East Coast of Brazil are fewer pure bred but never the less still there.

To affiliate Brazilians as a black and white country is wrong and I will not let this lobbying continue for ulterior motives. It is a multiculture and a diversified culuture. Let us show some respect for these Indians and stop taking their attributes away from them. Their festivals of Iemanja replaced for Black Brazilians and this trend continues due to heavy capital that is in the hands of black groups or entertainers. Their festivals, their teachings of medicine, herbs survival. Worship of the water, sun, moon.