...on the Brazilian reality !

Well said and well explained !

Reality is terribly shameful

Another gloomy...but acurate snapshot of the Brasilian politcal landscape from the dour Scott Fitzpatrick. Hey John, one day write a piece about why you stay in Brazil, you make it sound like you should drink the Kool Aide everyday! If Baurque is the same person who often posts on this site and I was Brazilian, I would vote for him. A clone in the manner of Chavez or Castro, Brazil could use someone...right or left who could shake things up. God, another 4 years of Lula, Brazilians really are morons in the voting booth. Can't say much however, we were stupid enough to elect Bush twice thank to the ignorant Red-Staters.

"Hey John, one day write a piece about why you stay in Brazil"

He is waiting for "conservative candidates with programs based on lower taxation and less government interference, as you would find in the US or western Europe" so that he can get richer. And the "f**k the rest" will STILL be "f**k the rest".

What a moron. "Interesting" see a "brazilian" site with such "ideals".

Thank God for Americans have the wisdom of electing a great leader like George Bush. The right man for the right time.

Thomas Sowell, in an excellent article entitled 'Explosive Facts', points out:

"President Bush, like Ronald Reagan before him and innumerable others who are out of favor among liberals, has repeatedly been depicted as such a mental lightweight that he is not in the same league with brilliant guys like Al Gore and John Kerry.

The fact is that George W. Bush and John Kerry both went to Yale, where Bush had a higher grade-point average. Bush also scored higher than Kerry on intelligence tests that both took in the military. Gore went to Harvard, where he finished in the bottom fifth of his class two years in a row.

Grades and test scores are not everything. But they are something -- and those who are convinced that their guys are way smarter have no hard facts at all to back up this widely and fervently believed notion.

The cold fact is that anyone who spouts the liberal line is likely to be depicted as sophisticated, if not brilliant, and anyone who opposes it is likely to be considered dull, if not stupid, in the liberal media.

"Racism" is the trump card in the indictment of Republicans. But the cold fact is that the whole Jim Crow era in the South was dominated by Democrats. A higher percentage of Republicans than Democrats voted for civil rights legislation.

Bill Clinton's cabinet consisted overwhelmingly of white males while Bush's cabinet has been the most ethnically diverse in history.
But who cares about facts any more?"

Thank God for the Americans have elected George Bush as their President. He is the right man to the right time.

As to the lies about him told by the left, Thomas Sowell has this to say:

President Bush, like Ronald Reagan before him and innumerable others who are out of favor among liberals, has repeatedly been depicted as such a mental lightweight that he is not in the same league with brilliant guys like Al Gore and John Kerry.

The fact is that George W. Bush and John Kerry both went to Yale, where Bush had a higher grade-point average. Bush also scored higher than Kerry on intelligence tests that both took in the military. Gore went to Harvard, where he finished in the bottom fifth of his class two years in a row.

Grades and test scores are not everything. But they are something -- and those who are convinced that their guys are way smarter have no hard facts at all to back up this widely and fervently believed notion.

The cold fact is that anyone who spouts the liberal line is likely to be depicted as sophisticated, if not brilliant, and anyone who opposes it is likely to be considered dull, if not stupid, in the liberal media.

The grand political fallacy of the age is that the Republicans are the party of wealth, while the Democrats are the party of compassion for the little guy. This is something that has been assumed and repeated so often that it has become a "well-known fact" without any hard evidence being asked for or given.

"Racism" is the trump card in the indictment of Republicans. But the cold fact is that the whole Jim Crow era in the South was dominated by Democrats. A higher percentage of Republicans than Democrats voted for civil rights legislation.

Bill Clinton's cabinet consisted overwhelmingly of white males while Bush's cabinet has been the most ethnically diverse in history.

Thank God for the Americans have elected George Bush as their President. He is the right man to the right time.

As to the lies about him told by the left, Thomas Sowell has this to say:

President Bush, like Ronald Reagan before him and innumerable others who are out of favor among liberals, has repeatedly been depicted as such a mental lightweight that he is not in the same league with brilliant guys like Al Gore and John Kerry.

The fact is that George W. Bush and John Kerry both went to Yale, where Bush had a higher grade-point average. Bush also scored higher than Kerry on intelligence tests that both took in the military. Gore went to Harvard, where he finished in the bottom fifth of his class two years in a row.

Grades and test scores are not everything. But they are something -- and those who are convinced that their guys are way smarter have no hard facts at all to back up this widely and fervently believed notion.

The cold fact is that anyone who spouts the liberal line is likely to be depicted as sophisticated, if not brilliant, and anyone who opposes it is likely to be considered dull, if not stupid, in the liberal media.

The grand political fallacy of the age is that the Republicans are the party of wealth, while the Democrats are the party of compassion for the little guy. This is something that has been assumed and repeated so often that it has become a "well-known fact" without any hard evidence being asked for or given.

"Racism" is the trump card in the indictment of Republicans. But the cold fact is that the whole Jim Crow era in the South was dominated by Democrats. A higher percentage of Republicans than Democrats voted for civil rights legislation.

Bill Clinton's cabinet consisted overwhelmingly of white males while Bush's cabinet has been the most ethnically diverse in history.

"stupid enough to elect Bush twice thank to the ignorant Red-Staters."

Ah...more intellectual name calling, makes one feel good about his fellow humans.

From an ignorant red Stater who did not vote for Bush.

"President Bush, like Ronald Reagan before him "

For you to compare a true conservative like Regan to Bush tells us everything we need to know about your politics. Rebubs cab do no wrong. As a realӔ conservative who doesnt put his politics, his church, or his company ahead of the good of the country, I must say IҒm deeply disappointed in most of what I read on here. I bow to all who believe the libs or the cons have the one and only true agenda. It is a sad day indeed. I can tout any statistic from any time in history and make everything smell like roses or with a different set of stats make everything smell like dog.... Neither one of which would be a true fact.

We only see what we look at. To look is an act of choice.Ӕ

YES YOU ARE A IGNORANT RED!!!! IS THATS HIP IN YOUR SMALL CIRCLE ....HERE COMES "THE USEFUL IDIOTS"...YOUR INSIGNIFICANCE AND PATHETICALLY SMALL NUMBERS ARE HILARIOUS!!!.......WANT TO BE COOL GET AN IDENTITY.......TRY THERAPY!!!!!!!!...DISFUNCTIONAL ONE!!!!!!!...YOUR IMPOTENT!!!

Nice overview. However, I disagree with the remark about Buarque and Helena being highly regarded in other countries. As the article itself points out, they have no useful policies to offer. If Geraldo Alckmin is John Major, helena is Arthur Scargill.

Alckmin is dull but level-headed, and still has plenty of ammunition to throw at the PT. Moreover, he does have something to offer: the "neo-liberal" reforms Lula (and Cardoso, for that matter) did not bother to implement. I guess he will present the PSDB as the "reforms" party while hammering the PT's corruption and incompetence - particularly the latter, as rekindling the "mensalo" (e.g. the PFL TV ad) has been utterly ineffective.

While it is a hard road ahead, the battle is not lost.

THE ONLY IGNORANT HERE IS YOU!

I SUGGEST YOU VISIT A DOCTOR. YOU ARE MENTALLY CONFUSED.

I believe the best approach to the Alckmin campaign is to insist along the lines described in this article (article in Portuguese).

O custo de chegar ao Poder
Gustavo H.B. Franco


Quando o PSDB era governo, o PT fazia uma oposição que hoje sua própria liderança reconhece ter sido agressiva e mesmo destrutiva. Tudo era entreguismo, submissão aos banqueiros e ao capital especulativo, ou motivo para CPIs. Reformas, imagine, nem pensar, a Constituição Cidadã era uma conquista e portanto intocável.

Hoje se percebe que tudo, ou quase tudo, era teatro, e que o objetivo era o de atrapalhar o projeto de poder do PSDB, mesmo que para isso saísse prejudicado o Brasil. Assim é a política. A liderança petista candidamente admite a esperteza, digna de grandes raposas do passado, e faz seu "Mea Culpa" com sorrisos de cantos de boca, como se fosse uma leve travessura sem maiores conseqüências. Afinal de contas, no plano estritamente político, a estratégia foi bem sucedida, eles maximizaram o desgaste do PSDB em passar reformas (que foram boas para o Brasil e que ninguém tenciona desfazer) e, ao fim das contas, ganharam as eleições.

A liderança petista reconhece, portanto, que impediu no Parlamento, no Judiciário ou mesmo nas ruas, como nos tumultos contra as privatizações, o avanço de reformas, como a da Previdência e do Sistema Tributário, que agora - seis ou sete anos depois - elegeu como prioritárias e urgentes para a restauração do crescimento. Ou seja, tudo isso que o presidente Luiz Inácio da Silva está propondo hoje para a Previdência, e muito mais, poderia ter sido feito há seis ou sete anos, e não foi feito em boa medida por causa do próprio PT.

Sim, o governismo teve defecções, sem as quais poderia ter passado as reformas atropelando a postura negativista do PT. Mas daí a dizer que a culpa pelos prejuízos causados pelo atraso nas reformas é do governo vai uma distância grande, tão grande quanto a que separa os pontos de vista que o PT tem hoje sobre as reformas e os que tinha, ou fingia que tinha, na época em que as combateu.

Pois bem, quanto custou ao Brasil atrasar em seis ou sete anos a seqüência de reformas que começa com a da Previdência e do Sistema Tributário e deve prosseguir com a reforma trabalhista e muitas outras?

Medido em bilhões de dólares, ou em pontos porcentuais do PIB, foi imenso o prejuízo ao país causado pela escolha "pragmática" feita pelo Partido dos Trabalhadores, mesmo que a conta se limitasse unicamente aos efeitos financeiros diretos das nova legislação hoje proposta. Para se saber esta quantia exata basta perguntar ao ministro Berzoini quanto terá a Previdência de ganhos com a reforma nos seus primeiros sete anos. A resposta seguramente vem em bilhões de dólares e tem dois dígitos. Este foi o custo, em dinheiro de hoje.

Os efeitos indiretos são mais difíceis de calcular: a dívida pública não teria crescido tanto, os juros não precisariam ter sido tão altos, o crescimento teria sido maior, o país estaria mais robusto e competitivo diante das crises externas posteriores a 1997. Qual seria a taxa de desemprego hoje, ou a taxa de juros, se a Reforma da Previdência tivesse sido feita há sete anos atrás?

Tudo mundo sabe que tudo teria sido muito melhor, tão melhor que o governo FHC teria sido mais bem sucedido e provavelmente o PT não teria ganho as eleições de 2003. Isto comprova três teses: (I) a da urgência e relevância das reformas, agora consenso absoluto (II) a de que o PT deliberadamente prejudicou o Brasil para chegar ao Poder, portanto, passando no "vestibular" para partido político de raposas feito as outras e (III) a de que o PT não tinha como não tem "modelo econômico alternativo", pois o que está fazendo é apropriar-se competentemente de uma agenda de desenvolvimento que nunca foi sua, mas que o próprio PSDB deitou fora por que acreditou tratar-se de uma agenda neoliberal.

Nada disso retira o brilho da vitória política do PT, que sacrificou sua proverbial coerência revolucionária, abandonou suas idéias fundadoras, diminuiu sua capacidade de falar em ética na política, igualou-se aos outros partidos, prejudicou a economia para atrapalhar o inimigo, mas ganhou as eleições. Na política, importa é ganhar, e o PT é um projeto de poder bem sucedido.

O que tem início a partir do final dos festejos e dos primeiros cem dias de indulgência máxima, é todavia, uma experiência inteiramente nova. Quem é este governo que acabamos de eleger? Sabemos que não é mais o mesmo partido que votou contra absolutamente tudo que hoje entende como prioritário. E sabemos também que o PT não é um partido com capacidade de formulação de políticas públicas dentro do programa que costumava chamar de neoliberal.

Que governo é esse, ao final das contas? Quais são suas idéias, suas propostas? Tendo se despido de seu passado, que novo figurino deverá adotar?

A este respeito vale lembrar uma velha história pertencente ao folclore do saudoso professor Mario Henrique Simonsen. Diante de uma tese apresentada por aluno aspirante a um título qualquer, seu veredicto foi salomônico: a tese tem idéias novas e boas, só que as novas não são boas, e as boas não são novas.

I don't believe that the so-called "votes for bribes" was ever proven.

ever proven? Why don't you ask the commission that was set-up to investigate the claims made?

According to them they did PROVE numerous senators and congressmen were involved. When they handed in the results of their research and recommendations it was promptly thrown in the garbage and prompted nearly the entire commission to resign from it!

Just another act of impunity by the brazilian gov't. Why do you think these numerous politicians and ministers "resigned"? Because they were innocent?

I don't believe that the so-called "votes for bribes" was ever proven.

JEFFERSON ADMITTED IT PUBLICLY. WHAT DO YOU NEED? A BAT TO THE HEAD TO HAVE THIS SINK IN?

The commission did not find "votes for bribes." The mensalão was Jefferson's lie. But some people keep repeating this lie of Jefferson's. It's a perfect example of repeating a lie so much that most people will believe it's true, in spite of the evidence. The BBC at least reports correctly: "[The] workers' party had admitted raising millions of dollars in illegal funds, and although the president himself avoided blame, the scandal brought down some heavyweight members of his government." Lula was abosolved by the commission. So get your facts straight.

Alas, this is how the Brazilian state always worked, since the Portuguese court came over (and no, it is not the Portuguese's fault if we did not fix it). There are, however, more respectable-looking cover-ups, in the form of BNDES and Banco do Brasil lending, investment by public pension funds, contracts with public companies, the traditional pork-barrel project, etc.

Since the glorious, super duper Nova Repblica (redemocratization in 1985), and even before, this is how those big campaign slush funds are fed, to the tune of amounts several times larger than those declared to the election authorities.

Despite the commissions's findings, Ives Gandra Martins's one-liner in the Waldomiro case holds true: "if Dirceu (Lula) knew what was going on, he is an accumplice; if he did not, he is incapable of choosing honest and competent advisors".

One of many reasons why I prefer to pay the fine for not voting for Brasilian Politicians. They should all go on a hunger strike, see if I care.

quote:
If Baurque is the same person who often posts on this site and I was Brazilian, I would vote for him. A clone in the manner of Chavez or Castro, Brazil could use someone...right or left who could shake things up.

Actually Heloisa Helena is better in the pool and she being a fervent leftist as she is would make the same shake in Brazil and the White House the style of Chaves and Morales. Hey, John why don't you write about this candidate to you readers?

RE: THE RUDE WEAK MAN IMITATING A LEFTIS

use some debate with the guy and he soon explodes in ignorance.yuk

Helena is mentioned right there in the 6th paragraph. Despite her coherence, charisma, etc., she is a good example of how the incompetent are more dangerous than the corrupt. All she has to offer are outdated policies and vacuous, flowery citations; however, she will nibble at Lula from his left, and does offer some insurance against a first-round Lula win.

A one-liner by Gianetti da Fonseca during an interview to Miriam Leito left me thoughtful: "so Congress is corrupt? And do you think our society is much different from that?

i don,t debate with ignorants....and you didn,t deny that you are a pseudo leftist did you?......why don,t you get toghether with cindy sheehan i hear she is desperate for attention!!!!!!!.......Your intellectual act is booring and monotnous......Intellectuals do not lead nations,do not win wars,are generaly naive, lack common sense, are generally good at the exchange of ideas,generally surround themselves with others of their ilk,and can loose a grasp of lifes realitys,tend to be idealist,isolated,and some have been known to be interpersonally disfunctional...no offense of course i just get out often.........just an observation........

quote:

"Despite the commissions's findings, Ives Gandra Martins's one-liner in the Waldomiro case holds true: "if Dirceu (Lula) knew what was going on, he is an accumplice; if he did not, he is incapable of choosing honest and competent advisors"."

There are only TWO conclusions one can come to once the FACTS are known about mensalo.

The first, Lula acted in complicity and had knowledge of what was going on.

The second, if he didn't, he is incompetent.

Strong arguments can be raised for either of the above two conslusions.

Bush
Rumsfield
Cheney
Brown (FEMA)

The US can write the book on incompetence.

Well, well , well my dear you did not explain why Heloísa Helena is so incompetent and dangerous with those flowery vacuous citations and outdated policies. The outdated policies you vaguely mentioned are a threat to the interests of the international finance markets? So are these "outdated" policies dangerous for whom? The liberal economic ideology, the glorious free market, is not an outdated policy as well dear?

pseudo leftist? funny, although you are infamous and boring you are also funny. You like to be funny I know, it kinda work sometimes. Oh yeah that Cindy Sheehan when I read in the paper and saw a picture of her lonely out there I thought wow isn't she amazing? Am I looking for attention? sort of, people from America is sometimes in certain, the most important issues involving us, so biased informed that i feel a pain to read what i read you know. I remember at the time of Bush's reelection a newspaper article, there were supplements exclusively portraying the American process in 2004, interviewing US citizens living in Sao Paulo stating that they felt better informed by Brazilian media than when they were in US. Maybe I have the article with me. An American man said that he simply had a total new vision over some issues that they were more broadly covered and in us they show how americans see americans, a woman mentioned that the American media is simply censured. .

I suspect that you are brazilian....i,m not sure whether you are in brazil or the u.s.a.,that said you may be a paulista,possibly middle class,your command of english is somewhat less then perfect,although my command of portuguese is non existent.That said ,i find the anti u.s.a.propaganda coming from the southern continent both pathetic and amusing... On the issue of media {paper} , articles and editorials generally reflect the authors or their bosses particular view.I do not take that as neccessarily being important or often accurate.Your trumping up of the brazilian media and degrading of u.s. media indicates a bias ,.and ignorance of u.s media ,.u.s media is varied and reflects many different views..I will not get into the Iraq War with a foreign national with a preconceived opinion about it based on newspapers and television programs. I will say wars are best run by professionals thats why we have Generals .The reasons for wars are never simple and cut and dry..To experience this gives one certainly a different perspective then say one who has not..If you are sucking in the anti u.s.a. crap coming from the leftists,socialists,marxists, then thats your right.But i will tell you this the majority of americans are patriotic,believe in their democratic gov.are stead fast in their beliefs from birth, that we are the greatest nation on earth, and are the worlds sole number one superpower!!!!!!This is not fiction, this is not rhetoric, but fact!!! . And our history has shown how we got this way.... And if you know anything about american history you will find that we have freed millions upon millions of peoples from tyranny,oppression,communism,terrorism, from europe to asia !!!!!!!!. And we have never been defeated...... WE ARE LOVED,WE ARE ENVIED,AND SOMETIMES WE ARE HATED (BY OUR ENEMYS).... Good luck......

quote:

"there were supplements exclusively portraying the American process in 2004, interviewing US citizens living in Sao Paulo stating that they felt better informed by Brazilian media than when they were in US. Maybe I have the article with me. An American man said that he simply had a total new vision over some issues that they were more broadly covered and in us they show how americans see americans, a woman mentioned that the American media is simply censured. . "

My, my, my. "My dear"...you're going to throw those stones??

How could you? How could you DARE?

Are you saying the press is "more free" in Brazil than in the U.S.?? If so, the only person uninformed here would be you....my dear.

Firstly, most ALL, if not all, media companies have their political views and slants. At least in the U.S. you get MANY differing viewpoints, and also even when the OWNERS of certain media companies are "in the news" for something negative, or something that they certainly don't want media attention over, it's still covered, and on their very own media networks!!

Prime example is Time Warner and CNN. Over the last couple of years they have certainly had some negative press, and that's even covered on CNN.

That is something that you mostly won't find in brazil. And also you must be VERY careful in brazil on whom you report about and exactly what you report.

One should ask Larry Rohter, a New York Times Reporter and Brazilian correspondent where he thinks "freedom of the press" exists more, in brazil or the U.S. A question that he may feel a little uneasy to answer....in brazil.

You see after Larry wrote a story, which the NY Times published, that accused Lula of drinking too much, two days after it ran his visa was REVOKED and he was ordered to leave the country within 8 days!! A letter was carried to the NY Times by the Brazilian Ambassador in the U.S. asking for a detraction and apology. All this even after the main source of the story, coming from a man that should know, Lula's own running mate in 1998, Leonel Brizola.

quote:

"Former Rio de Janeiro state governor Leonel Brizola, the main source for the Times article, reaffirmed his claim that Silva drank too much during the 1998 presidential campaign when Brizola was Silva's running mate.

Brizola said he only told Rohter "what everyone already knows." unquote:



Finally Mr. Rohter was allowed to stay in the country, but only by a supreme court decsion. You see, what Lula, the president of brazil, was trying to do, was UNCONSTITUTIONAL!!! Yet judges from the lower courts UPHELD this decision, it took the supreme court in brazil to finally uphold the LAW.

This is a MINOR situation in comparison to the vast CENSORSHIP that takes place in the brazilian media.But a good indicator of just how ludicrous "freedom of the press" can be in brazil. Naturally I don't believe I even have to mention that brazil has one of the most corrupt governments on earth, and the judicial branch is certainly not immune from this corruption. The judicial branch throughout brazil has time after time served "cease and desist" orders upon stories that have been ready to be published, or broadcast, pertaining to corruption throughout this country and in particular in the states or municipalities where these stories pertain.

The United Nations as well as Amnesty International have made numerous reports and complaints about the restriction of press freedoms and even murders that have been carried out against journalists in brazil.

Here is a recent report from the IPI, the International Press Institute.


2005 World Press Freedom Review
With hundreds of newspapers and television channels and thousands of radio stations, Brazil is South Americas largest media market. The countryҒs independent media report vigorously on government performance and other political and social issues. However, JOURNALISTS WORKING IN THE COUNTRY'S INTERIOR WHO ATTEMPT TO INVESTIGATE DRUG TRAFFICKING, CORRUPTION AND OTHER ILLEGAL ACTIVITIES CONTINUE TO FACE THREATS, PHYSICAL ATTACKS, AND EVEN DEATH at the hands of local power brokers and criminals, making BRAZIL one of the most DANGEROUS countries in the Western Hemisphere TO PRACTICE JOURNALISM.


When not confronted with threats and physical violence, the countrys journalists also had to contend with CENSORSHIP attempts and a rash of litigation, including c riminal and civil defamation lawsuits based on the 1967 press law, a REMNANTremnant of the former MILITARY DICTATORSHIP. The excessive use of force by police was also a problem for reporters.



Two journalists were murdered in Brazil in 2005.



On 31 March, Ricardo Gonzalves Rocha, owner of Jornal Vicentino newspaper in the city of Sңo Vicente, So Paulo state, was shot dead in his car by an unidentified assailant on a motorcycle. A controversial figure, Gonzalves Rocha was also a city councilman for many years. Police dismissed robbery as a motive since the journalists valuables were not taken.



Jos㒩 Cndido Amorim Pinto, an investigative journalist for Rdio Comunit⡡ria Alternativa in Carpina, Pernambuco state, was killed on 1 July. He was shot by two men on a motorcycle as he parked his car outside the radio station. Amorim produced and presented an investigative programme in which he frequently reported on corruption cases. Recent targets of his investigations included LOCAL POLITICIANS Mandel Botafogo and Antonio Moraes. Amorim had previously received threats, and he was injured on 21 May when two men on a motorcycle fired shots at his car.



In a blow against impunity in Brazil, several men received lengthy jail sentences in 2005 for their role in the killing of journalists.


On 25 May, a court convicted local drug lord Elias Pereira da Silva in the 2002 murder of investigative reporter Tim Lopes and sentenced him to 28 years and six months in prison. In further trials, six other men were also found guilty in Lopess murder and handed down lengthy prison terms.



Brazilians were shocked by the brutal slaying of Lopes, an award-winning investigative reporter, in June 2002. The journalist had gone to Vila do Cruzeiro, one of Rio de JaneiroҒs impoverished suburbs, or favelas, where he was investigating parties hosted by drug traffickers that involved drugs and the sexual exploitation of minors. According to two suspects arrested on 9 June, several men close to Pereira da Silva kidnapped Lopes in Vila do Cruzeiro around midnight on 2 June. After Lopes told them he worked for TV Globo, they took him to Pereira da Silva, who was in a nearby favela. The drug traffickers beat Lopes and shot him in the feet, then held a MOCK TRIAL and sentenced the journalist to DEATH. Pereira da Silva KILLED the reporter with a SWORD, and the body was then burned and buried.



In two trials, held on 31 May and 16 June, Clio Alves dos Santos and Joo Leite were sentenced to prison terms of 17 years and six months and 15 years and two months, respectively, for the 2002 murder of journalist Domingos S飡vio Brando Lima Jnior. The owner and publisher of the daily Folha do Estado in Cuiab㺡, Mato Grosso state, was shot at least five times in the chest as he was surveying the construction site of his newspapers new offices.


Throughout the year, the Brazilian Investigative Journalism Association (Associaҧo Brasileira de Jornalismo Investigativo), the Inter American Press Association (IAPA), and the Lima-based Institute for Press and Society (Instituto Prensa y Sociedad), among others, REPORTED NUMEROUS PRESS FREEDOM VIOLATIONS AND ATTACKS AGAINST BRAZILIAN JOURNALISTS.



On 21 January, Lcio Fl㺡vio Pinto, editor and publisher of a bi-monthly newspaper, Jornal Pessoal, was PHYSICALLY ATTACKED by Ronaldo Maiorana, a businessman and POLITICIAN, in the city of Belm, Par state. Pinto was repeatedly punched and kicked by Maiorana and two bodyguards in a restaurant in Bel顩m, where he was having lunch with some friends. Maiorana, director of the daily newspaper O Liberal and the television station TV Liberal, also threatened to kill him, Pinto said. Two days before the attack, Pinto had published an article in his bi-monthly, in which he reported on the Maiorana familys media group and its alleged monopoly in Parҡ state. Pinto faces numerous criminal defamation and civil lawsuits for his critical reporting on a variety of issues, and he has received death threats in the past.



On 23 March, Maurcio Melato Barth, editor and publisher of the bi-monthly newspaper Info-Bairros, was shot twice in the legs by two unidentified men in front of his home in Itapema, Santa Catarina state. The attack followed a series of articles published in his bi-monthly on CORRUPTION AMONG LOCAL POLITICIANS. Barth, who had previously received several anonymous death threats, faced months of recuperation before he could walk again. He and his family were FORCED TO GO INTO HIDING.



On 4 May, Judge Jeov Sardinha de Morais of the 7th Civil District of Goi�nia, Gois state, GRANTED AN INJUNCTION that ordered the withdrawal of all copies of the book, "Na Toca dos Lees" (In the Lionsᵒ Den), from circulation in Brazil. The injunction was granted on behalf of former presidential candidate Ronaldo Caiado, who reportedly filed criminal and civil defamation complaints against the author of the book, freelance journalist Fernando Morais, and a civil complaint against the books publisher, Editora Planeta do Brasil.



MoraisҒs book, which was published in early April, tells the history of the advertising agency, W/Brasil, and quotes one of its main business partners as saying that Caiado, while running for president in 1989, told him that sterilising women could solve the problem of overpopulation in Brazils north-eastern region.



In April, sports commentator Jorge Kajuru was convicted of criminal defamation and sentenced to 18 months of overnight detention. Kajuru, whose real name is Jorge Reis da Costa, was ordered to stay at a prison dormitory in GoiҢnia every night, beginning 28 May. The criminal defamation lawsuit against Kajuru stemmed from allegations he made on air in January 2001 that TV Anhanguera, an affiliate of the television network Rede Globo, had won the rights to broadcast the Gois state football championship because of its close relationship to the state government. Organiza᧵es Jaime Cmara, the media group that owns TV Anhanguera, and its president, Jaime Cmara J⢺nior, filed several criminal complaints against Kajuru. Judge Alvarino Egdio da Silva Primo of the 12th Criminal District of Goinia found Kajuru guilty of criminal defamation in June 2003. Kajuru filed several appeals before the Goi�s State Court of Justice and the Superior Court of Justice, but his conviction was upheld. In March 2005, the Gois State Court of Justice ordered that the sentence be carried out.



On 15 May, a JUDGE PROHIBITED Rede Amaznica de Televisᴣo, Rede Globos affiliate in RondҴnia state, from broadcasting a report on LOCAL CORRUPTION. Minutes before the news programme, "Fantstico", was to air the report on alleged corruption among state legislators, justice officials arrived at Rede Amaznica de Televisᴣos studios and served an INJUNCTION BANNING THE BROADCAST.



On 17 May, unidentified persons set fire to the house of journalist Sandra Miranda in Palmas, Tocantins state. According to Miranda, editor of the independent newspaper Primeira Pҡgina, the attack may have been connected to her reporting on CORRUPTION AMONG LOCAL POLITICIANS and military police officers.



On 1 September, Judge Jos Alonso Beltrame Jnior of the 10th Santos Civil Court in S麣o Paulo state issued an ORDER PROHIBITING the newspaper A Tribuna from reporting on a court case involving the misappropriation of public funds. In August, A Tribuna had reported extensively on an investigation by the Special Audit Committee into the alleged embezzlement of funds by Sonia Mara Precioso de Moura, an official with the Santos Prefeitura.



On 8 September, unidentified attackers set fire to a building housing the newspaper Dirio de Mar�lia and two radio stations, Dirio FM and Dirceu AM, in Marlia, S᭣o Paulo state. According to a security guard, who was alone at the time, three hooded men forced their way into the building, threatened him with their guns, and set fire to the building, destroying nearly 80 per cent of the facilities. The editor-in-chief of Dirio de Marlia, Jos᭩ Ursilio de Souza, believed the attack was aimed at his newspaper in RETALIATION for its "critical editorial line towards LOCAL POLITICIANS."



In December, the New York-based Committee to Protect Journalists (CPJ) condemned a So Paulo court order prohibiting the daily Folha de S. Paulo from publishing reports about a criminal case. Folha de S. Paulo received the written order, signed by Federal District Court Judge Margarete Sacristan, on 9 December. The order, which was issued at the request of plaintiffs in the case, instructed the newspaper to stop publishing reports about a pending court case involving alleged corporate espionage in the battle over control of Brasil Telecom, a telecommunications company. CPJ called the order "THE LATEST EXAMPLE OF JUDICIAL CENSORSHIP IN BRAZIL."



You see my dear, these types of things simply DON'T happen in the U.S. You see, things like "freedom of speech", "freedom of the press", "the right to bear arms" are engrained into the american culture. You can rest assured that one of the most free, if not the most, presses in the WORLD resides in the U.S.A.

Now this is a true story, and not an untypical one at all in brazil.

Firstly, MANY media outlets in many states and municipalities throughout brazil are OWNED by local and state politicians.

In the state of Sergipe in 1998 the state ran energy company was privatized and sold to a company named Energipe for roughly 350 million dollars. Until this day 230 million dollars from that sale are "unaccounted for". This was national news in brazil and even the magazine Veja published an article about this and its governor at the time, Albano Franco. At that time, and even until today, Mr. Franco is owner of nearly every single state and local media publication and broadcast network. This story was NEVER broadcast or written about in the local or state media! And, those Veja magazines about this story.....NEVER MADE IT TO SERGIPE!! All editions of Veja magazine about that story bound for Sergipe were PURCHASED in Salvador, Bahia!! Wonder by whom??

Within the last year Veja also ran a story about vast accounting discrepancies in the construction of a resort in Bahia, Costa de Sauipe. A project that was supposed to cost less than 250 million dollars and was funded by federal pensions. This project ended up costing over ONE BILLION DOLLARS, once again, those Veja's, never made it to Salvador.

Freedom of the press in brazil....that's as ludicrous as saying "opportunity for all".