MercoPress. South Atlantic News Agency
First Brazilian pre-salt oil shipment to Chile in mid May
Petrobras, Brazil’s state-controlled oil producer will export its first cargo from the country’s second-largest crude field to Chile in mid-May. Read full article
Comments
Disclaimer & comment rulesI know the Tupi field is producing a lot of gas and hot air, but I just can't bring myself to call it the Lula Field.
Apr 20th, 2011 - 12:29 pm - Link - Report abuse 0With 65% of the profits from the Chilean sale coming to Brasil, I look forward to seeing the audited and certified monies being managed by the new Agency such that it *TRANSPARENTLY* goes to the people of Brasil, and not into the pockets of politicians.
If the process is transparent and uncorrupt from the off, there is a possibility - however small - that it might remain so.
You don't have any reason to doubt that. You're just too addicted to negativism. I think you've watched Globo too much.
Apr 20th, 2011 - 08:18 pm - Link - Report abuse 0YOU JOKE, SIR !
Apr 20th, 2011 - 10:25 pm - Link - Report abuse 0I have billions and billions of Real's worth of reasons to doubt it.
A 'leopard does not change its spots' without an awful lot of kicking and screaming.
And, to only slightly misquote Jurrasic Park, “There WILL be kicking and screaming”.
The leopard's spots may be changed,
but I've a feeling that they will be the same spots, just in different places.
(I'm going to recycle my answer to you on that other thread because it really workds as a meta-answer to most of your posts.)
Apr 20th, 2011 - 11:16 pm - Link - Report abuse 0You have far less knowledge of the country you discuss than you believe. What you have is a perception, often with no basis on reality, fabricated by consuming too much from too few media outlets. I can trace your all too whiny attitude back to JN, Arnaldo Jabor, and other professional misinformers.
Forgetit, let it go, it's brain dead. You cant discuss with those clowns. To much faux news when it was living in the US..(or it's just a little frustrated kid who acts like an older person).
Apr 20th, 2011 - 11:58 pm - Link - Report abuse 0It is pretty obvious to all that you maintain the P.T. coalition line in the face of all evidence piled up against our rulers.
Apr 21st, 2011 - 01:21 am - Link - Report abuse 0'My party right or wrong'. ”Power to the people (while I stuff my Swiss bank accounts)“.
I am disappointed in you.
I don't know if you are a serial beneficiary of institutionalised corruption, but your unwillingness to speak out against it leads us all to the conclusion that you are part of the problem, not part of the solution.
If you are a man without the taint of corruption on you, open your window and shout out ”I'm as mad as hell, and I'm not going to take this any more”.
Then set about your life to remove the taint and stains of corruption from your society.
For if you and your ilk, the 'intelligent' and educated, are prepared to seek advancement through corruption, then you, your ilk, and this country have no claim to the word 'civilised'.
I'm going to ignore your insinuation that I'm the recipient of govt dirty money. Not that it offended me...
Apr 21st, 2011 - 05:18 am - Link - Report abuse 0In BR there are already too many GeoffWs: too many who believe whining against the govt is important, something that makes them great connaissuers of national politics. People like this I can find in every corner of any given street. As such I don't see why joining that activity: the market is already saturated.
When I first started to pay attention to national politics, and that wasn't much long ago, I thought something made the PT stand out from the other major parties: its nationalism. The PT's more clearly aligned with national interests. It also has a more friendly and attentious attitude to the social movements, to the poor as a whole, and the working class. And I say this as someone who thinks the country's economic policy is still too beneficial to the financial sector, and its social policies, too assistentialistic. The PT also has a more realistic view on how to achieve development - and that is not by merely selling out national assets to multinational companies (which is really the conception adopted by the BR right - just go read something about FHC's dependency theory). As for corruption, the PT and its adm are no different from other parties or the previous adm. The opposition parties - the PSDB and the DEM - have a quasi-monopoly over the ranks of those whose terms have been terminated due to corruption charges. And though it's hard to remember of many details of a government that commenced 17 years ago, I know the PSDB adm was hardly clean. Who can forget that FHC managed to pass the reelection bill by buying Congressmen's votes? The PT at least has not toyed with the constitution. And, considering Lula's approval ratings, that wouldn't have been hard for him. So why should I work against the PT? To promote parties that are equally corrupt, less nationalitic and even more aligned with the interests of speculators?
(6) GeoffWard
Apr 21st, 2011 - 05:32 am - Link - Report abuse 0You say:
”For if you and your ilk, the 'intelligent' and educated, are prepared to seek advancement through corruption, then you, your ilk, and this country have no claim to the word 'civilised'.”
I say:
And you are talking!
You that advocate for ”TAKING OUT” every progressive government in South America that is trying to change that corruption status quo?
We know all too well what “YOUR ILK” means with the worlds: ”TAKE OUT”
Dilma and Mujica bear the scars on their bodies………..
Names like Goulart and Allende have been in the news recently………..
Just one example to illustrate your complete lack of real information about South American Affairs and how opinionated your comments are:
The other day you “teasingly” commented about the Malvinas minefields…..:
http://en.mercopress.com/2011/04/19/falklands-explosives-disposal-team-has-dealt-with-2.8-million-ordnance-items-in-29-years
Well…………………………………….:
Argentina has offered, several times, during the last 29 years to send demining teams and remove every single mine.
The United Kingdom (and the Islands hardliners) have refused the offer every time.
The minefields are still there in contravention of the UN Demining treaty that GB has signed.
Not because they are difficult to remove, but because they are a magnificent propaganda tool to get emotional old Anglo Turnips like you to react as expected,…… without thinking.
What's behind your paranoia regarding the PT is really media hysteria against that party - hysteria that has succeeded in instilling anti-PT feelings in the entire BR urban middle class. That attitude isn't based on facts - e.g., that the PT is a corrupt organization, a “partido de ladrões” as the Estadão once put it - but on ideology, on hostility against the PT's nationalistic platform. This is the same media that the FT once qualified as being partisan, slanderous and having no committment to institutional stability.
Apr 21st, 2011 - 05:37 am - Link - Report abuse 0I'm not interested on how Sarney earns his money and how he spends it. But if I really wanted to get to know this, I wouldn't rely on the same outlets as you do. Don't you think you're being well served by watching Globo or reading FSP.
My post #9 should be understood as a continuation of #7.
Apr 21st, 2011 - 05:39 am - Link - Report abuse 0@ think
Apr 21st, 2011 - 07:11 am - Link - Report abuse 0Not because they are difficult to remove, but because they are a magnificent propaganda tool to get emotional old Anglo Turnips like you to react as expected,…… without thinking.
Nor you
Maybe we kept the mines a bit longer like chile,to keep burglars out
en.mercopress.com/2010/07/13/chile-clears-minefields-in-magallanes-region-and-tierra-del-fuego
Chile will announce this week that the extreme south of the country, in areas next to the border with Argentina, is free of antipersonnel mines. Chilean authorities consider this a major step to comply with the 2016 Ottawa convention timetable
According to the report released to the press, Chilean Armed Forces special teams located and destroyed 3.462 anti personnel mines and 1.844 anti-tank mines in the Bahía Azul three areas to the north of Tierra del Fuego. This has been accomplished between December 2006 and June 2010.
“I'm going to ignore your insinuation that I'm the recipient of govt dirty money. Not that it offended me...
Apr 21st, 2011 - 10:09 am - Link - Report abuse 0When I first started to pay attention to national politics, and that wasn't much long ago, . . .”
For God's sake, Forgetit - It SHOULD offend you.
It is a measure of the all-pervading nature of corruption in Brasil that you are untouched by the thought of it. . . . . In Bahia they say “It is there, it will always be there, this is Brasil.”
You are the sort of person that will, and perhaps should, enter politics but I fear from your written words that the flames of honesty, integrity and ethics already burn dim.
For when the flames gutter out, all that remains in the dark is the dish of compromise and collusion, and the smell of burned-out dreams.
I really don't CARE what your brand of political though might be, and what party you support - what I do care about is that you have compromised your ideals so young - and perhaps even before being 'tested'.
This country's real future is ONLY built around the Ficha Limpa and its underlying principles.
GW, whenever there are poor control over public figures' behavior and loopholes that allow for less transparency, people will take advantage and there will be corruption. This is human nature, and it is no more of a problem in Brazil than in countries in a similar stage of development (see this: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Corruption_Perceptions_Index ). But is it the main problem in BR? Is the country's future built around Ficha Limpa and other well-intentioned but ultimately worthless piece of legislations? I don't think so. The main problem in BR is this: the creation of human and physical capacity that can guarantee future growth - that is, education and infrastructure. And I see much more will in confronting those issues now than in previous adms. That's why I don't care about being a moralistic Tarzan screaming in a jungle of public corruption.
Apr 21st, 2011 - 11:10 am - Link - Report abuse 0So, your thesis is that
Apr 21st, 2011 - 02:24 pm - Link - Report abuse 0(i) We can’t be seen to be less corrupt than the other developing countries
(ii) Corruption is a stage of development we must all go through
(iii) The foundations of our roads are more important than the foundations of our society.
Sad to see such amorality attempting self-justification.
“ people will take advantage and there will be corruption. This is human nature,”
Apr 21st, 2011 - 05:03 pm - Link - Report abuse 0I have to disagree. It is not human nature but socialisation that makes corruption acceptable in some societies. Otherwise it would be an acceptable part of life in all countries and clearly that is not true.
Just sayin'.
@GeoffWard
Apr 21st, 2011 - 10:20 pm - Link - Report abuse 0My thesis is that the main concern for Brazil, and for any other developing nation, is growth. It is growth only that brings about improvement in life standards. Corruption is not a stage of development - but as long as it doesn't hamper growth, it should be one's priority. Most people would agree with me. Most people think having jobs is more important than preaching morality to public officials or bitching about the government.
@ElaineB
I didn't say social conditioning makes corruption acceptable. In virtually no society is corruption acceptable. I said that to pursue one's interests in part of human nature. As such, if there's little pressure for transparency and few chances to ever be punished, public officials, no matter where they are from, will abuse their opportunities.
@16 it is an interesting thought, isn't it? If you had the opportunity and no possibility of punishment if caught, would a person carry out a crime even if they knew it was morally wrong to do so? I still think that how one is socially conditioned would play a part in a person making that decision.
Apr 22nd, 2011 - 11:07 am - Link - Report abuse 0In England there was a huge scandal over MPs expenses claims. I am sure you heard about it. MPs are given a salary and an allowance for legitimate expenses incurred whilst carrying out their duties. Unfortunately some MPs stretched the 'legitimate' part to the limit and creatively padded out their claims to reach the maximum amount allowed. This included bogus salaries to family members and clearing castle moats etc. So, one could argue that they were trusted to make legitimate claims but chose to embellish their expenses because they could and they didn't think they would ever get caught or punished.
Wrong. They were caught, punished and some of the worst offenders sent to prison because of the pressure of public opinion. The MPs were public servants in positions of trust and when they were caught the general public DID care about the morality of the situation.
Just an example of differences in cultures.
ElaineB..the greatest scandal of all, and that included in Britain are the banks bailout that committed fraud, and none went to jail. What you typed about is nothing compare what not long time ago happened, so give us a break about typing here how morally correct they are in the UK, because we both know, it's a joke.
Apr 22nd, 2011 - 02:46 pm - Link - Report abuse 0I never said that. I was responding to the assertion that, in general, people don't care about corruption. Some societies do, some are more accepting and less concerned. Or maybe more concerned with other things. I was using the expenses scandal purely as an example. Icould have easily used another.
Apr 22nd, 2011 - 03:16 pm - Link - Report abuse 0The unregulated banking practises leading to the near collaspe of the whole banking system was a crime, IMO.
Why take everything so personally? It is just a discussion. And I say again, I do not speak for 60 million people, just me.
We, as members of society, have responsibilities as well as rights.
Apr 22nd, 2011 - 03:27 pm - Link - Report abuse 0It is a duty placed upon us by the rules of the society in which we live, to be personally ethical, moral and fair in our dealings with others in our society and beyond.
It is our responsibility to address societal shortcomings in others, as we find them - especially in those we chose for managing matters of governance and public administration.
Thus we encourage the legal process of the state to punish those abusing their position within the system.
When the system refuses to allow punishment of individuals transgressing the rules of that society, then the executive is unanswerable to the people and should be replaced.
I have argued this within the UK wrt the ``global´ financial crisis´ and the 2nd Iraq War, calling for the indictment of the Prime Minister for de facto/alleged (take your pick) war crimes, and also the Chancellor of the Exchequer, the Head of the Bank of England, and the CE of the Financial Services Authority for their failure to manage effectively the accumulating and compounding risks to public finances posed by, inter alia, the US Sub-Prime issue.
The investment bankers around the world, and particularly in London, have also been the target of my invective, lodged complaints and FIA submissions.
When I inveigh against Brasilian institutionalised corruption, it is not because I hate Brasil - quite the reverse;
it is because Brasil could be so much a better country if it really understood and took on board the importance and value of honesty in public life.
@ElaineB
Apr 22nd, 2011 - 03:50 pm - Link - Report abuse 0I guess I agree. Social conditioning shapes one's behavior as much as external pressure and one's inate impulses. But for social conditioning to work, there needs to be some sort of external pressure. Parents know that. They know that to turn their kids into gentle, respectful adults they need to use some degree of coercion to make them drop certain unpleasant, selfish attitudes (and small kids are usually full of them).
I believe the least corrupt societies are the ones that have for the longest imposed policies that force people to be more honest and transparent. As time went by, people in general understood that honesty pays off (at least it doesn't get you in jail) and that it is better not to be corrupt. Even if there's opportunity to profit at the expenses of the law, most of those people wouldn't act on it because they have already come to associate corruption with bad outcomes. The most corrupt societies, on the other hand, are the ones that have not yet pushed for greater transparency or accountability, and yet have done so only too recently. In those societies people don't necessarily associate corruption with something undesirable (at least for the one who practices it).
I think the power of public pressure is, indeed, potent.
Apr 25th, 2011 - 03:16 pm - Link - Report abuse 0The Ficha Limpa is one such public pressure - but those involved in running the Ship of State have found every reason under the sun to avoid invoking it - in spite of a 100% Senate Vote to invoke it.
Apr 25th, 2011 - 06:19 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Oh, the paradoxes!
Commenting for this story is now closed.
If you have a Facebook account, become a fan and comment on our Facebook Page!