MercoPress. South Atlantic News Agency
Brazilian Federal Police has new chief who pledges “to leave aside vanity and thirst for power”
A new boss took over Brazil's federal police on Monday despite criticism that he would block a probe into unpopular Brazilian President Michel Temer, who is being investigated by the force. Several Brazilian media outlets reported that Fernando Segovia's appointment was supported by government ministers also implicated in federal police investigations. Read full article
Comments
Disclaimer & comment rulesThe Proof of the Pudding is in Eating it! So from now on:
Nov 21st, 2017 - 12:06 pm - Link - Report abuse 0#1: Will the VVIP-Crooks be behind the REAL bars [instead of being imprisoned - just for the NAMESAKE ONLY - enjoying 5-Star Comforts, Privileges & Benefits]? And Oh Yes:
#2: WIll they really be forced to RETURN the Stollen Trillions?
The usual bullsh*t...proved by the fact he says one thing and does another....can't be trusted....to do the right thing. These Congressional idiots, plus a few supreme court justices might do well to heed the signs coming from the top brass in the military...
Nov 22nd, 2017 - 06:31 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Depressing. This is the problem with Temer and co remaining in power while they are investigated and accused, it allows them to kick out and replace all the people investigating them. Even if Temer's corruption cases go ahead once he's finished his term, the damage is already done.
Nov 23rd, 2017 - 06:19 pm - Link - Report abuse 0And I hope they do heed the signs and deal with them appropriately; the last thing Brazil needs is another 20 years of dictatorship.
@DT
Nov 23rd, 2017 - 08:03 pm - Link - Report abuse 0The situation IS depressing...but, owe you a reply :
Free speech means being able to speak yr mind…great in theory, in practice, sometimes not so much. Usually, one's friends are people who share similar values, so no problem there ; at work, your “except for usual things like not saying anything inappropriate”…so I ask you, who’s the judge of ‘inappropriate’ ? what you might not consider something inappropriate, others might...what then ? I usually say what I think, within the limits of what I consider reasonable, as I do not have the habit of insulting people deliberately (or for no reason at all)…unless of course, I think they deserve it, and in which case I don’t particularly care what they think. I don’t support PC behavior for the sake of political correctness - old fashioned, or traditional etiquette works for me, or, ‘treat others as you would have them treat you’; and, I don’t have to kowtow to anyone, so no need to be false just to please others. Going back to the toilet issue (which you summarized pretty accurately), imagine yourself at a party, sitting at a table with people you are not familiar with, and you say that the all-sex toilet initiative was a load of crap…the chances that someone will take offense and wave their grubby finger in your face, calling you insensitive and a racist, are quite big. So the freedom to speak your mind (without 'some kind' of penalty) is indeed relative, which boils down to a PC society telling you what to think, as well. Doesn’t make much sense to me.
Regarding the birther issue, I didn’t really buy into either extreme, but the “to some extent”, I definitely questioned why he allowed it to go on for so long, instead of rubbing the proof in the faces of those who challenged him….like most people unjustly accused, would do…he simply refused to address it, as if he were above suspicion. And don’t forget, the mainstream media supported BO, rarely questioning anything perceived as negative.
At work I meant obvious stuff, like don't insult your boss or bad mouth the company... even if they deserve it, you can't always speak your mind there.
Nov 24th, 2017 - 12:26 am - Link - Report abuse 0I was raised with PC, so that is what seems normal and polite to me. The rules may have changed but the principle was still treating others how you would want to be treated. And I have noticed that those who decry political correctness don't like it at all when the boot is on the other foot and they are made the butt of the joke. It's easy to tell other people they shouldn't take things personally, a lot harder to do it yourself.
As for your party scenario, I don't know. I guess it happens sometimes but at least as often no one says anything, or they agree. On the internet it's different.
I don't really know what things were like in the old days, but I've watched old TV shows and read books and some of them have made me very glad I didn't live back then.
About Obama, I don't think he 'allowed' it to go on so long, exactly. What was he supposed to do, put everyone who talked about it in jail? He doesn't have a time machine to send people back to watch, and that is about the only evidence some of these people would accept (maybe not even that). But my point was that he published his birth certificate almost immediately, so no reason to believe the people who said he didn't try to prove it.
@DT
Nov 24th, 2017 - 04:15 pm - Link - Report abuse 0I wasn't raised with PC, and the old principle of 'treat others same as you'd like to be ', works for me. No need to be false just to please others...you can tell the truth without being insulting...obviously, if you like your job, calling your boss an idiot might not be such a good idea.
Being the 'butt of the joke' is something everyone goes through, and the more you fight back, the worse it becomes...best thing is just lie back and relax.
In business usually, when someone got stroppy with me, I'd let them talk away until they exhausted themselves, giving me time to think it over and to decide whether or not they deserved an answer...many times, their nervous energy would just fizzle out and business carried on as normal. I learned early on that shouting matches get you nowhere and work against those who resort to them to try to win an argument.
“but I've watched old TV shows and read books and some of them have made me very glad I didn't live back then.” (the 60's/70's presumably.....'some' of them made you glad you didn't live back then....that implies that 'some' were not so bad....but then again, it's relative : seeing how the life of a sailor was on a Royal Navy vessel in the 1700/1800's, or how life was in a city during the same period, might make you glad you didn't live back then...but it was the only world they knew, and they adapted, or died....much the same today.
No, BO didn't need to do anything radical...just produce legitimate documents to 'prove' beyond any doubt that his accusers were wrong. As to the length of time it dragged on for, I used to read political news (while it was going on), and the impression one got was that BO believed he didn't have to prove anything....but in his position, don't think he should have that option. He could have been more pro-active. Perhaps 'fake news' had a hand in misinforming the public, I don't know.
“that implies that 'some' were not so bad”
Nov 24th, 2017 - 07:20 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Yes, there were good things too. People back then seemed to be a lot more optimistic about the future, things were generally getting better for most and they believed they could improve their lives with science and technology and change society for the better with activism. At least that is my impression.
Nowadays we are much more ambivalent about science having seen the unintended effects of stuff like CFCs and asbestos, and lead in petrol. And in many countries things seem to be going backwards towards less freedom and democracy. Most obviously the ex-Soviet ones, but the rise of 'fake news' threatens western ones too.
Anyway, you wouldn't want to live in any earlier times would you? The further back you go the worse things were for most people. And as for the PC issue, for me it's not about what people say, but that attitudes in many areas really have changed. There are still plenty of backwards countries, but I'm lucky since I don't have to live in them.
I don't agree with the people who try to silence disagreement, both because free speech is more important and because IMO the point is to change people's minds, not to force them to hide their true opinions. But I do mostly agree with their ideals, if that makes sense.
About BO, I don't think it was so easy. After putting his birth certificate online, (and letting some experts look at it) what else was he supposed to do? It just turned into a conspiracy theory with a few people pushing it and news sites (or 'news' sites) that should have known better repeating it, and my experience is that no evidence on earth can convince a conspiracy theorist they are wrong.
@DT
Nov 25th, 2017 - 09:04 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Fully agree that people back then were more optimistic about the future, even if only because communications were far slower and information technology (as we know it today) was virtually non-existent, which translates into people having little or no idea what was really going on backstage (in political & monetary corruption) and were more trusting. Only in the last 25 years or so, have people become aware that not all they believed in was as it was presented...
Granted, knowing the hardships of living 200 years ago, and comparing them to what we have to put up with today, I'd think I'll stick with recent times....the 60's and 70's was a great time to live, it's when the basis for most of what we have today, was invented / created. You had time to get used to things, to enjoy them before they abruptly changed, life moved at a slower pace. Less stress, and all the problems associated with it.
I don't know, but considering that what is acceptable, goes changing with the times, if I had to guess, I reckon that the more extreme stances in PC will eventually be seen for what they are - unreasonable, exaggerated ? - and will be left in the past.
On matters, or subjects that allow different interpretations, where one (interpretation) does not necessarily exclude all the others, there is usually one better than the others ...disagreement will always exist, and if it leads to productive discussion and (hopefully) to good decisions...all's good.
Regarding BO, none of the news sites or articles I read, mentioned him being pro-active in the attempt to shut his political adversaries up....that's why I found it strange that he didn't -
again according to the same sources - make it a priority.
@DT
Nov 26th, 2017 - 10:26 am - Link - Report abuse 0REF: “the last thing Brazil needs is another 20 years of dictatorship”
You mean the Fake Democracy which I referred to? INSTEAD: Support Tradition - Support Culture:
http://www.otempo.com.br/polopoly_fs/1.1544796.1511297686!image/image.jpg_gen/derivatives/main-charges-resize_620/image.jpg
Well, I'm glad you enjoyed living then. I don't think I would have had the same opportunities I do now.
Nov 26th, 2017 - 11:14 am - Link - Report abuse 0It's a bit depressing to think people were only happier because they were more ignorant of what was going on, but you do have a point. As for change, it's all relative. Someone from 100 years ago might think the 60s had too much rapid change, but do you really see much difference now compared to then? The big modern inventions are around communications: the internet and smartphones, but the 60s and 70s had the space race and the start of computing, as well as the rise of youth culture and pop music. I'd have thought more social changes happened then than now.
I hope the members of the 'PC' crowd who are anti-free speech get left in the past. I think they are harming their own cause as well as making people afraid to speak honestly.
About BO, he probably didn't think it would go on for so long, and quite likely was afraid that overreacting would just make it into a bigger deal that it was already. Have you heard of the Streisand effect? I first encountered the rumour on the Snopes website, along with a similar story that McCain was not eligible for the presidency. That one never got much traction even before he lost the election, despite the fact it actually had some validity.
@DT
Nov 26th, 2017 - 10:14 pm - Link - Report abuse 0“but do you really see much difference now compared to then? ”....without a doubt. Sure the 60's was a time of change, but as you suggest, more in terms of various trends or extremes in social behaviour...if you were in the midst of those promoting such changes, perhaps life would be more hectic, but to the guy who just wanted a normal life, and to get on with it, things didn't change every 3 months....technology was preparing itself for the revolution that started in the 80's, and I definitely saw an increase in pace in everything, especially business in the early 90's....suddenly you were flooded with hundreds of e-mails per day, whereas 10 years earlier , you had normal mail, and of course the telex, which became obsolete the moment computers became accessible to most businesses. Each 'era' was different, had its good and bad moments, and I'm glad I have had the chance to experience them.
No, haven't heard of the Streisand effect, but am curious / will check it out
I guess you weren't into the whole counter-culture thing, and maybe that wasn't really happening in Brazil anyway, what with the military government suppressing everything.
Nov 26th, 2017 - 11:49 pm - Link - Report abuse 0I've never worked in an office without email, it sounds quite difficult, but I suppose you just had to phone people all the time. And I had to look up what a telex was, it appears to be a primitive way to text someone. ;) Suppose it must have been quite hard for people to adapt to using computers at work, but most seem to have managed with no problems, like my parents.
I'm just old enough to have grown up without the internet, there were computers but they were kind pf rubbish. I guess for younger people it's different again, but although things are changing it just seems normal. Like, now when I look back I wonder how we ever managed without mobile phones, and how we did research without the internet, ever though remember those things myself. It's weird.
The Streisand effect is basically when a celebrity wants to keep something quiet but anything they do just has the opposite effect, generating vastly more publicity than the original story. It's possible Obama thought that making a fuss would just turn it into a bigger issue, whereas if he said nothing it would be forgotten. Of course, if he did think that then he was completely wrong, but that's the benefit of hindsight.
FINALLY, some encouraging news from the Financial Times:
Nov 27th, 2017 - 09:01 am - Link - Report abuse 0https://www.ft.com/content/da7fcc7a-cef6-11e7-b781-794ce08b24dc
@DT
Nov 27th, 2017 - 04:50 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Before I got into university, I wasn’t particularly interested in social movements, but despite the military we had full access to what was happening around the world. During my university years I became more interested in politics (although subject to control), but I was more concerned with getting on with my studies than sticking my neck out.
In my first job, external auditing (while still at university) I did not use telex, all reports were handwritten and handed to the firm’s director. As a trainee at a large multinational (2nd job), although in the sales & marketing division I never saw the telex either…only started to use it in 1974, and it was quite easy to filter through what came in and take care of what was directed to me. In 1989, had to start dealing with computers (obviously, no internet which only came later), but only a year later, with “Windows”, did computers become user-friendly. My first computer, was more like a word processor, and if you needed the back-then equivalent of Excel, it was a pain in the neck…full of illogical commands which you needed to memorize….was really glad when Windows appeared.
In 1974, the phone was very important, but Brazil’s telephone system was a disaster…local calls (within the city of SP) were ok, but calls to outside the city were difficult. Based in the city, when I needed to speak to my Santos (port) office, I’d place a call with operator and sometimes wait for hours for it to come through, when it did…and when/ if it came through, everyone would queue up for their turn to speak…..and, to have a landline at home was a luxury, and quite an investment. I am not addicted to my mobile phone…since I grew up – quite well – without them, I’m aware of its convenience but use it very little….and definitely not at the table when eating out with friends.
Thanks for the “Streisand effect”…..knew the principle, but not the name…a bit like Murphy’s law….if something can go wrong, it usually will…
Probably for the best that you didn't get involved in politics, since it seems that wasn't exactly a healthy thing to do in Brazil in those days. Though maybe with your views you didn't need to worry anyway.
Nov 27th, 2017 - 10:23 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Handwritten reports, wow. I'm glad I never had to deal with those, either writing or reading them. We had the ye olde non-Windows computers at school, and I remember how annoying they were to use. An obvious example was that you never knew how to quit any application, so you'd end up just turning the machine off if you were in a hurry. Each one used different commands you had to memorise, like you said. It was so much better when we finally got some Windows machines, with mice. Windows did a big favour just by standardising everything.
What did you do without email then? Send memos to each other? I guess everything had to be on paper in those days. It's sort of weird to imagine because all the office jobs I've had have involved sitting in front of a computer all day. Did your company have typists and stuff?
Hard to believe the phone system in Brazil was that bad. Why on earth would it take so long, were they using carrier pigeons? And, I've only heard of phones having operators in old books and films, but I'm sure pretty much everyone in Britain had a landline back then. Does it work better now?
I can't imagine doing without my mobile phone, despite the fact I also grew up without one. And I'm afraid I have pulled it out at the table, but my friends all do the same, and sometimes it's because we're showing each other funny Youtube videos.
@DT
Nov 28th, 2017 - 07:25 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Before e-mail (internet) came along, you'd either get your secretary to type out your telexes so that you could check them before being sent, or, internal memos (to be sent overnight by mail pouch), or letters....time consuming but it's what there was. This also resulted in tons of paper being filed away ...and if you ever needed find an old letter, or memo, it could become quite a challenge to remember where to look...Internet solved that, but increased the flow of information by a hundred...all in the name of productivity and at the expense of one's sanity. At the time of the telex, secretaries and typists were a must.
Carrier pigeons between São Paulo and Santos would have been quicker, but being accustomed to the limitations of the phone service, you just got used to it....at times, in an emergency, we drove down to Santos (50 miles). In the later 70's, landline service improved dramatically, but it was still expensive to buy a line - at least, if you wanted to, you could sell it at a profit, and you received shares from the phone company, which paid dividends. With the privatization of all phone services (which used to be State and Federal monopolies) about 20 years ago, which coincided with the beginning of the expansion of cellphones, landlines became quickly accessible (as demand dropped) and worthless from an investment point of view.
Last Friday went to a local emporium/ bar a couple of blocks from home, to drink some wine and have a chat with friends, and two couples sat at the table next to us...once seated, all four pulled out their mobile phones and conversation between them virtually ceased...it was funny as hell to watch them ignore each other while they played with their phones...what's the point of going out to catch up with your friends then ?
I guess that was what the paperless office was supposed to do away with, and it more or less has now, even though it took longer than they promised. You don't really see physical files any more, thank goodness. And typists are a thing of the past too; there are still jobs in admin but less and less.
Nov 29th, 2017 - 01:05 am - Link - Report abuse 0It's crazy that it could have been quicker to drive to Santos than make a phone call there. I don't know how they managed to screw it up so badly. Do most people have mobiles now then? I have a friend who refused to get one for years, but she's finally succumbed. She must have been one of the last people in Britain not to have one.
I don't understand people who go out and then ignore each other, either. That is pretty daft, and probably much worse for people who grew up with the internet. I heard teenagers these days don't want to go out and party, or learn to drive, because they can just socialise online. And their parents are complaining about how boring and unrebellious they are!
I was thinking about something you said earlier: “I learned early on that shouting matches get you nowhere and work against those who resort to them to try to win an argument.”
Most people online don't seem to have ever learned this, and get angry if you disagree with them. It's surprisingly hard to find a civil debate between two people with opposing views.
If you've lived in Brazil for as long as I have, it's quite easy to understand why virtually nothing State-run works well. Things no doubt have improved over the years, but still, in comparison to how the State works in first-world countries, we've got a long way to go. State bureaucracy and inefficiency ruin most services in which the State is involved in any way, with the exception of TWO things, in São Paulo : the subway system and a SP state agency called 'poupa tempo' (time-saver), where you can get 'official' matters seen to (such as to renew yr ID card, yr driver's license, including the periodical medical exam etc) in a fraction of the time (days) it used to take (weeks), and all in the one /same place....other than that, when dealing with the Sate, red tape, lousy service, unnecessary delays and frustration is the order of the day.
Nov 29th, 2017 - 08:07 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Today, landlines are becoming scarce, except in businesses, and there are about 200 million mobile phones, many people having more than one. For the young, private landlines are a thing of the past.
By what I've seen, not only the generations born in the 90's and 2000's, but older people too, allow the mobile phone to rule their lives...it has reduced presential interaction, as well as screwing it up when people DO see each other; As to kids who stay online hours per day (computer, or mobile), it's easy to notice their totally different behaviour compared to kids born before computers and mobiles, who used to spend far more time outdoors, exercising or even just riding a bike or playing. I took sports pretty seriously, and have always considered it a priority, even nowadays.
“Most people online don't seem to have ever learned this, and get angry if you disagree with them...”....not only 'online'.....sad but true. As a kid, disagreements usually ended up with a boxing match in the middle of the school field...teachers would not get involved...as one gains experience, certain things become pretty clear.
The Guardian says: “A political force to be reckoned with”:
Nov 30th, 2017 - 02:15 pm - Link - Report abuse 0https://www.theguardian.com/world/2014/oct/01/brazil-evangelicals-politics-presidential-election | A COCKTAIL of Politics+Religion+Crime [Well-Organized; OF COURSE!]
@o:))
Nov 30th, 2017 - 03:51 pm - Link - Report abuse 0“As part of her bid for re-election, President Dilma Rousseff made a prominent appearance at the inauguration in August of the Temple of Solomon beside its funder and founder, Edir Maçedo, bishop of the Universal Church of the Kingdom of God. Rousseff, who was a Marxist guerrilla in her youth, has even started quoting psalms – “Happy is the nation whose God is the Lord”– in an attempt to ingratiate herself with the large and growing evangelical vote.”
This is laughable – a confessed atheist, and now claiming she’s as religious as the Pope….and not surprising to see that it’s Edir Macedo, a corrupt thief of the minds and pockets of the poor, that she has partnered up with, to introduce her to his dumb followers.
Presume you've watched some of the (hilarious) videos in which she tries to explain/dodge embarassing questions about her religious beliefs, and where, as usual, shows that she forgets to engage her brain when opening her mouth...she should become a comedian, all she'd have to do is be her pathetic self.
Commenting for this story is now closed.
If you have a Facebook account, become a fan and comment on our Facebook Page!