Wednesday, September 05, 2012
China -US relations
"For instance, Romney is right: there are unhealthy aspects to the U.S.-China interdependency that need working on, but they are not all China’s fault. We would have more leverage to build a more healthy relationship if we saved more, consumed less, studied harder and got our own banks to behave less recklessly." thomas Friedman
Monday, August 13, 2012
O revólver e a faca by DENIS LERRER ROSENFIELD
O revólver e a faca - DENIS LERRER ROSENFIELD
Um crime literalmente horroroso foi cometido na cidade de Porto Alegre, num destes últimos dias, envolvendo uma família de classe média alta. Um bioquímico, supostamente por motivos de ciúme e traição de sua mulher, matou-a a facadas. Aliás, segundo a perícia, algumas dessas facadas, antes das mortais, foram para fazê-la sofrer, prenúncio vívido do que lhe aconteceria a seguir. Não satisfeito, o assassino foi ao quarto do filho do casal, de 5 anos, e o esfaqueou, matando-o na própria cama. O motivo novamente alegado foi o de que a criança não poderia viver sem a mãe.
Friso a expressão "motivo alegado" com o intuito de mostrar a futilidade da razão apresentada e seu caráter particularmente cruel. Note-se que não estamos diante de um problema "social", na medida em que o casal vivia num bairro de classe média alta e desfrutava boa condição de vida: a mulher era enfermeira e o marido, funcionário público e sócio de um laboratório.
Acontece que esse crime foi simultâneo ao de um americano que assassinou várias pessoas numa sessão de cinema, no Estado do Colorado. Logo depois, outro episódio semelhante teve lugar também nos EUA, com o assassinato de vários membros da seita sikh, de origem indiana.
O assassinato, a facadas, de uma mulher e de seu filho de 5 anos mereceu apenas algumas páginas regionais na seção policial, enquanto os dois episódios americanos ocuparam manchetes de jornais nacionais e da mídia em geral. Tornou-se uma grande notícia, exigindo comentários de "especialistas".
Ora, boa parte dos ditos especialistas convocados apressou-se a declarar que o problema residia na ausência de controle de armas nos EUA. Se eles seguissem o exemplo do Brasil, tudo estaria resolvido!
O politicamente correto brasileiro, seguindo o seu congênere americano, dito "progressista", logo se erigiu em juiz dos crimes americanos, advogando o desarmamento naquele país e, indiretamente, no nosso. É como se os legisladores americanos devessem aprender com os nossos! Esse tipo de formador de opinião imediatamente alardeou que o Brasil conhece a solução, podendo ensiná-la a esses americanos ignorantes.
Considerando que a justiça exige critérios equitativos, poder-se-ia perguntar: por que o crime brasileiro não suscitou toda uma campanha midiática pelo desarmamento de facas? Nem foco midiático houve! Se os culpados são os instrumentos, e não as pessoas que os utilizam, seria razoável estabelecer a mesma exigência. A culpa estaria na faca, tal como no revólver.
Seguindo o mesmo raciocínio, as mortes no trânsito, tendo como instrumento os automóveis, deveriam também levar a uma campanha pelo "desarmamento" dos carros, visando à sua proibição. Não seriam os motoristas que matam, e sim os veículos. Pense-se, por exemplo, no motorista que atropelou dezenas de ciclistas numa manifestação, também em Porto Alegre, em fevereiro de 2011. As imagens, divulgadas nacionalmente, demonstram que só a sorte explica a ausência de mortes. No início de julho, um motorista sem habilitação atropelou mais de 20 torcedores do Corinthians que comemoravam a conquista da Taça Libertadores da América.
Analogamente, a responsabilidade dos atos das pessoas que fumam não seria dos fumantes, mas das indústrias do setor. Pois, da mesma maneira, conta o instrumento, e não aquele que exerce essa escolha.
Todos esses casos mostram a desresponsabilização do agente, como se fosse um menor incapaz que não sabe o que está fazendo. Por via de consequência, deveria ser tutelado pelo Estado, que saberia o que é melhor para ele. Ora, se esse raciocínio fosse válido, deveríamos, então, passar ao controle das facas, instrumento mortal nas mãos de um assassino. Diga-se de passagem que, segundo os especialistas, um assassino que usa de faca é muito mais cruel do que o que se utiliza de um revólver.
Vejamos alguns dados extraídos do Small Arms Survey, um projeto de pesquisa do Graduate Institute of International and Development Studies, localizado em Genebra. Ele é uma referência importante em termos de informação pública sobre armas de pequeno porte e violência armada e serve como fonte de dados para governos, pesquisadores e ativistas. Os dados sobre homicídios são do United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime (ou seja, da ONU).
Existem 270 milhões de armas de fogo em mãos de civis nos EUA. Com esse número astronômico, o país é o primeiro colocado em armas de fogo em todo o mundo. Porém, no último ano, houve 9.146 mil homicídios com armas de fogo nesse país, isto é, 2,97 por 100 mil habitantes. A Suíça ocupa a terceira colocação em posse de armas por civis: tem 3,4 milhões. Em cada 100 pessoas, 45,7 possuem armas, praticamente a metade da população. No último ano houve 57 homicídios com armas de fogo no país. Isto é, 0,77 por 100 mil habitantes. Logo, não há nenhuma relação entre o número de armas de fogo em posse dos civis e homicídios.
O Brasil tem 14 milhões de armas de fogo em mãos civis. Em cada 100 pessoas, apenas 8 possuem armas. No entanto, o alto índice de homicídios por armas de fogo - 34.678 no último ano, ou 18,1 por 100 mil habitantes - desqualifica a tese segundo a qual "poucas armas, menos homicídios". Do mesmo modo, os índices dos EUA refutam a tese de país belicista e violento. Se alguma inferência pode ser feita, é a seguinte: quanto mais armas, menos homicídios. No Brasil, as armas estão em poder dos bandidos - sem nenhum controle do Estado!
O grande problema dessa primazia do politicamente correto no Brasil é o tipo de recorte de notícias e comentaristas, numa espécie de intoxicação midiática. Um crime como o cometido a facadas, cruel entre todos, mostra quanto algo aparentemente anódino e reservado a páginas policiais pode ganhar significação visto na perspectiva de elucidação do controle e tutela do cidadão.
Um crime literalmente horroroso foi cometido na cidade de Porto Alegre, num destes últimos dias, envolvendo uma família de classe média alta. Um bioquímico, supostamente por motivos de ciúme e traição de sua mulher, matou-a a facadas. Aliás, segundo a perícia, algumas dessas facadas, antes das mortais, foram para fazê-la sofrer, prenúncio vívido do que lhe aconteceria a seguir. Não satisfeito, o assassino foi ao quarto do filho do casal, de 5 anos, e o esfaqueou, matando-o na própria cama. O motivo novamente alegado foi o de que a criança não poderia viver sem a mãe.
Friso a expressão "motivo alegado" com o intuito de mostrar a futilidade da razão apresentada e seu caráter particularmente cruel. Note-se que não estamos diante de um problema "social", na medida em que o casal vivia num bairro de classe média alta e desfrutava boa condição de vida: a mulher era enfermeira e o marido, funcionário público e sócio de um laboratório.
Acontece que esse crime foi simultâneo ao de um americano que assassinou várias pessoas numa sessão de cinema, no Estado do Colorado. Logo depois, outro episódio semelhante teve lugar também nos EUA, com o assassinato de vários membros da seita sikh, de origem indiana.
O assassinato, a facadas, de uma mulher e de seu filho de 5 anos mereceu apenas algumas páginas regionais na seção policial, enquanto os dois episódios americanos ocuparam manchetes de jornais nacionais e da mídia em geral. Tornou-se uma grande notícia, exigindo comentários de "especialistas".
Ora, boa parte dos ditos especialistas convocados apressou-se a declarar que o problema residia na ausência de controle de armas nos EUA. Se eles seguissem o exemplo do Brasil, tudo estaria resolvido!
O politicamente correto brasileiro, seguindo o seu congênere americano, dito "progressista", logo se erigiu em juiz dos crimes americanos, advogando o desarmamento naquele país e, indiretamente, no nosso. É como se os legisladores americanos devessem aprender com os nossos! Esse tipo de formador de opinião imediatamente alardeou que o Brasil conhece a solução, podendo ensiná-la a esses americanos ignorantes.
Considerando que a justiça exige critérios equitativos, poder-se-ia perguntar: por que o crime brasileiro não suscitou toda uma campanha midiática pelo desarmamento de facas? Nem foco midiático houve! Se os culpados são os instrumentos, e não as pessoas que os utilizam, seria razoável estabelecer a mesma exigência. A culpa estaria na faca, tal como no revólver.
Seguindo o mesmo raciocínio, as mortes no trânsito, tendo como instrumento os automóveis, deveriam também levar a uma campanha pelo "desarmamento" dos carros, visando à sua proibição. Não seriam os motoristas que matam, e sim os veículos. Pense-se, por exemplo, no motorista que atropelou dezenas de ciclistas numa manifestação, também em Porto Alegre, em fevereiro de 2011. As imagens, divulgadas nacionalmente, demonstram que só a sorte explica a ausência de mortes. No início de julho, um motorista sem habilitação atropelou mais de 20 torcedores do Corinthians que comemoravam a conquista da Taça Libertadores da América.
Analogamente, a responsabilidade dos atos das pessoas que fumam não seria dos fumantes, mas das indústrias do setor. Pois, da mesma maneira, conta o instrumento, e não aquele que exerce essa escolha.
Todos esses casos mostram a desresponsabilização do agente, como se fosse um menor incapaz que não sabe o que está fazendo. Por via de consequência, deveria ser tutelado pelo Estado, que saberia o que é melhor para ele. Ora, se esse raciocínio fosse válido, deveríamos, então, passar ao controle das facas, instrumento mortal nas mãos de um assassino. Diga-se de passagem que, segundo os especialistas, um assassino que usa de faca é muito mais cruel do que o que se utiliza de um revólver.
Vejamos alguns dados extraídos do Small Arms Survey, um projeto de pesquisa do Graduate Institute of International and Development Studies, localizado em Genebra. Ele é uma referência importante em termos de informação pública sobre armas de pequeno porte e violência armada e serve como fonte de dados para governos, pesquisadores e ativistas. Os dados sobre homicídios são do United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime (ou seja, da ONU).
Existem 270 milhões de armas de fogo em mãos de civis nos EUA. Com esse número astronômico, o país é o primeiro colocado em armas de fogo em todo o mundo. Porém, no último ano, houve 9.146 mil homicídios com armas de fogo nesse país, isto é, 2,97 por 100 mil habitantes. A Suíça ocupa a terceira colocação em posse de armas por civis: tem 3,4 milhões. Em cada 100 pessoas, 45,7 possuem armas, praticamente a metade da população. No último ano houve 57 homicídios com armas de fogo no país. Isto é, 0,77 por 100 mil habitantes. Logo, não há nenhuma relação entre o número de armas de fogo em posse dos civis e homicídios.
O Brasil tem 14 milhões de armas de fogo em mãos civis. Em cada 100 pessoas, apenas 8 possuem armas. No entanto, o alto índice de homicídios por armas de fogo - 34.678 no último ano, ou 18,1 por 100 mil habitantes - desqualifica a tese segundo a qual "poucas armas, menos homicídios". Do mesmo modo, os índices dos EUA refutam a tese de país belicista e violento. Se alguma inferência pode ser feita, é a seguinte: quanto mais armas, menos homicídios. No Brasil, as armas estão em poder dos bandidos - sem nenhum controle do Estado!
O grande problema dessa primazia do politicamente correto no Brasil é o tipo de recorte de notícias e comentaristas, numa espécie de intoxicação midiática. Um crime como o cometido a facadas, cruel entre todos, mostra quanto algo aparentemente anódino e reservado a páginas policiais pode ganhar significação visto na perspectiva de elucidação do controle e tutela do cidadão.
Saturday, August 11, 2012
The Few speech by Winston chill
August 20, 1940
Winston Churchill "The Few"
House of Commons
MP3 - 4 Megs
Almost a year has passed since the war began, and it is natural for us, I think, to pause on our journey at this milestone and survey the dark, wide field. It is also useful to compare the first year of this second war against German aggression with its forerunner a quarter of a century ago. Although this war is in fact only a continuation of the last, very great differences in its character are apparent. In the last war millions of men fought by hurling enormous masses of steel at one another. "Men and shells" was the cry, and prodigious slaughter was the consequence. In this war nothing of this kind has yet appeared. It is a conflict of strategy, of organization, of technical apparatus, of science, mechanics and morale. The British casualties in the first 12 months of the Great War amounted to 365,000. In this war, I am thankful to say, British killed, wounded, prisoners and missing, including civilians, do not exceed 92,000, and of these a large proportion are alive as prisoners of war. Looking more widely around, one may say that throughout all Europe, for one man killed or wounded in the first year perhaps five were killed or wounded in 1914-15.
The slaughter is only a small fraction, but the consequences to the belligerents have been even more deadly. We have seen great countries with powerful armies dashed out of coherent existence in a few weeks. We have seen the-French Republic and the renowned French Army beaten into complete and total submission with less than the casualties which they suffered in any one of half a dozen of the battles of 1914-18. The entire body-it might almost seem at times the soul-of France has succumbed to physical effects incomparably less terrible than those which were sustained with fortitude and undaunted will power 25 years ago. Although up to the present the loss of life has been mercifully diminished, the decisions reached in the course of the struggle are even more profound upon the fate of nations than anything that has ever happened since barbaric times. Moves are made upon the scientific and strategic boards, advantages are gained by mechanical means, as a result of which scores of millions of men become incapable of further resistance, or judge themselves incapable of further resistance, and a fearful game of chess proceeds from check to mate by which the unhappy players seem to be inexorably bound.
There is another more obvious difference from 1914. The whole of the warring nations are engaged, not only soldiers, but the entire population, men, women and children. The fronts are everywhere. The trenches are dug in the towns and streets. Every village is fortified. Every road is barred. The front line runs through the factories. The workmen are soldiers with different weapons but the same courage. These are great and distinctive changes from what many of us saw in the struggle of a quarter of a century ago. There seems to be every reason to believe that this new kind of war is well suited to the genius and the resources of the British nation and the British Empire; and that, once we get properly equipped and properly started, a war of this kind will be more favorable to us than the somber mass slaughters of the Somme and Passchendaele. If it is a case of the whole nation fighting and suffering together, that ought to suit us, because we are the most united of all the nations, because we entered the war upon the national will and with our eyes open, and because we have been nurtured in freedom and individual responsibility and are the products, not of totalitarian uniformity, but of tolerance and variety. If all these qualities are turned, as they are being turned, to the arts of war, we may be able to show the enemy quite a lot of things that they have not thought of yet. Since the Germans drove the Jews out and lowered their technical standards, our science is definitely ahead of theirs. Our geographical position, the command of the sea, and the friendship of the United States enable us to draw resources from the whole world and to manufacture weapons of war of every kind, but especially of the superfine kinds, on a scale hitherto practiced only by Nazi Germany.
Hitler is now sprawled over Europe. Our offensive springs are being slowly compressed, and we must resolutely and methodically prepare ourselves for the campaigns of 1941 and 1942. Two or three years are not a long time, even in our short, precarious lives. They are nothing in the history of the nation, and when we are doing the finest thing in the world, and have the honor to be the sole champion of the liberties of all Europe, we must not grudge these years or weary as we toil and struggle through them. It does not follow that our energies in future years will be exclusively confined to defending ourselves and our possessions. Many opportunities may lie open to amphibious power, and we must be ready to take advantage of them. One of the ways to bring this war to a speedy end is to convince the enemy, not by words, but by deeds, that we have both the will and the means, not only to go on indefinitely, but to strike heavy and unexpected blows. The road to victory may not be so long as we expect. But we have no right to count upon this. Be it long or short, rough or smooth, we mean to reach our journey's end.
It is our intention to maintain and enforce a strict blockade, not only of Germany, but of Italy, France, and all the other countries that have fallen into the German power. I read in the papers that Herr Hitler has also proclaimed a strict blockade of the British Islands. No one can complain of that. I remember the Kaiser doing it in the last war. What indeed would be a matter of general complaint would be if we were to prolong the agony of all Europe by allowing food to come in to nourish the Nazis and aid their war effort, or to allow food to go in to the subjugated peoples, which certainly would be pillaged off them by their Nazi conquerors.
There have been many proposals, founded on the highest motives, that food should be allowed to pass the blockade for the relief of these populations. I regret that we must refuse these requests. The Nazis declare that they have created a new unified economy in Europe. They have repeatedly stated that they possess ample reserves of food and that they can feed their captive peoples. In a German broadcast oL27th June it was said that while Mr. Hoover's plan for relieving France, Belgium and Holland deserved commendation, the German forces had already taken the necessary steps. We know that in Norway when the German troops went in, there were food supplies to last for a year. We know that Poland, though not a rich country, usually produces sufficient food for her people. Moreover, the other countries which Herr Hitler has invaded all held considerable stocks when the Germans entered and are themselves, in many cases, very substantial food producers. If all this food is not available now, it can only be because it has been removed to feed the people of Germany and to give them increased rations-for a change-during the last few months. At this season of the year and for some months to come, there is the least chance of scarcity as the harvest has just been gathered in. The only agencies which can create famine in any part of Europe, now and during the coming winter, will be German exactions or German failure to distribute the supplies which they command.
There is another aspect. Many of the most valuable foods are essential to the manufacture of vital war material. Fats are used to make explosives. Potatoes make the alcohol for motor spirit. The plastic materials now so largely used in the construction of aircraft are made of milk. If the Germans use these commodities to help them to bomb our women and children, rather than to feed the populations who produce them, we may be sure that imported foods would go the same way, directly or indirectly, or be employed to relieve the enemy of the responsibilities he has so wantonly assumed. Let Hitler bear his responsibilities to the full, and let the peoples of Europe who groan beneath his yoke aid in every way the coming of the day when that yoke will be broken. Meanwhile, we can and we will arrange in advance for the speedy entry of food into any part of the enslaved area, when this part has been wholly cleared of German forces, and has genuinely regained its freedom. We shall do our best to encourage the building up of reserves of food all over the world, so that there will always be held up before the eyes of the peoples of Europe, including-I say deliberately-the German and Austrian peoples, the certainty that the shattering of the Nazi power will bring to them all immediate food, freedom and peace.
Rather more than a quarter of a year has passed since the new Government came into power in this country. What a cataract of disaster has poured out upon us since then! The trustful Dutch overwhelmed; their beloved and respected Sovereign driven into exile; the peaceful city of Rotterdam the scene of a massacre as hideous and brutal as anything in the Thirty Years' War; Belgium invaded and beaten down; our own fine Expeditionary Force, which King Leopold called to his rescue, cut off and almost captured, escaping as it seemed only by a miracle and with the loss of all its equipment; our Ally, France, out; Italy in against us; all France in the power of the enemy, all its arsenals and vast masses of military material converted or convertible to the enemy's use; a puppet Government set up at Vichy which may at any moment be forced to become our foe; the whole western seaboard of Europe from the North Cape to the Spanish frontier in German hands; all the ports, all the airfields on this immense front employed against us as potential springboards of invasion. Moreover, the German air power, numerically so far outstripping ours, has been brought so close to our Island that what we used to dread greatly has come to pass and the hostile bombers not only reach our shores in a few minutes and from many directions, but can be escorted by their fighting aircraft. Why, Sir, if we had been confronted at the beginning of May with such a prospect, it would have seemed incredible that at the end of a period of horror and disaster, or at this point in a period of horror and disaster, we should stand erect, sure of ourselves, masters of our fate and with the conviction of final victory burning unquenchable in our hearts. Few would have believed we could survive; none would have believed that we should today not only feel stronger but should actually be stronger than we have ever been before.
Let us see what has happened on the other side of the scales. The British nation and the British Empire, finding themselves alone, stood undismayed against disaster. No one flinched or wavered; nay, some who formerly thought of peace, now think only of war. Our people are united and resolved, as they have never been before. Death and ruin have become small things compared with the shame of defeat or failure in duty. We cannot tell what lies ahead. It may be that even greater ordeals lie before us. We shall face whatever is coming to us. We are sure of ourselves and of our cause, and that is the supreme fact which has emerged in these months of trial.
Meanwhile, we have not only fortified our hearts but our Island. We have rearmed and rebuilt our armies in a degree which would have been deemed impossible a few months ago. We have ferried across the Atlantic, in the month of July, thanks to our friends over there, an immense mass of munitions of all kinds: cannon, rifles, machine guns, cartridges and shell, all safely landed without the loss of a gun or a round. The output of our own factories, working as they have never worked before, has poured forth to the troops. The whole British Army is at home. More than 2,000,000 determined men have rifles and bayonets in their hands tonight, and three-quarters of them are in regular military formations. We have never had armies like this in our Island in time of war. The whole Island bristles against invaders, from the sea or from the air. As I explained to the House in the middle of June, the stronger our Army at home, the larger must the invading expedition be, and the larger the invading expedition, the less difficult will be the task of the Navy in detecting its assembly and in intercepting and destroying it in passage; and the greater also would be the difficulty of feeding and supplying the invaders if ever they landed, in the teeth of continuous naval and air attack on their communications. All this is classical and venerable doctrine. As in Nelson's day, the maxim holds, "Our first line of defense is the enemy's ports." Now air reconnaissance and photography have brought to an old principle a new and potent aid.
Our Navy is far stronger than it was at the beginning of the war. The great flow of new construction set on foot at the outbreak is now beginning to come in. We hope our friends across the ocean will send us a timely reinforcement to bridge the gap between the peace flotillas of 1939 and the war flotillas of 1941. There is no difficulty in sending such aid. The seas and oceans are open. The U-boats are contained. The magnetic mine is, up to the present time, effectively mastered. The merchant tonnage under the British flag, after a year of unlimited U-boat war, after eight months of intensive mining attack, is larger than when we began. We have, in addition, under our control at least 4,000,000 tons of shipping from the captive countries which has taken refuge here or in the harbors of the Empire. Our stocks of food of all kinds are far more abundant than in the days of peace, and a large and growing program of food production is on foot.
Why do I say all this? Not, assuredly, to boast; not, assuredly, to give the slightest countenance to complacency. The dangers we face are still enormous, but so are our advantages and resources. I recount them because the people have a right to know that there are solid grounds for the confidence which we feel, and that we have good reason to believe ourselves capable, as I said in a very dark hour two months ago, of continuing the war "if necessary alone, if necessary for years." I say it also because the fact that the British Empire stands invincible, and that Nazidom is still being resisted, will kindle again the spark of hope in the breasts of hundreds of millions of down-trodden or despairing men and women throughout Europe, and far beyond its bounds, and that from these sparks there will presently come cleansing and devouring flame.
The great air battle which has been in progress over this Island for the last few weeks has recently attained a high intensity. It is too soon to attempt to assign limits either to its scale or to its duration. We must certainly expect that greater efforts will be made by the enemy than any he has so far put forth. Hostile air fields are still being developed in France and the Low Countries, and the movement of squadrons and material for attacking us is still proceeding. It is quite plain that Herr Hitler could not admit defeat in his air attack on Great Britain without sustaining most serious injury. If after all his boastings and bloodcurdling threats and lurid accounts trumpeted round the world of the damage he has inflicted, of the vast numbers of our Air Force he has shot down, so he says, with so little loss to himself; if after tales of the panic-stricken British crushed in their holes cursing the plutocratic Parliament which has led them to such a plight-if after all this his whole air onslaught were forced after a while tamely to peter out, the Fuhrer's reputation for veracity of statement might be seriously impugned. We may be sure, therefore, that he will continue as long as he has the strength to do so, and as long as any preoccupations he may have in respect of the Russian Air Force allow him to do so.
On the other hand, the conditions and course of the fighting have so far been favorable to us. I told the House two months ago that, whereas in France our fighter aircraft were wont to inflict a loss of two or three to one upon the Germans, and in the fighting at Dunkirk, which was a kind of no-man's-land, a loss of about three or four to one, we expected that in an attack on this Island we should achieve a larger ratio. This has certainly come true. It must also be remembered that all the enemy machines and pilots which are shot down over our Island, or over the seas which surround it, are either destroyed or captured; whereas a considerable proportion of our machines, and also of our pilots, are saved, and soon again in many cases come into action.
A vast and admirable system of salvage, directed by the Ministry of Aircraft Production, ensures the speediest return to the fighting line of damaged machines, and the most provident and speedy use of all the spare parts and material. At the same time the splendid-nay, astounding-increase in the output and repair of British aircraft and engines which Lord Beaverbrook has achieved by a genius of organization and drive, which looks like magic, has given us overflowing reserves of every type of aircraft, and an ever-mounting stream of production both in quantity and quality. The enemy is, of course, far more numerous than we are. But our new production already, as I am advised, largely exceeds his, and the American production is only just beginning to flow in. It is a fact, as I see from my daily returns, that our bomber and fighter strength now, after all this fighting, are larger than they have ever been. We believe that we shall be able to continue the air struggle indefinitely and as long as the enemy pleases, and the longer it continues the more rapid will be our approach, first towards that parity, and then into that superiority, in the air upon which in a large measure the decision of the war depends.
The gratitude of every home in our Island, in our Empire, and indeed throughout the world, except in the abodes of the guilty, goes out to the British airmen who, undaunted by odds, unwearied in their constant challenge and mortal danger, are turning the tide of the World War by their prowess and b~ their devotion. Never in the field of human conflict was so much owed by so many to so few. All hearts go out to the fighter pilots, whose brilliant actions we see with our own eyes day after day; but we must never forget that all the time, night after night, month after month, our bomber squadrons travel far into Germany, find their targets in the darkness by the highest navigational skill, aim their attacks, often under the heaviest fire, often with serious loss, with deliberate careful discrimination, and inflict shattering blows upon the whole of the technical and war-making structure of the Nazi power. On no part of the Royal Air Force does the weight of the war fall more heavily than on the daylight bombers, who will play an invaluable part in the case of invasion and whose unflinching zeal it has been necessary in the meanwhile on numerous occasions to restrain.
We are able to verify the results of bombing military targets in Germany, not only by reports which reach us through many sources, but also, of course, by photography. I have no hesitation in saying that this process of bombing the military industries and communications of Germany and the air bases and storage depots from which we are attacked, which process will continue upon an ever-increasing scale until the end of the war, and may in another year attain dimensions hitherto undreamed of, affords one at least of the most certain, if not the shortest, of all the roads to victory. Even if the Nazi legions stood triumphant on the Black Sea, or indeed upon the Caspian, even if Hitler was at the gates of India, it would profit him nothing if at the same time the entire economic and scientific apparatus of German war power lay shattered and pulverized at home.
The fact that the invasion of this Island upon a large scale has become a far more difficult operation with every week that has passed since we saved our Army at Dunkirk, and our very great preponderance of sea power enable us to turn our eyes and to turn our strength increasingly towards the Mediterranean and against that other enemy who, without the slightest provocation, coldly and deliberately, for greed and gain, stabbed France in the back in the moment of her agony, and is now marching against us in Africa. The defection of France has, of course, been deeply damaging to our position in what is called, somewhat oddly, the Middle East. In the defense of Somaliland, for instance, we had counted upon strong French forces attacking the Italians from Jibuti. We had counted also upon the use of the French naval and air bases in the Mediterranean, and particularly upon the North African shore. We had counted upon the French Fleet. Even though metropolitan France was temporarily overrun, there was no reason why the French Navy, substantial parts of the French Army, the French Air Force and the French Empire overseas should not have continued the struggle at our side.
Shielded by overwhelming sea power, possessed of invaluable strategic bases and of ample funds, France might have remained one of the great combatants in the struggle. By so doing, France would have preserved the continuity of her life, and the French Empire might have advanced with the British Empire to the rescue of the independence and integrity of the French Motherland. In our own case, if we had been put in the terrible position of France, a contingency now happily impossible, although, of course, it would have been the duty of all war leaders to fight on here to the end, it would also have been their duty, as I indicated in my speech of 4th June, to provide as far as possible for the Naval security of Canada and our Dominions and to make sure they had the means to carry on the struggle from beyond the oceans. Most of the other countries that have been overrun by Germany for the time being have persevered valiantly and faithfully. The Czechs, the Poles, the Norwegians, the Dutch, the Belgians are still in the field, sword in hand, recognized by Great Britain and the United States as the sole representative authorities and lawful Governments of their respective States.
That France alone should lie prostrate at this moment is the crime, not of a great and noble nation, but of what are called "the men of Vichy." We have profound sympathy with the French people. Our old comradeship with France is not dead. In General de Gaulle and his gallant band, that comradeship takes an effective form. These free Frenchmen have been condemned to death by Vichy, but the day will come, as surely as the sun will rise tomorrow, when their names will be held in honor, and their names will be graven in stone in the streets and villages of a France restored in a liberated Europe to its full freedom and its ancient fame. But this conviction which I feel of the future cannot affect the immediate problems which confront us in the Mediterranean and in Africa. It had been decided some time before the beginning of the war not to defend the Protectorate of Somaliland. That policy was changed in the early months of the war. When the French gave in, and when our small forces there, a few battalions, a few guns, were attacked by all the Italian troops, nearly two divisions, which had formerly faced the French at Jibuti, it was right to withdraw our detachments, virtually intact, for action elsewhere. Far larger operations no doubt impend in the Middle East theater, and I shall certainly not attempt to discuss or prophesy about their probable course. We have large armies and many means of reinforcing them. We have the complete sea command of the eastern Mediterranean. We intend to do our best to give a good account of ourselves, and to discharge faithfully and resolutely all our obligations and duties in that quarter of the world. More than that I do not think the House would wish me to say at the present time.
A good many people have written to me to ask me to make on this occasion a fuller statement of our war aims, and of the kind of peace we wish to make after the war, than is contained in the very considerable declaration which was made early in the autumn. Since then we have made common cause with Norway, Holland and Belgium. We have recognized the Czech Government of Dr. Benes, and we have told General de Gaulle that our success will carry with it the restoration of France. I do not think it would be wise at this moment, while the battle rages and the war is still perhaps only in its earlier stage, to embark upon elaborate speculations about the future shape which should be given to Europe or the new securities which must be arranged to spare mankind the miseries of a third World War. The ground is not new, it has been frequently traversed and explored, and many ideas are held about it in common by all good men, and all free men. But before we can undertake the task of rebuilding we have not only to be convinced ourselves, but we have to convince all other countries that the Nazi tyranny is going to be finally broken
The right to guide the course of world history is the noblest prize of victory. We are still toiling up the hill; we have not yet reached the crest-line of it; we cannot survey the landscape or even imagine what its condition will be when that longed-for morning comes. The task which lies before us immediately is at once more practical, more simple and more stern. I hope-indeed, I pray-that we shall not be found unworthy of our victory if after toil and tribulation it is granted to us. For the rest, we have to gain the victory. That is our task.
There is, however, one direction in which we can see a little more clearly ahead. We have to think not only for ourselves but for the lasting security of the cause and principles for which we are fighting and of the long future of the British Commonwealth of Nations. Some months ago we came to the conclusion that the interests of the United States and of the British Empire both required that the United States should have facilities for the naval and air defense of the Western Hemisphere against the attack of a Nazi power which might have acquired temporary but lengthy control of a large part of Western Europe and its formidable resources. We had therefore decided spontaneously, and without being asked or offered any inducement, to inform the Government of the United States that we would be glad to place such defense facilities at their disposal by leasing suitable sites in our Transatlantic possessions for their greater security against the unmeasured dangers of the future. The principle of association of interests for common purposes between Great Britain and the United States had developed even before the war. Various agreements had been reached about certain small islands in the Pacific Ocean which had become important as air fueling points. In all this line of thought we found ourselves in very close harmony with the Government of Canada.
Presently we learned that anxiety was also felt in the United States about the air and naval defense of their Atlantic seaboard, and President Roosevelt has recently made it clear that he would like to discuss with us, and with the Dominion of Canada and with Newfoundland, the development of American naval and air facilities in Newfoundland and in the West Indies. There is, of course, no question of any transference of sovereignty-that has never been suggested-or of any action being taken without the consent or against the wishes of the various Colonies concerned; but for our part, His Majesty's Government are entirely willing to accord defense facilities to the United States on a 99 years' leasehold basis, and we feel sure that our interests no less than theirs, and the interests of the Colonies themselves and of Canada and Newfoundland, will be served thereby. These are important steps. Undoubtedly this process means that these two great organizations of the English-speaking democracies, the British Empire and the United States, will have to be somewhat mixed up together in some of their affairs for mutual and general one can stop it. Like the Mississippi, it just keeps rolling alone. Let it roll. Let it roll on full flood, view the process with any misgivings. I could not stop it if I wished; no one can stop it. Like the Mississippi, it just keeps rolling alone. Let it roll. Let it roll on full flood, inexorable, irresistible, benignant, to broader lands and better days.
Return to Top of Page
Winston Churchill "The Few"
House of Commons
MP3 - 4 Megs
Almost a year has passed since the war began, and it is natural for us, I think, to pause on our journey at this milestone and survey the dark, wide field. It is also useful to compare the first year of this second war against German aggression with its forerunner a quarter of a century ago. Although this war is in fact only a continuation of the last, very great differences in its character are apparent. In the last war millions of men fought by hurling enormous masses of steel at one another. "Men and shells" was the cry, and prodigious slaughter was the consequence. In this war nothing of this kind has yet appeared. It is a conflict of strategy, of organization, of technical apparatus, of science, mechanics and morale. The British casualties in the first 12 months of the Great War amounted to 365,000. In this war, I am thankful to say, British killed, wounded, prisoners and missing, including civilians, do not exceed 92,000, and of these a large proportion are alive as prisoners of war. Looking more widely around, one may say that throughout all Europe, for one man killed or wounded in the first year perhaps five were killed or wounded in 1914-15.
The slaughter is only a small fraction, but the consequences to the belligerents have been even more deadly. We have seen great countries with powerful armies dashed out of coherent existence in a few weeks. We have seen the-French Republic and the renowned French Army beaten into complete and total submission with less than the casualties which they suffered in any one of half a dozen of the battles of 1914-18. The entire body-it might almost seem at times the soul-of France has succumbed to physical effects incomparably less terrible than those which were sustained with fortitude and undaunted will power 25 years ago. Although up to the present the loss of life has been mercifully diminished, the decisions reached in the course of the struggle are even more profound upon the fate of nations than anything that has ever happened since barbaric times. Moves are made upon the scientific and strategic boards, advantages are gained by mechanical means, as a result of which scores of millions of men become incapable of further resistance, or judge themselves incapable of further resistance, and a fearful game of chess proceeds from check to mate by which the unhappy players seem to be inexorably bound.
There is another more obvious difference from 1914. The whole of the warring nations are engaged, not only soldiers, but the entire population, men, women and children. The fronts are everywhere. The trenches are dug in the towns and streets. Every village is fortified. Every road is barred. The front line runs through the factories. The workmen are soldiers with different weapons but the same courage. These are great and distinctive changes from what many of us saw in the struggle of a quarter of a century ago. There seems to be every reason to believe that this new kind of war is well suited to the genius and the resources of the British nation and the British Empire; and that, once we get properly equipped and properly started, a war of this kind will be more favorable to us than the somber mass slaughters of the Somme and Passchendaele. If it is a case of the whole nation fighting and suffering together, that ought to suit us, because we are the most united of all the nations, because we entered the war upon the national will and with our eyes open, and because we have been nurtured in freedom and individual responsibility and are the products, not of totalitarian uniformity, but of tolerance and variety. If all these qualities are turned, as they are being turned, to the arts of war, we may be able to show the enemy quite a lot of things that they have not thought of yet. Since the Germans drove the Jews out and lowered their technical standards, our science is definitely ahead of theirs. Our geographical position, the command of the sea, and the friendship of the United States enable us to draw resources from the whole world and to manufacture weapons of war of every kind, but especially of the superfine kinds, on a scale hitherto practiced only by Nazi Germany.
Hitler is now sprawled over Europe. Our offensive springs are being slowly compressed, and we must resolutely and methodically prepare ourselves for the campaigns of 1941 and 1942. Two or three years are not a long time, even in our short, precarious lives. They are nothing in the history of the nation, and when we are doing the finest thing in the world, and have the honor to be the sole champion of the liberties of all Europe, we must not grudge these years or weary as we toil and struggle through them. It does not follow that our energies in future years will be exclusively confined to defending ourselves and our possessions. Many opportunities may lie open to amphibious power, and we must be ready to take advantage of them. One of the ways to bring this war to a speedy end is to convince the enemy, not by words, but by deeds, that we have both the will and the means, not only to go on indefinitely, but to strike heavy and unexpected blows. The road to victory may not be so long as we expect. But we have no right to count upon this. Be it long or short, rough or smooth, we mean to reach our journey's end.
It is our intention to maintain and enforce a strict blockade, not only of Germany, but of Italy, France, and all the other countries that have fallen into the German power. I read in the papers that Herr Hitler has also proclaimed a strict blockade of the British Islands. No one can complain of that. I remember the Kaiser doing it in the last war. What indeed would be a matter of general complaint would be if we were to prolong the agony of all Europe by allowing food to come in to nourish the Nazis and aid their war effort, or to allow food to go in to the subjugated peoples, which certainly would be pillaged off them by their Nazi conquerors.
There have been many proposals, founded on the highest motives, that food should be allowed to pass the blockade for the relief of these populations. I regret that we must refuse these requests. The Nazis declare that they have created a new unified economy in Europe. They have repeatedly stated that they possess ample reserves of food and that they can feed their captive peoples. In a German broadcast oL27th June it was said that while Mr. Hoover's plan for relieving France, Belgium and Holland deserved commendation, the German forces had already taken the necessary steps. We know that in Norway when the German troops went in, there were food supplies to last for a year. We know that Poland, though not a rich country, usually produces sufficient food for her people. Moreover, the other countries which Herr Hitler has invaded all held considerable stocks when the Germans entered and are themselves, in many cases, very substantial food producers. If all this food is not available now, it can only be because it has been removed to feed the people of Germany and to give them increased rations-for a change-during the last few months. At this season of the year and for some months to come, there is the least chance of scarcity as the harvest has just been gathered in. The only agencies which can create famine in any part of Europe, now and during the coming winter, will be German exactions or German failure to distribute the supplies which they command.
There is another aspect. Many of the most valuable foods are essential to the manufacture of vital war material. Fats are used to make explosives. Potatoes make the alcohol for motor spirit. The plastic materials now so largely used in the construction of aircraft are made of milk. If the Germans use these commodities to help them to bomb our women and children, rather than to feed the populations who produce them, we may be sure that imported foods would go the same way, directly or indirectly, or be employed to relieve the enemy of the responsibilities he has so wantonly assumed. Let Hitler bear his responsibilities to the full, and let the peoples of Europe who groan beneath his yoke aid in every way the coming of the day when that yoke will be broken. Meanwhile, we can and we will arrange in advance for the speedy entry of food into any part of the enslaved area, when this part has been wholly cleared of German forces, and has genuinely regained its freedom. We shall do our best to encourage the building up of reserves of food all over the world, so that there will always be held up before the eyes of the peoples of Europe, including-I say deliberately-the German and Austrian peoples, the certainty that the shattering of the Nazi power will bring to them all immediate food, freedom and peace.
Rather more than a quarter of a year has passed since the new Government came into power in this country. What a cataract of disaster has poured out upon us since then! The trustful Dutch overwhelmed; their beloved and respected Sovereign driven into exile; the peaceful city of Rotterdam the scene of a massacre as hideous and brutal as anything in the Thirty Years' War; Belgium invaded and beaten down; our own fine Expeditionary Force, which King Leopold called to his rescue, cut off and almost captured, escaping as it seemed only by a miracle and with the loss of all its equipment; our Ally, France, out; Italy in against us; all France in the power of the enemy, all its arsenals and vast masses of military material converted or convertible to the enemy's use; a puppet Government set up at Vichy which may at any moment be forced to become our foe; the whole western seaboard of Europe from the North Cape to the Spanish frontier in German hands; all the ports, all the airfields on this immense front employed against us as potential springboards of invasion. Moreover, the German air power, numerically so far outstripping ours, has been brought so close to our Island that what we used to dread greatly has come to pass and the hostile bombers not only reach our shores in a few minutes and from many directions, but can be escorted by their fighting aircraft. Why, Sir, if we had been confronted at the beginning of May with such a prospect, it would have seemed incredible that at the end of a period of horror and disaster, or at this point in a period of horror and disaster, we should stand erect, sure of ourselves, masters of our fate and with the conviction of final victory burning unquenchable in our hearts. Few would have believed we could survive; none would have believed that we should today not only feel stronger but should actually be stronger than we have ever been before.
Let us see what has happened on the other side of the scales. The British nation and the British Empire, finding themselves alone, stood undismayed against disaster. No one flinched or wavered; nay, some who formerly thought of peace, now think only of war. Our people are united and resolved, as they have never been before. Death and ruin have become small things compared with the shame of defeat or failure in duty. We cannot tell what lies ahead. It may be that even greater ordeals lie before us. We shall face whatever is coming to us. We are sure of ourselves and of our cause, and that is the supreme fact which has emerged in these months of trial.
Meanwhile, we have not only fortified our hearts but our Island. We have rearmed and rebuilt our armies in a degree which would have been deemed impossible a few months ago. We have ferried across the Atlantic, in the month of July, thanks to our friends over there, an immense mass of munitions of all kinds: cannon, rifles, machine guns, cartridges and shell, all safely landed without the loss of a gun or a round. The output of our own factories, working as they have never worked before, has poured forth to the troops. The whole British Army is at home. More than 2,000,000 determined men have rifles and bayonets in their hands tonight, and three-quarters of them are in regular military formations. We have never had armies like this in our Island in time of war. The whole Island bristles against invaders, from the sea or from the air. As I explained to the House in the middle of June, the stronger our Army at home, the larger must the invading expedition be, and the larger the invading expedition, the less difficult will be the task of the Navy in detecting its assembly and in intercepting and destroying it in passage; and the greater also would be the difficulty of feeding and supplying the invaders if ever they landed, in the teeth of continuous naval and air attack on their communications. All this is classical and venerable doctrine. As in Nelson's day, the maxim holds, "Our first line of defense is the enemy's ports." Now air reconnaissance and photography have brought to an old principle a new and potent aid.
Our Navy is far stronger than it was at the beginning of the war. The great flow of new construction set on foot at the outbreak is now beginning to come in. We hope our friends across the ocean will send us a timely reinforcement to bridge the gap between the peace flotillas of 1939 and the war flotillas of 1941. There is no difficulty in sending such aid. The seas and oceans are open. The U-boats are contained. The magnetic mine is, up to the present time, effectively mastered. The merchant tonnage under the British flag, after a year of unlimited U-boat war, after eight months of intensive mining attack, is larger than when we began. We have, in addition, under our control at least 4,000,000 tons of shipping from the captive countries which has taken refuge here or in the harbors of the Empire. Our stocks of food of all kinds are far more abundant than in the days of peace, and a large and growing program of food production is on foot.
Why do I say all this? Not, assuredly, to boast; not, assuredly, to give the slightest countenance to complacency. The dangers we face are still enormous, but so are our advantages and resources. I recount them because the people have a right to know that there are solid grounds for the confidence which we feel, and that we have good reason to believe ourselves capable, as I said in a very dark hour two months ago, of continuing the war "if necessary alone, if necessary for years." I say it also because the fact that the British Empire stands invincible, and that Nazidom is still being resisted, will kindle again the spark of hope in the breasts of hundreds of millions of down-trodden or despairing men and women throughout Europe, and far beyond its bounds, and that from these sparks there will presently come cleansing and devouring flame.
The great air battle which has been in progress over this Island for the last few weeks has recently attained a high intensity. It is too soon to attempt to assign limits either to its scale or to its duration. We must certainly expect that greater efforts will be made by the enemy than any he has so far put forth. Hostile air fields are still being developed in France and the Low Countries, and the movement of squadrons and material for attacking us is still proceeding. It is quite plain that Herr Hitler could not admit defeat in his air attack on Great Britain without sustaining most serious injury. If after all his boastings and bloodcurdling threats and lurid accounts trumpeted round the world of the damage he has inflicted, of the vast numbers of our Air Force he has shot down, so he says, with so little loss to himself; if after tales of the panic-stricken British crushed in their holes cursing the plutocratic Parliament which has led them to such a plight-if after all this his whole air onslaught were forced after a while tamely to peter out, the Fuhrer's reputation for veracity of statement might be seriously impugned. We may be sure, therefore, that he will continue as long as he has the strength to do so, and as long as any preoccupations he may have in respect of the Russian Air Force allow him to do so.
On the other hand, the conditions and course of the fighting have so far been favorable to us. I told the House two months ago that, whereas in France our fighter aircraft were wont to inflict a loss of two or three to one upon the Germans, and in the fighting at Dunkirk, which was a kind of no-man's-land, a loss of about three or four to one, we expected that in an attack on this Island we should achieve a larger ratio. This has certainly come true. It must also be remembered that all the enemy machines and pilots which are shot down over our Island, or over the seas which surround it, are either destroyed or captured; whereas a considerable proportion of our machines, and also of our pilots, are saved, and soon again in many cases come into action.
A vast and admirable system of salvage, directed by the Ministry of Aircraft Production, ensures the speediest return to the fighting line of damaged machines, and the most provident and speedy use of all the spare parts and material. At the same time the splendid-nay, astounding-increase in the output and repair of British aircraft and engines which Lord Beaverbrook has achieved by a genius of organization and drive, which looks like magic, has given us overflowing reserves of every type of aircraft, and an ever-mounting stream of production both in quantity and quality. The enemy is, of course, far more numerous than we are. But our new production already, as I am advised, largely exceeds his, and the American production is only just beginning to flow in. It is a fact, as I see from my daily returns, that our bomber and fighter strength now, after all this fighting, are larger than they have ever been. We believe that we shall be able to continue the air struggle indefinitely and as long as the enemy pleases, and the longer it continues the more rapid will be our approach, first towards that parity, and then into that superiority, in the air upon which in a large measure the decision of the war depends.
The gratitude of every home in our Island, in our Empire, and indeed throughout the world, except in the abodes of the guilty, goes out to the British airmen who, undaunted by odds, unwearied in their constant challenge and mortal danger, are turning the tide of the World War by their prowess and b~ their devotion. Never in the field of human conflict was so much owed by so many to so few. All hearts go out to the fighter pilots, whose brilliant actions we see with our own eyes day after day; but we must never forget that all the time, night after night, month after month, our bomber squadrons travel far into Germany, find their targets in the darkness by the highest navigational skill, aim their attacks, often under the heaviest fire, often with serious loss, with deliberate careful discrimination, and inflict shattering blows upon the whole of the technical and war-making structure of the Nazi power. On no part of the Royal Air Force does the weight of the war fall more heavily than on the daylight bombers, who will play an invaluable part in the case of invasion and whose unflinching zeal it has been necessary in the meanwhile on numerous occasions to restrain.
We are able to verify the results of bombing military targets in Germany, not only by reports which reach us through many sources, but also, of course, by photography. I have no hesitation in saying that this process of bombing the military industries and communications of Germany and the air bases and storage depots from which we are attacked, which process will continue upon an ever-increasing scale until the end of the war, and may in another year attain dimensions hitherto undreamed of, affords one at least of the most certain, if not the shortest, of all the roads to victory. Even if the Nazi legions stood triumphant on the Black Sea, or indeed upon the Caspian, even if Hitler was at the gates of India, it would profit him nothing if at the same time the entire economic and scientific apparatus of German war power lay shattered and pulverized at home.
The fact that the invasion of this Island upon a large scale has become a far more difficult operation with every week that has passed since we saved our Army at Dunkirk, and our very great preponderance of sea power enable us to turn our eyes and to turn our strength increasingly towards the Mediterranean and against that other enemy who, without the slightest provocation, coldly and deliberately, for greed and gain, stabbed France in the back in the moment of her agony, and is now marching against us in Africa. The defection of France has, of course, been deeply damaging to our position in what is called, somewhat oddly, the Middle East. In the defense of Somaliland, for instance, we had counted upon strong French forces attacking the Italians from Jibuti. We had counted also upon the use of the French naval and air bases in the Mediterranean, and particularly upon the North African shore. We had counted upon the French Fleet. Even though metropolitan France was temporarily overrun, there was no reason why the French Navy, substantial parts of the French Army, the French Air Force and the French Empire overseas should not have continued the struggle at our side.
Shielded by overwhelming sea power, possessed of invaluable strategic bases and of ample funds, France might have remained one of the great combatants in the struggle. By so doing, France would have preserved the continuity of her life, and the French Empire might have advanced with the British Empire to the rescue of the independence and integrity of the French Motherland. In our own case, if we had been put in the terrible position of France, a contingency now happily impossible, although, of course, it would have been the duty of all war leaders to fight on here to the end, it would also have been their duty, as I indicated in my speech of 4th June, to provide as far as possible for the Naval security of Canada and our Dominions and to make sure they had the means to carry on the struggle from beyond the oceans. Most of the other countries that have been overrun by Germany for the time being have persevered valiantly and faithfully. The Czechs, the Poles, the Norwegians, the Dutch, the Belgians are still in the field, sword in hand, recognized by Great Britain and the United States as the sole representative authorities and lawful Governments of their respective States.
That France alone should lie prostrate at this moment is the crime, not of a great and noble nation, but of what are called "the men of Vichy." We have profound sympathy with the French people. Our old comradeship with France is not dead. In General de Gaulle and his gallant band, that comradeship takes an effective form. These free Frenchmen have been condemned to death by Vichy, but the day will come, as surely as the sun will rise tomorrow, when their names will be held in honor, and their names will be graven in stone in the streets and villages of a France restored in a liberated Europe to its full freedom and its ancient fame. But this conviction which I feel of the future cannot affect the immediate problems which confront us in the Mediterranean and in Africa. It had been decided some time before the beginning of the war not to defend the Protectorate of Somaliland. That policy was changed in the early months of the war. When the French gave in, and when our small forces there, a few battalions, a few guns, were attacked by all the Italian troops, nearly two divisions, which had formerly faced the French at Jibuti, it was right to withdraw our detachments, virtually intact, for action elsewhere. Far larger operations no doubt impend in the Middle East theater, and I shall certainly not attempt to discuss or prophesy about their probable course. We have large armies and many means of reinforcing them. We have the complete sea command of the eastern Mediterranean. We intend to do our best to give a good account of ourselves, and to discharge faithfully and resolutely all our obligations and duties in that quarter of the world. More than that I do not think the House would wish me to say at the present time.
A good many people have written to me to ask me to make on this occasion a fuller statement of our war aims, and of the kind of peace we wish to make after the war, than is contained in the very considerable declaration which was made early in the autumn. Since then we have made common cause with Norway, Holland and Belgium. We have recognized the Czech Government of Dr. Benes, and we have told General de Gaulle that our success will carry with it the restoration of France. I do not think it would be wise at this moment, while the battle rages and the war is still perhaps only in its earlier stage, to embark upon elaborate speculations about the future shape which should be given to Europe or the new securities which must be arranged to spare mankind the miseries of a third World War. The ground is not new, it has been frequently traversed and explored, and many ideas are held about it in common by all good men, and all free men. But before we can undertake the task of rebuilding we have not only to be convinced ourselves, but we have to convince all other countries that the Nazi tyranny is going to be finally broken
The right to guide the course of world history is the noblest prize of victory. We are still toiling up the hill; we have not yet reached the crest-line of it; we cannot survey the landscape or even imagine what its condition will be when that longed-for morning comes. The task which lies before us immediately is at once more practical, more simple and more stern. I hope-indeed, I pray-that we shall not be found unworthy of our victory if after toil and tribulation it is granted to us. For the rest, we have to gain the victory. That is our task.
There is, however, one direction in which we can see a little more clearly ahead. We have to think not only for ourselves but for the lasting security of the cause and principles for which we are fighting and of the long future of the British Commonwealth of Nations. Some months ago we came to the conclusion that the interests of the United States and of the British Empire both required that the United States should have facilities for the naval and air defense of the Western Hemisphere against the attack of a Nazi power which might have acquired temporary but lengthy control of a large part of Western Europe and its formidable resources. We had therefore decided spontaneously, and without being asked or offered any inducement, to inform the Government of the United States that we would be glad to place such defense facilities at their disposal by leasing suitable sites in our Transatlantic possessions for their greater security against the unmeasured dangers of the future. The principle of association of interests for common purposes between Great Britain and the United States had developed even before the war. Various agreements had been reached about certain small islands in the Pacific Ocean which had become important as air fueling points. In all this line of thought we found ourselves in very close harmony with the Government of Canada.
Presently we learned that anxiety was also felt in the United States about the air and naval defense of their Atlantic seaboard, and President Roosevelt has recently made it clear that he would like to discuss with us, and with the Dominion of Canada and with Newfoundland, the development of American naval and air facilities in Newfoundland and in the West Indies. There is, of course, no question of any transference of sovereignty-that has never been suggested-or of any action being taken without the consent or against the wishes of the various Colonies concerned; but for our part, His Majesty's Government are entirely willing to accord defense facilities to the United States on a 99 years' leasehold basis, and we feel sure that our interests no less than theirs, and the interests of the Colonies themselves and of Canada and Newfoundland, will be served thereby. These are important steps. Undoubtedly this process means that these two great organizations of the English-speaking democracies, the British Empire and the United States, will have to be somewhat mixed up together in some of their affairs for mutual and general one can stop it. Like the Mississippi, it just keeps rolling alone. Let it roll. Let it roll on full flood, view the process with any misgivings. I could not stop it if I wished; no one can stop it. Like the Mississippi, it just keeps rolling alone. Let it roll. Let it roll on full flood, inexorable, irresistible, benignant, to broader lands and better days.
Return to Top of Page
Wednesday, August 08, 2012
Mensalão e Olimpíada by Roberto DaMatta
Mensalão e Olimpíada
08 de agosto de 2012 |
Roberto DaMatta - O Estado de S.Paulo
Estou dividido entre assistir às provas olímpicas e testemunhar o julgamento do mais vergonhoso plano de permanecer no poder da história da nossa douta, "legalística", aristocrática, populista e milagrosa "semi-república". No caso da Olimpíada, as regras são simples (não há recurso) e a igualdade competitiva é clara; no mensalão, tudo é opaco - exceto a acusação, a vontade antidemocrática de poder que o engendrou e o desejo de que as coisas não terminem em leite condensado.
Digo "semi-república" porque a expressão reitera o que, em 1979, no livro Carnavais, Malandros e Heróis, eu chamei de "dilema brasileiro". A oscilação de uma nação que quer a igualdade perante a lei, mas na qual o Estado jamais deixou de isentar alguns dos seus cargos da responsabilidade pública, abandonando para a sociedade o papel de burro de carga de um sofisticado drama na qual ela sempre desempenhou um papel subordinado. Quando passamos de Império a República, continuamos hierárquicos e aristocráticos, mas até certo ponto; e, já republicanos, adotamos a igualdade, mas com uma tonelada de sal, inventando todas as excepcionalidades que impedem a punição dos poderosos e condena os subordinados ao castigo. Daí a importância olímpica do Supremo Tribunal Federal, cuja conduta do julgamento em curso será importante para alterar o dilema.
Temos não muitas formas de igualdade e diversos estilos de aristocratizar. Nosso maior problema não é a desigualdade; é, isso sim, a nossa mais cabal alergia e repulsa à igualdade! Quando sabemos quem é o dono, ficamos tranquilos, mas quando todos são nivelados e postos em julgamento, entramos em crise. Em toda situação reinventamos a hierarquia, mostrando quem é inferior. Nas tão odiadas (e igualitárias!) filas, isso é mais do que patente. No trânsito, uma igualdade estrutural é, infelizmente, constitutiva como digo em Fé em Deus e Pé na Tábua, e o resultado é esse escândalo de acidentes e imprudências, todos capitulados na mestiçagem das leis que igualam de um lado para "exepcionalizar" do outro.
Não foi fácil, neste Brasil de Pedros (de Avis e Bragança), criar um padrão de troca único, nivelador, confiável e, por isso, as nossas doutrinas políticas mais chiques até hoje odeiam o mercado e a sua igualdade competitiva que implica meritocracia. Essa disputa tão óbvia nos jogos olímpicos que levam ao conflito aberto e ao bate-boca - esses reversos dos padrões de comportamento nobres, baseados quase sempre na insinceridade, no realismo político segundo o qual os fins justificam os meios e o ganhar a qualquer custo; e na mentira como moeda corrente. Em suma, tudo isso que está inscrito e será julgado no mensalão.
Vivemos um momento histórico dramático: o da impossibilidade de hierarquizar impunemente, como tem sido o costume. E, ao lado disso, a demanda pela igualdade que evidentemente vai obrigar a uma transformação dos velhos códigos de comunicação, sobretudo os legais que, no Brasil, mudam e se atualizam menos do que as reformas ortográficas! Essa demanda tem aspectos radicais no que tange aos que ocupam cargos públicos. Está em curso, hoje em dia, uma intolerância jamais vista contra a ética de favores e personalismos que impediam suspeitas, avaliações e julgamentos.
Aliás, o libelo do procurador-geral da República, Roberto Gurgel, foi incisivo no sentido de não isentar os atores, aceitando as desculpas mais comuns das sociedades arcaicas, reacionárias e hierárquicas: a tese do "eu não sabia"; a qual, no fundo, desvenda a posse do papel pelo ator ou, pior que isso, o controle e a propriedade do político e do partido do cargo público e, no caso do mensalão, da própria máquina política.
Quando se trata de falar da igualdade como um valor, não há como não discutir algo jamais visto na chamada "política" nacional. O fato de que é o povo que legitima pela eleição o gerenciamento de um cargo que não pertence a nenhum poder, mas a sociedade como um todo. Por isso, o povo - por meio dos tribunais e da lei que a todos subordina - pode punir o ocupante que trai o seu papel. Nosso viés aristocrático tem inibido a discussão do laço entre pessoa e papel. O que conduz ao inverso da nossa tradição, pois num regime igualitário, quanto mais nobre e importante o papel, menos desculpas para a improbidade de quem o ocupa. O poder não pode mais continuar a ser visto no Brasil como uma medalha de ouro olímpica, com direitos a isentar os eventuais crimes de quem está no poder. Ele deve ser redesenhado como algo que implica direitos e privilégios, mas sobretudo honra, austeridade e obrigações. Na democracia, como viu Tocqueville, os cargos públicos implicam mais deveres do que privilégios. Como, aliás, ocorre na Olimpíada quando um atleta recebe uma medalha de ouro se vê compelido a ser também possuído pela excelência que o prêmio representa.
Resta esperar que o TSF decida olimpicamente - sine ira et studio (sem raiva, preconceito ou condescendência), como dizia Max Weber - e, assim fazendo, mude a índole das práticas políticas brasileiras.
Tuesday, July 03, 2012
Bolchevique "traveco" by LUIZ FELIPE PONDÉ
Bolchevique "traveco" - LUIZ FELIPE PONDÉ
FOLHA DE SP - 02/07
Todos os tipos de esquerda têm um traço em comum: são frouxos, como diria Paulo Francis
A esquerda é uma praga da qual não nos livramos. Egressa da tradição judaico-cristã messiânica, traz consigo a tara do fanatismo daquela. Mas ela tem várias faces.
No Brasil, após a ditadura, a esquerda tinha o absoluto controle da universidade e, por tabela, de muitas das instâncias de razão pública, como escolas de nível médio, mídia, tribunais e escolas de magistratura. Coitadinha dela.
Neste caso, do aparelho jurídico, sente-se o impacto quando vemos a bem-sucedida manobra da esquerda em fazer do Código Penal uma província ridícula do politicamente correto, para quem, como diz a piada, entre matar um fiscal do IBAMA e um jacaré, é menos crime matar o fiscal.
Com a crise da Europa e a Primavera Árabe, a esquerda se sente renovada. Interessante como, no caso árabe, ela flerta com os movimentos islamitas. A razão é, antes de tudo, sua ignorância completa com relação ao Oriente Médio. A esquerda sempre foi provinciana. Ela confunde o fanatismo islamita com o fanatismo revolucionário. Lá, não existe "povo em busca de igualdade democrática", mas sim fiéis em busca de tutela absoluta.
Antes de tudo, devo dizer que há uma forma de esquerda que respeito: os melancólicos de Frankfurt. Para estes, como Adorno e Horkheimer, vivemos o "échec" (impasse, fracasso) da modernidade, devido à mercantilização das relações. Para mim, isso é um fato. E, enfim, a melancolia sempre me encanta. Os melancólicos têm razão.
Desde Deleuze, Derrida e Foucault (três chifres da mesma cabra), a esquerda assumiu ares de revolução de campus universitário, que encampa desde movimentos como o engodo do Maio de 68, passando pela crítica da gramática como forma de opressão (risadas...), até a ideia boba de que orientação sexual seja atitude revolucionária. Que tal sexo com pandas? Por falar em pandas...
Outra forma é a esquerda-melancia. Verde por fora, vermelha por dentro. Essa se traveste de preocupação com os pandas para querer roubar o dinheiro e o esforço alheios, além de refundar a união das Repúblicas Socialistas Soviéticas, mas com obrigação de comida orgânica no cardápio.
Existe também a esquerda "de classe executiva" que vai a jantares inteligentes. O mais perto que ela chega de qualquer coisa vermelha é do vinho que gosta de discutir, marca de sua falsa "finesse". Nada mais "fake" do que falar de vinhos como modo de elegância afetada.
Há também a religiosa, que se divide em duas. A budista "light", aquela que acha que o budismo é uma espiritualidade "progressista". A outra, a católica, pensou que Marx precisava de um Che Jesus e se deu mal. Nem a esquerda a leva a sério, nem a igreja a considera mais.
Claro, não podemos esquecer do feminismo, aquele que acha que o patriarcalismo é responsável por todos os males e afirma que Shakespeare era uma menina vestida de menino. Outra forma é a esquerda multicultural. Essa confunde o mundo com uma praça de alimentação étnica de um shopping center de classe média, achando que "culturas" (esse conceito "pseudo") se misturam como molhos.
Outra forma é a esquerda "aborígene", aquela que entende que a vida pré-descoberta da roda é a forma plena de habitar o cosmo.
Há também a esquerda da psicologia social, composta basicamente de psicólogas, pedagogas e assistentes sociais a favor da educação democrática e da ideia de que tudo é construído no diálogo. Essas creem que se pode dialogar com serial killers, culpando a escola, o capital e a igreja pelas mulheres que eles cortam em pedaços nas redondezas.
Todos esses tipos têm um traço em comum: são todos frouxos, como diria Paulo Francis.
Mas existe uma outra esquerda, a bolchevique "traveco". Os bolcheviques eram cabras que gostavam de violência e a praticaram em larga escala. Hoje, para a esquerda, pega mal pregar violência. Ela sofre com um problema que é a imagem de si mesma como um conjunto de seres puros, dóceis e pacíficos.
Então, para os simpatizantes da violência revolucionária bolchevique, a saída é se travestir de gente dócil e falar em "violência criadora". O amor e a violência são os mesmos, mas a saia confunde.
Enviar por e-mail
BlogThis!
Compartilhar no Twitter
Compartilhar no Facebook
Compartilhar no Orkut
FOLHA DE SP - 02/07
Todos os tipos de esquerda têm um traço em comum: são frouxos, como diria Paulo Francis
A esquerda é uma praga da qual não nos livramos. Egressa da tradição judaico-cristã messiânica, traz consigo a tara do fanatismo daquela. Mas ela tem várias faces.
No Brasil, após a ditadura, a esquerda tinha o absoluto controle da universidade e, por tabela, de muitas das instâncias de razão pública, como escolas de nível médio, mídia, tribunais e escolas de magistratura. Coitadinha dela.
Neste caso, do aparelho jurídico, sente-se o impacto quando vemos a bem-sucedida manobra da esquerda em fazer do Código Penal uma província ridícula do politicamente correto, para quem, como diz a piada, entre matar um fiscal do IBAMA e um jacaré, é menos crime matar o fiscal.
Com a crise da Europa e a Primavera Árabe, a esquerda se sente renovada. Interessante como, no caso árabe, ela flerta com os movimentos islamitas. A razão é, antes de tudo, sua ignorância completa com relação ao Oriente Médio. A esquerda sempre foi provinciana. Ela confunde o fanatismo islamita com o fanatismo revolucionário. Lá, não existe "povo em busca de igualdade democrática", mas sim fiéis em busca de tutela absoluta.
Antes de tudo, devo dizer que há uma forma de esquerda que respeito: os melancólicos de Frankfurt. Para estes, como Adorno e Horkheimer, vivemos o "échec" (impasse, fracasso) da modernidade, devido à mercantilização das relações. Para mim, isso é um fato. E, enfim, a melancolia sempre me encanta. Os melancólicos têm razão.
Desde Deleuze, Derrida e Foucault (três chifres da mesma cabra), a esquerda assumiu ares de revolução de campus universitário, que encampa desde movimentos como o engodo do Maio de 68, passando pela crítica da gramática como forma de opressão (risadas...), até a ideia boba de que orientação sexual seja atitude revolucionária. Que tal sexo com pandas? Por falar em pandas...
Outra forma é a esquerda-melancia. Verde por fora, vermelha por dentro. Essa se traveste de preocupação com os pandas para querer roubar o dinheiro e o esforço alheios, além de refundar a união das Repúblicas Socialistas Soviéticas, mas com obrigação de comida orgânica no cardápio.
Existe também a esquerda "de classe executiva" que vai a jantares inteligentes. O mais perto que ela chega de qualquer coisa vermelha é do vinho que gosta de discutir, marca de sua falsa "finesse". Nada mais "fake" do que falar de vinhos como modo de elegância afetada.
Há também a religiosa, que se divide em duas. A budista "light", aquela que acha que o budismo é uma espiritualidade "progressista". A outra, a católica, pensou que Marx precisava de um Che Jesus e se deu mal. Nem a esquerda a leva a sério, nem a igreja a considera mais.
Claro, não podemos esquecer do feminismo, aquele que acha que o patriarcalismo é responsável por todos os males e afirma que Shakespeare era uma menina vestida de menino. Outra forma é a esquerda multicultural. Essa confunde o mundo com uma praça de alimentação étnica de um shopping center de classe média, achando que "culturas" (esse conceito "pseudo") se misturam como molhos.
Outra forma é a esquerda "aborígene", aquela que entende que a vida pré-descoberta da roda é a forma plena de habitar o cosmo.
Há também a esquerda da psicologia social, composta basicamente de psicólogas, pedagogas e assistentes sociais a favor da educação democrática e da ideia de que tudo é construído no diálogo. Essas creem que se pode dialogar com serial killers, culpando a escola, o capital e a igreja pelas mulheres que eles cortam em pedaços nas redondezas.
Todos esses tipos têm um traço em comum: são todos frouxos, como diria Paulo Francis.
Mas existe uma outra esquerda, a bolchevique "traveco". Os bolcheviques eram cabras que gostavam de violência e a praticaram em larga escala. Hoje, para a esquerda, pega mal pregar violência. Ela sofre com um problema que é a imagem de si mesma como um conjunto de seres puros, dóceis e pacíficos.
Então, para os simpatizantes da violência revolucionária bolchevique, a saída é se travestir de gente dócil e falar em "violência criadora". O amor e a violência são os mesmos, mas a saia confunde.
Enviar por e-mail
BlogThis!
Compartilhar no Twitter
Compartilhar no Facebook
Compartilhar no Orkut
Monday, June 18, 2012
Friday, June 15, 2012
So de sacanagem by Elisa Lucinda
Meu coração está aos pulos! Quantas vezes minha esperança será posta a prova? Por quantas provas terá ela que passar?
Tudo isso que está aí no ar: malas, cuecas que voam entupidas de dinheiro. Do meu dinheiro, do nosso dinheiro que reservamos duramente pra educar os meninos mais pobres que nós, pra cuidar gratuitamente da saúde deles e dos seus pais. Esse dinheiro viaja na bagagem da impunidade e eu não posso mais. Quantas vezes, meu amigo, meu rapaz, minha confiança vai ser posta a prova? Quantas vezes minha esperança vai esperar no cais? É certo que tempos difíceis existem pra aperfeiçoar o aprendiz, mas não é certo que a mentira dos maus brasileiros venha quebrar no nosso nariz. Meu coração tá no escuro. A luz é simples, regada ao conselho simples de meu pai, minha mãe, minha avó e todos os justos que os precederam. 'Não roubarás!', 'Devolva o lápis do coleguinha', 'Esse apontador não é seu, minha filha'. Ao invés disso, tanta coisa nojenta e torpe tenho tido que escutar! Até habeas corpus preventiva, coisa da qual nunca tinha visto falar, sobre o qual minha pobre lógica ainda insiste: esse é o tipo de benefício que só ao culpado interessará! Pois bem, se mexeram comigo, com a velha e fiel fé do meu povo sofrido, então agora eu vou sacanear! Mais honesta ainda eu vou ficar! Só de sacanagem!
Dirão: 'Deixe de ser boba! Desde Cabral que aqui todo mundo rouba!
E eu vou dizer: 'Não importa! Será esse o meu carnaval! Vou confiar mais e outra vez. Eu, meu irmão, meu filho e meus amigos.'
Vamo pagar limpo a quem a gente deve e receber limpo do nosso freguês. Com o tempo, a gente consegue ser livre, ético e o escambal.
Dirão: 'É inútil! Todo mundo aqui é corrupto desde o primeiro homem que veio de Portugal!'
E eu direi: 'Não admito! Minha esperança é imortal, ouviram? Imortal!'
Sei que não dá pra mudar o começo, mas, se a gente quizer, vai dar pra mudar o final!
Tudo isso que está aí no ar: malas, cuecas que voam entupidas de dinheiro. Do meu dinheiro, do nosso dinheiro que reservamos duramente pra educar os meninos mais pobres que nós, pra cuidar gratuitamente da saúde deles e dos seus pais. Esse dinheiro viaja na bagagem da impunidade e eu não posso mais. Quantas vezes, meu amigo, meu rapaz, minha confiança vai ser posta a prova? Quantas vezes minha esperança vai esperar no cais? É certo que tempos difíceis existem pra aperfeiçoar o aprendiz, mas não é certo que a mentira dos maus brasileiros venha quebrar no nosso nariz. Meu coração tá no escuro. A luz é simples, regada ao conselho simples de meu pai, minha mãe, minha avó e todos os justos que os precederam. 'Não roubarás!', 'Devolva o lápis do coleguinha', 'Esse apontador não é seu, minha filha'. Ao invés disso, tanta coisa nojenta e torpe tenho tido que escutar! Até habeas corpus preventiva, coisa da qual nunca tinha visto falar, sobre o qual minha pobre lógica ainda insiste: esse é o tipo de benefício que só ao culpado interessará! Pois bem, se mexeram comigo, com a velha e fiel fé do meu povo sofrido, então agora eu vou sacanear! Mais honesta ainda eu vou ficar! Só de sacanagem!
Dirão: 'Deixe de ser boba! Desde Cabral que aqui todo mundo rouba!
E eu vou dizer: 'Não importa! Será esse o meu carnaval! Vou confiar mais e outra vez. Eu, meu irmão, meu filho e meus amigos.'
Vamo pagar limpo a quem a gente deve e receber limpo do nosso freguês. Com o tempo, a gente consegue ser livre, ético e o escambal.
Dirão: 'É inútil! Todo mundo aqui é corrupto desde o primeiro homem que veio de Portugal!'
E eu direi: 'Não admito! Minha esperança é imortal, ouviram? Imortal!'
Sei que não dá pra mudar o começo, mas, se a gente quizer, vai dar pra mudar o final!
Monday, June 11, 2012
Not so experts from the economist
Buttonwood, The Economist
ASK enough people for advice, they say, and you will eventually find someone who will tell you what you want to hear. But the need for advice burns so strongly that people become blind to its quality. There is a remarkable tendency to trust experts, even when there is little evidence of their forecasting powers. In his book “Expert Political Judgment”, Philip Tetlock shows that political forecasters are worse than crude algorithms at predicting events. The more prominent the expert (ie, the more they were quoted by the news media), the worse their records tended to be. There is also an inverse relationship between the confidence of the individual forecaster and the accuracy of their predictions.
The remarkable tendency for individuals to rely on expert advice, even when the advice clearly has no useful component, was neatly illustrated in a recent academic paper* about an Asian experiment. Undergraduates in Thailand and Singapore were asked to place bets on five rounds of coin flips. The participants were told that the coins came from fellow students; that these would be changed during the process; that the coin-flipper would be changed every round; and that the flippers would be participants, not experimenters. Thus there was a high likelihood that the results would be random.
Taped to the desk of each participant were five envelopes, each predicting the outcome of the successive flips. Participants could pay to see the predictions in advance, but they saw them free after the coin toss had occurred.
When the initial prediction turned out to be correct, students were more willing to pay to see the next forecast. This tendency increased after two, three and four successful predictions. Furthermore, those who paid in advance for predictions placed bigger bets on subsequent coin tosses than those who did not.
Paying for financial advice might not seem quite as bizarre as paying for coin-toss predictions, but there are some similarities. Nobody can reliably forecast the short-term outlook for economies or stockmarkets; Warren Buffett, the world’s most successful long-term investor, thinks it is not worth trying to do so. But plenty of economists and strategists earn a good living doing just that. The average active-fund manager fails to beat the stockmarket index; no reliable way has been found for selecting above-average managers in advance. Yet investors are still willing to pay for the services of active managers.
The sheer complexity of modern financial markets and the torrent of information that is published each day are a boon to the providers of financial advice. Investors may feel that they simply do not have the time to analyse all the data, and they therefore need to rely on the advice of professionals. This is true even if they think the markets are a “rigged game” played for the benefit of insiders; it still makes sense for them to pay for an insider’s view.
There may be another, psychological, reason why investors want to pay for advice: the avoidance of regret. If you choose to put all your money into technology stocks on the back of your own research, and such stocks collapse, you only have yourself to blame. But if you have listened to the advice of an expert, then the decision is not your fault.
Some financial advice may be extremely useful. Many advisers steered their clients away from Bernie Madoff’s fraudulent funds. Investors also need to be made aware of the benefits of diversification and of the effect on their portfolios of tax rules and regulations. There is also evidence that market valuations revert to the mean over the long term, so pointing out when markets look historically cheap or dear can help.
The problem for the industry is that such advice will not be needed very often, and that limits the potential fees. So instead investors are bombarded with endless research on why stock A is better than stock B, why one currency is bound to outperform another and so on. Clients end up churning their portfolios, even though the costs erode their returns.
Perhaps the financial-advice industry survives because the idea that the future is unknowable is just unsatisfying. Some forecast—any forecast—is therefore comforting. Mr Tetlock suggests that “we believe in experts in the same way that our ancestors believe in oracles; we want to believe in a controllable world and we have a flawed understanding of the laws of chance.”
* “Why Do People Pay for Useless Advice? Implications of Gambler’s and Hot-Hand Fallacies in False-Expert Setting”, by Nattavudh Powdthavee and Yohanes Riyanto, Institute for the Study of Labour, May 2012.
ASK enough people for advice, they say, and you will eventually find someone who will tell you what you want to hear. But the need for advice burns so strongly that people become blind to its quality. There is a remarkable tendency to trust experts, even when there is little evidence of their forecasting powers. In his book “Expert Political Judgment”, Philip Tetlock shows that political forecasters are worse than crude algorithms at predicting events. The more prominent the expert (ie, the more they were quoted by the news media), the worse their records tended to be. There is also an inverse relationship between the confidence of the individual forecaster and the accuracy of their predictions.
The remarkable tendency for individuals to rely on expert advice, even when the advice clearly has no useful component, was neatly illustrated in a recent academic paper* about an Asian experiment. Undergraduates in Thailand and Singapore were asked to place bets on five rounds of coin flips. The participants were told that the coins came from fellow students; that these would be changed during the process; that the coin-flipper would be changed every round; and that the flippers would be participants, not experimenters. Thus there was a high likelihood that the results would be random.
Taped to the desk of each participant were five envelopes, each predicting the outcome of the successive flips. Participants could pay to see the predictions in advance, but they saw them free after the coin toss had occurred.
When the initial prediction turned out to be correct, students were more willing to pay to see the next forecast. This tendency increased after two, three and four successful predictions. Furthermore, those who paid in advance for predictions placed bigger bets on subsequent coin tosses than those who did not.
Paying for financial advice might not seem quite as bizarre as paying for coin-toss predictions, but there are some similarities. Nobody can reliably forecast the short-term outlook for economies or stockmarkets; Warren Buffett, the world’s most successful long-term investor, thinks it is not worth trying to do so. But plenty of economists and strategists earn a good living doing just that. The average active-fund manager fails to beat the stockmarket index; no reliable way has been found for selecting above-average managers in advance. Yet investors are still willing to pay for the services of active managers.
The sheer complexity of modern financial markets and the torrent of information that is published each day are a boon to the providers of financial advice. Investors may feel that they simply do not have the time to analyse all the data, and they therefore need to rely on the advice of professionals. This is true even if they think the markets are a “rigged game” played for the benefit of insiders; it still makes sense for them to pay for an insider’s view.
There may be another, psychological, reason why investors want to pay for advice: the avoidance of regret. If you choose to put all your money into technology stocks on the back of your own research, and such stocks collapse, you only have yourself to blame. But if you have listened to the advice of an expert, then the decision is not your fault.
Some financial advice may be extremely useful. Many advisers steered their clients away from Bernie Madoff’s fraudulent funds. Investors also need to be made aware of the benefits of diversification and of the effect on their portfolios of tax rules and regulations. There is also evidence that market valuations revert to the mean over the long term, so pointing out when markets look historically cheap or dear can help.
The problem for the industry is that such advice will not be needed very often, and that limits the potential fees. So instead investors are bombarded with endless research on why stock A is better than stock B, why one currency is bound to outperform another and so on. Clients end up churning their portfolios, even though the costs erode their returns.
Perhaps the financial-advice industry survives because the idea that the future is unknowable is just unsatisfying. Some forecast—any forecast—is therefore comforting. Mr Tetlock suggests that “we believe in experts in the same way that our ancestors believe in oracles; we want to believe in a controllable world and we have a flawed understanding of the laws of chance.”
* “Why Do People Pay for Useless Advice? Implications of Gambler’s and Hot-Hand Fallacies in False-Expert Setting”, by Nattavudh Powdthavee and Yohanes Riyanto, Institute for the Study of Labour, May 2012.
Tuesday, June 05, 2012
Uma desaceleração estrutural by PAULO GUEDES
Após uma forte desaceleração econômica ao longo de 2011, o Brasil encerra o primeiro trimestre de 2012 com a economia praticamente estagnada. O esfriamento da economia brasileira tem sido atribuído ao aprofundamento da grande crise contemporânea. Seríamos vítimas do fenômeno da desaceleração econômica global. Estariam contribuindo para a frustração de nossas expectativas de crescimento a frágil recuperação da economia americana, o esfriamento das demais economias emergentes - novas fronteiras de crescimento da economia mundial - e, principalmente, o buraco negro da Zona do Euro.
O agravamento da crise europeia é a bola da vez. A armadilha social-democrata de baixo crescimento, com regimes previdenciários irrealistas e legislações trabalhistas anacrônicas, tornou inflexíveis os mercados de trabalho. Produzida por décadas de práticas políticas obsoletas da social-democracia europeia, a euroesclerose estilhaçou o maior mercado potencial do planeta em imensos bolsões "nacionais" de desemprego. A balcanização econômica da Europa e a insatisfação de eleitorados nacionais com a estagnação da produção e do emprego tornaram-se explícitas com a emergência do euro ao status de moeda forte.
Essa armadilha de baixo crescimento é o resultado da falta de sintonia de classes políticas nacionais com os requisitos de uma nova ordem global. Aprisionou a economia europeia, condenando-a ao crescimento medíocre e à incapacidade de gerar empregos. Crítico contumaz da globalização, que considera uma singularidade histórica anglo-saxã de consequências desastrosas para o resto do mundo, o filósofo e cientista político britânico John Gray julga irreconciliáveis as contradições entre as práticas políticas social-democratas e as práticas econômicas de livres mercados globais.
A desaceleração econômica brasileira não é apenas uma sincronização com a crise global, como efeito do buraco negro europeu. "O requisito básico para escapar do baixo desempenho econômico é o claro entendimento de que se origina de instituições deficientes, que por sua vez resultam de crenças e percepções inadequadas diante de uma nova realidade. A estrutura institucional existente é um poderoso obstáculo às necessárias mudanças, pois reage em defesa de interesses adquiridos", adverte o Prêmio Nobel de Economia Douglass North, em "Compreendendo o processo das mudanças econômicas" (2005).
Thursday, May 17, 2012
Tuesday, April 24, 2012
Thursday, March 22, 2012
Thursday, March 01, 2012
Wednesday, February 29, 2012
Sunday, February 19, 2012
Thursday, February 09, 2012
Costa Maya
www.CruiseCritic.com
Costa Maya
Chacchoben Ruins
Maps provided by
Overview
If you build it, they will come. Costa Maya, the newest port in the Western Caribbean, may be located on a peninsula but in effect it feels more like a private island created from scratch expressly for cruisers. Costa Maya is located on the Caribbean Sea approximately 100 miles south of Playa del Carmen and quite close to the border of Belize.
Costa Maya is what you'd expect if, say, Disney World decided to create its own private island in Mexico: a man-made tourism village with bars, restaurants, shops and pools at the ready. The faux village itself was created solely to woo cruise passengers and it has a myriad of facilities -- pools, restaurants, bars, shops and a small beach (though it's too rocky to swim). Since Costa Maya first began accepting cruise passengers in February of 2001, the developers have added a beach house and water sports area, which is actually well away from the main village and is typically used by cruise lines as a shore excursion option.
Beyond that? What's interesting is that in developing an entire destination out of scratch in a place whose only settlement was the nearby village of Mahahual, 200 residents strong, the folks who created Costa Maya had to build everything. They worked with Coca-Cola to install water sanitation systems (and yes, it is safe to drink water within the Costa Maya confines). They built brick-paved roads and concrete cottages for the employees who pretty much all come from elsewhere and needed housing.
For travelers who just want to get into the "don't worry, be happy" mindset, the lure of Costa Maya can pretty much consume the day. Those who want to venture further have intriguing options, too. The region is home to some lesser known (but still important) Mayan ruins. The site most cruise passengers come here to see is Chacchoben, a city dating back to around 350 A.D.
Another place worth visiting beyond Costa Maya's boundaries is the seaside village of Mahahual. Once a simple haunt for fishermen, now there are seaside huts serving fresh ceviche, lovely white sand beaches with shallow surf (perfect for families) and way, way too many entrepreneurs selling the usual souvenirs.
If Costa Maya -- and Mahahual -- feel shiny new these days it's because they are. In August 2007, Hurricane Dean, a five category storm, came ashore here and created much havoc and destruction. In Costa Maya. The port, which was closed for 14 months for rebuilding, required cosmetic facelifts for its restaurants, shops and pools. The Uvero Beach Club, which was totally destroyed, was completely rebuilt.
In Mahahual, residents took advantage of the terrible hurricane to rebuild and improved the village's appearance in the process. New is a gorgeous 1.5 mile beach promenade with restaurants and shops alongside.
Costa Maya welcomed its post-Hurricane Dean cruise ship in October 2008.
Currently, Costa Maya can handle at least three ships, resulting in more than 6,000 visitors per day.
Best Cocktail
Any fruity concoction sold in a yard-long plastic tumbler called, appropriately, "la yarda." If three feet of banana daiquiri or strawberry margarita doesn't float your boat, quench your thirst with a few bottles of Bohemia or Sol, the requisite beers.
Language
Spanish, though English is widely spoken, as most places in the area cater to tourists.
Currency & Best Way to Get Money
The Mexican peso; one U.S. dollar is equivalent to approximately 10 pesos. However, many vendors will gladly accept U.S. currency.
Where You're Docked
Ships dock right at Costa Maya's purpose-built facilities.
Hanging Around
A "faux" village created solely for cruise passengers is just steps from the dock. The pier-side village features a number of free-to-use pools, one of which is huge with a swim-up bar; restaurants, bars and shops including the usual suspects like Diamonds International and a small beach lined with chairs and hammocks for relaxing, though it's too rocky for a good swim.
Getting Around
A taxi ride into Mahahual is about $5 per person roundtrip. Local buses to Mahahual are located behind the shopping area; tickets for the $3 fare are must be purchased in advance and are sold at a booth located in the same area. Golf carts and Jeeps are also available for rent for around $12 an hour or $60 per day, respectively.
Don't Miss
For first-timers to Costa Maya, a trip to the Mayan ruins at Chacchoben, in a jungle setting roughly an hour or so by motorcoach from the port, is an interesting and worthwhile outing. Chacchoben (the Mayan word for "red corn") dates back to around 350 A.D., but was largely unexplored until 1999. Visitors can ascend the steep stairs of "El Gran Basamento," the only structure available for climbing. What's also kind of special is that the site has not been fully excavated; our guide explained that wherever you see a hill in this otherwise flat area of Mexico you can bet there are ruins beneath. The site also houses a gift shop selling a genuinely distinctive collection of crafts.
Take the five-minute cab drive to Mahahual, a quirky and eccentric fishing village with lots of character. The main "boulevard," a street of sand that runs between a pretty white beach and some concrete shacks on the other side, has now been made a pedestrian throughway. Though the shopping is standard at best (owners are persistent to sell typical cheap trinkets), the beach is clean -- and the water, protected by a reef, is very calm and shallow so it's a perfect place for families. You can also get beach massages ($20 for 45 minutes), and rent Jet Skis and kayaks.
Been There, Done That
Xcalet is a small, off-the-beaten-path village within the Xcalak National Reef Park. Here, visitors can dive or snorkel among shipwrecks (there have been hundreds over past centuries) in Chinchorro Banks, Mexico's largest coral atoll.
Lunching
By the Port: The chain-restaurant-style Mexican food at Mamacita's, the pier-side beach-front restaurant, plays second fiddle to the fun atmosphere and live entertainment (who would have thought men in sombreros would rock out on a Rolling Stones cover?).
In Mahahaul: The best eatery along the strip is El Faro, which means lighthouse in Spanish; order the conch ceviche and quesadillas with homemade guacamole.
Shore Excursions
For Active Travelers: Explore Costa Maya's coastline on a bike and kayak adventure. Cyclists ride along a dirt road and through the fishing village of Mahahual for views of the water before arriving at the beach and boarding two-person kayaks. The tour is approximately 2 1/2 hours and costs about $48 for adults and children (minimum age: 12).
For Ruins Enthusiasts: If you have already seen Chacchoben or just want to kill two birds with one stone, take a Mayan explorer excursion that combines the archaeological ruins at Kohunlich, near the border of Belize, and Dzibanche, known for beautiful pottery and breathtaking temples. The tour is approximately eight hours and costs about $98 for adults and children.
For Beach Bums: Spend the day at popular Uvero Beach. Cruise line beach break packages, approximately $38 for children and adults, include entrance to the beach, open bar, use of hammocks, non-motorized water sports (based on availability) and roundtrip transportation. There are bars and a fast food restaurant (plan for an a la carte experience there).
For Off-Roaders: Reach the beach in style: A bilingual guide will take you through the jungle in a World War II class S Mercedes Benz Unimog. For more, check out www.costamaya-mexico.com.
Staying in Touch
There's an Internet cafe in the village of Costa Maya.
For More Information
On the Web: www.costamaya-mexico.com
Cruise Critic Message Boards: Costa Maya
The Independent Traveler: Mexico Exchange
--Updated by Carolyn Spencer Brown, Editor in Chief.
Costa Maya
Chacchoben Ruins
Maps provided by
Overview
If you build it, they will come. Costa Maya, the newest port in the Western Caribbean, may be located on a peninsula but in effect it feels more like a private island created from scratch expressly for cruisers. Costa Maya is located on the Caribbean Sea approximately 100 miles south of Playa del Carmen and quite close to the border of Belize.
Costa Maya is what you'd expect if, say, Disney World decided to create its own private island in Mexico: a man-made tourism village with bars, restaurants, shops and pools at the ready. The faux village itself was created solely to woo cruise passengers and it has a myriad of facilities -- pools, restaurants, bars, shops and a small beach (though it's too rocky to swim). Since Costa Maya first began accepting cruise passengers in February of 2001, the developers have added a beach house and water sports area, which is actually well away from the main village and is typically used by cruise lines as a shore excursion option.
Beyond that? What's interesting is that in developing an entire destination out of scratch in a place whose only settlement was the nearby village of Mahahual, 200 residents strong, the folks who created Costa Maya had to build everything. They worked with Coca-Cola to install water sanitation systems (and yes, it is safe to drink water within the Costa Maya confines). They built brick-paved roads and concrete cottages for the employees who pretty much all come from elsewhere and needed housing.
For travelers who just want to get into the "don't worry, be happy" mindset, the lure of Costa Maya can pretty much consume the day. Those who want to venture further have intriguing options, too. The region is home to some lesser known (but still important) Mayan ruins. The site most cruise passengers come here to see is Chacchoben, a city dating back to around 350 A.D.
Another place worth visiting beyond Costa Maya's boundaries is the seaside village of Mahahual. Once a simple haunt for fishermen, now there are seaside huts serving fresh ceviche, lovely white sand beaches with shallow surf (perfect for families) and way, way too many entrepreneurs selling the usual souvenirs.
If Costa Maya -- and Mahahual -- feel shiny new these days it's because they are. In August 2007, Hurricane Dean, a five category storm, came ashore here and created much havoc and destruction. In Costa Maya. The port, which was closed for 14 months for rebuilding, required cosmetic facelifts for its restaurants, shops and pools. The Uvero Beach Club, which was totally destroyed, was completely rebuilt.
In Mahahual, residents took advantage of the terrible hurricane to rebuild and improved the village's appearance in the process. New is a gorgeous 1.5 mile beach promenade with restaurants and shops alongside.
Costa Maya welcomed its post-Hurricane Dean cruise ship in October 2008.
Currently, Costa Maya can handle at least three ships, resulting in more than 6,000 visitors per day.
Best Cocktail
Any fruity concoction sold in a yard-long plastic tumbler called, appropriately, "la yarda." If three feet of banana daiquiri or strawberry margarita doesn't float your boat, quench your thirst with a few bottles of Bohemia or Sol, the requisite beers.
Language
Spanish, though English is widely spoken, as most places in the area cater to tourists.
Currency & Best Way to Get Money
The Mexican peso; one U.S. dollar is equivalent to approximately 10 pesos. However, many vendors will gladly accept U.S. currency.
Where You're Docked
Ships dock right at Costa Maya's purpose-built facilities.
Hanging Around
A "faux" village created solely for cruise passengers is just steps from the dock. The pier-side village features a number of free-to-use pools, one of which is huge with a swim-up bar; restaurants, bars and shops including the usual suspects like Diamonds International and a small beach lined with chairs and hammocks for relaxing, though it's too rocky for a good swim.
Getting Around
A taxi ride into Mahahual is about $5 per person roundtrip. Local buses to Mahahual are located behind the shopping area; tickets for the $3 fare are must be purchased in advance and are sold at a booth located in the same area. Golf carts and Jeeps are also available for rent for around $12 an hour or $60 per day, respectively.
Don't Miss
For first-timers to Costa Maya, a trip to the Mayan ruins at Chacchoben, in a jungle setting roughly an hour or so by motorcoach from the port, is an interesting and worthwhile outing. Chacchoben (the Mayan word for "red corn") dates back to around 350 A.D., but was largely unexplored until 1999. Visitors can ascend the steep stairs of "El Gran Basamento," the only structure available for climbing. What's also kind of special is that the site has not been fully excavated; our guide explained that wherever you see a hill in this otherwise flat area of Mexico you can bet there are ruins beneath. The site also houses a gift shop selling a genuinely distinctive collection of crafts.
Take the five-minute cab drive to Mahahual, a quirky and eccentric fishing village with lots of character. The main "boulevard," a street of sand that runs between a pretty white beach and some concrete shacks on the other side, has now been made a pedestrian throughway. Though the shopping is standard at best (owners are persistent to sell typical cheap trinkets), the beach is clean -- and the water, protected by a reef, is very calm and shallow so it's a perfect place for families. You can also get beach massages ($20 for 45 minutes), and rent Jet Skis and kayaks.
Been There, Done That
Xcalet is a small, off-the-beaten-path village within the Xcalak National Reef Park. Here, visitors can dive or snorkel among shipwrecks (there have been hundreds over past centuries) in Chinchorro Banks, Mexico's largest coral atoll.
Lunching
By the Port: The chain-restaurant-style Mexican food at Mamacita's, the pier-side beach-front restaurant, plays second fiddle to the fun atmosphere and live entertainment (who would have thought men in sombreros would rock out on a Rolling Stones cover?).
In Mahahaul: The best eatery along the strip is El Faro, which means lighthouse in Spanish; order the conch ceviche and quesadillas with homemade guacamole.
Shore Excursions
For Active Travelers: Explore Costa Maya's coastline on a bike and kayak adventure. Cyclists ride along a dirt road and through the fishing village of Mahahual for views of the water before arriving at the beach and boarding two-person kayaks. The tour is approximately 2 1/2 hours and costs about $48 for adults and children (minimum age: 12).
For Ruins Enthusiasts: If you have already seen Chacchoben or just want to kill two birds with one stone, take a Mayan explorer excursion that combines the archaeological ruins at Kohunlich, near the border of Belize, and Dzibanche, known for beautiful pottery and breathtaking temples. The tour is approximately eight hours and costs about $98 for adults and children.
For Beach Bums: Spend the day at popular Uvero Beach. Cruise line beach break packages, approximately $38 for children and adults, include entrance to the beach, open bar, use of hammocks, non-motorized water sports (based on availability) and roundtrip transportation. There are bars and a fast food restaurant (plan for an a la carte experience there).
For Off-Roaders: Reach the beach in style: A bilingual guide will take you through the jungle in a World War II class S Mercedes Benz Unimog. For more, check out www.costamaya-mexico.com.
Staying in Touch
There's an Internet cafe in the village of Costa Maya.
For More Information
On the Web: www.costamaya-mexico.com
Cruise Critic Message Boards: Costa Maya
The Independent Traveler: Mexico Exchange
--Updated by Carolyn Spencer Brown, Editor in Chief.
Tuesday, February 07, 2012
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)