Egyptian court sentences Christian family to 15 years for converting from Islam
By Benjamin Weinthal
FoxNews.com, January 16, 2013
Critics fear Egyptian President Mohamed Morsi's regime is taking the nation further toward Islamic extremism.
Egypt is home to an estimated seven million Christians. (Reuters)
The 15-year prison sentence given to a woman and her seven children by an Egyptian court for converting to Christianity is a sign of things to come, according to alarmed human rights advocates who say the nation's Islamist government is bad news for Christians in the North African country.
A criminal court in the central Egyptian city of Beni Suef meted out the shocking sentence last week, according to the Arabic-language Egyptian paper Al-Masry Al-Youm. Nadia Mohamed Ali, who was raised a Christian, converted to Islam when she married Mohamed Abdel-Wahhab Mustafa, a Muslim, 23 years ago. He later died, and his widow planned to convert her family back to Christianity in order to obtain an inheritance from her family. She sought the help of others in the registration office to process new identity cards between 2004 and 2006. When the conversion came to light under the new regime, Nadia, her children and even the clerks who processed the identity cards were all sentenced to prison.
Samuel Tadros, a research fellow at Hudson Institute's Center for Religious Freedom, said conversions like Nadia's have been common in the past, but said Egypt's new Sharia-based constitution "is a real disaster in terms of religion freedom.”
"Now that Sharia law has become an integral part of Egypt's new constitution, Christians in that country are at greater risk than ever."
- Jordan Sekulow, executive director of the American Center for Law and Justice
"The cases will increase in the future," Tadros said. "It will be much harder for people to return to Christianity."
President Mohamed Morsi, who was elected last June and succeeded the secular reign of Hosni Mubarak, who is now in prison, pushed the new constitution through last year.
Tadros said the constitution limits the practice of Christianity because “religious freedom has to be understood within the boundaries of Sharia.” He added that the constitution prescribes that the highest Sunni authority should be referred to as an interpreter of the religion clause contained in the constitution.
Opponents of the constitution, including Coptic Christians and secular and liberal groups, protested at the time against passage of the document because of the mix of Islamic-based Sharia law and politics. Roughly 10 percent of Egyptians are Coptic Christians.
A government spokeswoman told FoxNews.com she would determine “who is responsible for this and covers this issue in Beni Suef,“ a city of 200,000 located about 75 miles south of Cairo. She did not offer further comment.
The case is the latest example of the increasingly dire plight of the nation's roughly 7 million Christians, say human rights advocates.
"Now that Sharia law has become an integral part of Egypt's new constitution, Christians in that country are at greater risk than ever," said Jordan Sekulow, executive director of the American Center for Law and Justice. "This is another tragic case that underscores the growing problem of religious intolerance in the Muslim world. To impose a prison sentence for a family because of their Christian faith sadly reveals the true agenda of this new government: Egypt has no respect for international law or religious liberty.”
Morsi has been under fire for failing to take action against rising violence inflicted on Egypt’s Christians. In August, the roughly 100-family Christian community in Dahshour was forced to flee after Muslim neighbors launched attacks against the Christians’ homes and property. Morsi said the expulsion and violence was “ blown out of proportion.” Radical Salafi preachers -- who have formed alliances with Morsi and the Muslim Brotherhood -- called for Muslims to shun Christians during Christmas.
Sekulow urged U.S. diplomatic intervention in Egypt to promote religious freedom. Morsi is scheduled to meet with President Obama, possibly in March.
”The U.S. State Department must play more of a role in discouraging this kind of persecution," Sekulow said. "The U.S. should not be an idle bystander. The U.S. provides more than $1 billion to Egypt each year. The State Department should speak out forcefully against this kind of religious persecution in Egypt.”
Benjamin Weinthal is a journalist who reports on Christians in the Middle East and is a fellow at the Foundation for Defense of Democracies. Follow Benjamin on Twitter: @BenWeinthal.
Read more: http://www.foxnews.com/world/2013/01/16/egyptian-court-sentences-entire-family-to-15-years-for-converting-to/#ixzz2IQqQ9kZ6
sábado, 19 de janeiro de 2013
Ouro, essa reliquia barbara, e o apreco dos alemaes por ela...
A história não está toda contada e não está bem contada. O autor não diz, ou ignora o fato de, que imensos saldos superavitários obtidos pela RFA no comércio com os EUA não foram convertidos de dólares em ouro, em meados dos anos 1960 porque os EUA já não dispunham de recursos suficientes em ouro para honrar os compromissos assumidos em Bretton Woods. Assim, centenas de milhões de dólares detidos notadamente pelo Japão e pela Alemanha não puderam ser convertidos em ouro, já que os americanos "recomendavam" a esses países -- não por acaso os que tinham tropas de ocupação americanas -- guardassem seus dólares, para eles "as good as gold", ou seja, tão bons quanto o ouro. A consequência foi a que ambos tomaram um calote monumental, no momento da desvinculação unilateral dos EUA do padrão ouro-dólar em 1971 e da queda significativa do valor da moeda americana (e da subida consequente do valor do ouro) logo em seguida. Tudo bem, os dois países eram ricos o suficiente para acomodar esse calote, mas ele foi realmente enorme.
Paulo Roberto de Almeida
Paulo Roberto de Almeida
Deutsche Welle, 17/01/2013
Até 2020, metade dos estoques alemães do metal deverá estar armazenada
em Frankfurt. Alemanha possui a segunda maior reserva de ouro do mundo,
atrás apenas dos EUA.
O Banco Central da Alemanha (Bundesbank) vai transportar para o país boa
parte das reservas de ouro depositadas no exterior. A meta é que, até
2020, metade do ouro alemão esteja armazenada no Bundesbank, anunciou
Carl-Ludwig Thiele, membro do conselho da instituição nesta quarta-feira
(16/01), em Frankfurt.
A Alemanha possui a segunda maior reserva de ouro do mundo, atrás somente dos Estados Unidos. Nos últimos meses houve um debate interno sobre a segurança das reservas de ouro alemãs depositadas no exterior.
Ao todo, o país tem 3.391 toneladas de ouro, no valor de 137,51 bilhões de euros. A maior parte, 1.536 toneladas, está depositada no Fed, o Banco Central dos EUA. Outras 445 toneladas estão armazenadas no Bank of England, em Londres. Em Paris repousam mais 374 toneladas de ouro. Somente 31% das reservas alemãs de ouro, ou 1.036 toneladas, estão em Frankfurt.
Nos próximos anos, a Alemanha pretende buscar 300 toneladas de ouro dos EUA e tudo o que possui na França, ou seja, 374 toneladas. O valor total é de 27 bilhões de euros, segundo Thiele.
O motivo para o Banco Central Alemão manter parte das reservas no exterior é ter a possibilidade de, no caso de uma crise monetária, converter rapidamente o ouro em dólares, a moeda mais importante do mundo.
A recuperação total do metal armazenado na França explica-se, portanto, pelo fato de o país usar hoje a mesma moeda que a Alemanha. Ou seja, caso necessário, não seria possível trocar o ouro retido em Paris por uma moeda internacional. Thiele justificou a recuperação de parte do ouro dos EUA dizendo que há espaço sobrando nos cofres alemães.
Questão de confiança
No segundo semestre de 2012, um debate aberto sobre a segurança do ouro alemão no exterior ganhou força no país. Há alguns meses, o Tribunal de Contas da Alemanha (Bundesrechnungshof) criticou em um relatório o fato de as reservas de ouro armazenadas no exterior nunca terem sido inspecionadas em sua "composição física" e autenticidade.
Alguns políticos afirmaram que o Bundesbank havia aberto mão do controle sobre o metal precioso. Thiele ressaltou, porém, que a decisão de recuperar parte do ouro do país foi tomada de maneira independente.
Razões históricas
O patrimônio alemão em ouro foi adquirido principalmente nas décadas de 1950 e 1960. Na época do sistema monetário de Bretton Woods, que valeu de 1944 a 1971, os EUA trocavam cada onça de ouro pelo valor fixo de 35 dólares.
Nos anos do seu milagre econômico, alguns anos após a Segunda Guerra Mundial, a Alemanha conseguiu elevados superavits comerciais, e o Bundesbank trocava marcos alemães por dólares continuamente. Os estoques acumulados da moeda norte-americana eram, então, trocados por ouro nos EUA.
Após a troca, o ouro ficava depositado no Fed em Nova York, ou seja, nunca esteve na Alemanha. Algo parecido ocorreu durante a União Europeia de Pagamentos, que existiu de 1950 a 1958. O ouro alemão ficou, assim, nos cofres de Londres e Paris.
Na época da Guerra Fria, 98% das reservas de ouro da então Alemanha Ocidental estavam no exterior por motivos de segurança. Com a queda do Muro de Berlim e a reunificação do país, os temores de um ataque externo deixaram de existir. A partir de 2000, a Alemanha começou a transportar para o país parte de suas reservas.
LPF/dpa/afp
Revisão: Alexandre Schossler
A Alemanha possui a segunda maior reserva de ouro do mundo, atrás somente dos Estados Unidos. Nos últimos meses houve um debate interno sobre a segurança das reservas de ouro alemãs depositadas no exterior.
Ao todo, o país tem 3.391 toneladas de ouro, no valor de 137,51 bilhões de euros. A maior parte, 1.536 toneladas, está depositada no Fed, o Banco Central dos EUA. Outras 445 toneladas estão armazenadas no Bank of England, em Londres. Em Paris repousam mais 374 toneladas de ouro. Somente 31% das reservas alemãs de ouro, ou 1.036 toneladas, estão em Frankfurt.
Nos próximos anos, a Alemanha pretende buscar 300 toneladas de ouro dos EUA e tudo o que possui na França, ou seja, 374 toneladas. O valor total é de 27 bilhões de euros, segundo Thiele.
O motivo para o Banco Central Alemão manter parte das reservas no exterior é ter a possibilidade de, no caso de uma crise monetária, converter rapidamente o ouro em dólares, a moeda mais importante do mundo.
A recuperação total do metal armazenado na França explica-se, portanto, pelo fato de o país usar hoje a mesma moeda que a Alemanha. Ou seja, caso necessário, não seria possível trocar o ouro retido em Paris por uma moeda internacional. Thiele justificou a recuperação de parte do ouro dos EUA dizendo que há espaço sobrando nos cofres alemães.
Questão de confiança
No segundo semestre de 2012, um debate aberto sobre a segurança do ouro alemão no exterior ganhou força no país. Há alguns meses, o Tribunal de Contas da Alemanha (Bundesrechnungshof) criticou em um relatório o fato de as reservas de ouro armazenadas no exterior nunca terem sido inspecionadas em sua "composição física" e autenticidade.
Alguns políticos afirmaram que o Bundesbank havia aberto mão do controle sobre o metal precioso. Thiele ressaltou, porém, que a decisão de recuperar parte do ouro do país foi tomada de maneira independente.
Razões históricas
O patrimônio alemão em ouro foi adquirido principalmente nas décadas de 1950 e 1960. Na época do sistema monetário de Bretton Woods, que valeu de 1944 a 1971, os EUA trocavam cada onça de ouro pelo valor fixo de 35 dólares.
Nos anos do seu milagre econômico, alguns anos após a Segunda Guerra Mundial, a Alemanha conseguiu elevados superavits comerciais, e o Bundesbank trocava marcos alemães por dólares continuamente. Os estoques acumulados da moeda norte-americana eram, então, trocados por ouro nos EUA.
Após a troca, o ouro ficava depositado no Fed em Nova York, ou seja, nunca esteve na Alemanha. Algo parecido ocorreu durante a União Europeia de Pagamentos, que existiu de 1950 a 1958. O ouro alemão ficou, assim, nos cofres de Londres e Paris.
Na época da Guerra Fria, 98% das reservas de ouro da então Alemanha Ocidental estavam no exterior por motivos de segurança. Com a queda do Muro de Berlim e a reunificação do país, os temores de um ataque externo deixaram de existir. A partir de 2000, a Alemanha começou a transportar para o país parte de suas reservas.
LPF/dpa/afp
Revisão: Alexandre Schossler
Global trade: analysis by OECD (dynamic)
Recomendo acesso ao link abaixo para aproveitamento de todas as possibilidades desta apresentação:
http://www.oecd.org/newsroom/newoecd-wtoanalysishighlightschangingfaceofglobaltrade.htm
Paulo Roberto de Almeida
New OECD-WTO analysis highlights changing face of global trade
|
16/01/2013 - Business competitiveness and export performance are
increasingly tied to countries’ integration into global production
chains and a willingness to open markets to wider imports, according to
preliminary international trade data released today by the OECD and the
WTO. The joint OECD – WTO Trade in Value-Added Initiative breaks with conventional measurements of trade, which record gross flows of goods and services each time they cross borders. It seeks instead to analyse the value added by a country in the production of any good or service that is then exported, and offers a fuller picture of commercial relations between nations. “Countries’ capacity to sell to the world depends on their ability and readiness to buy from the rest of the world,” OECD Secretary General Angel Gurria said during the launch of the new database in Paris with WTO Director-General Pascal Lamy, EU Trade Commissioner Karel de Gucht and New Zealand Trade Minister Tim Groser. Read the full speech. |
The first release from the OECD-WTO database offers new insights on how global value chains impact trade relationships and business activity. Among the key findings are:
- China’s bilateral trade surplus with the United States shrinks by 25% on a value-added basis, reflecting the high level of foreign-sourced content in Chinese exports.
- One-third of the total value of motor vehicles exported from Germany actually comes from other countries, while nearly 40% of the total value of China’s electronics exports come from foreign sources.
- While conventional trade data suggests that services represent less than one-quarter of total trade, on a value-added basis services trade reaches an average 50% of OECD countries’ exports, and well above that in the United States, the United Kingdom, France, Germany and Italy – in large part because services add significant value to manufacturing output.
- Bilateral trade surpluses of major commodity exporters like Australia, Brazil and Canada with their key trading partners shrink on a value-added basis, as their raw materials are further processed by trading partners and then re-exported – highlighting where these countries might “move up” the value chain.
For more information on the methodology behind the TIVA database, indicators and future plans, as well as country notes see: www.oecd.org/trade/valueadded.
For queries on the database, please contact: TIVA.contact@oecd.org or the OECD Media Office (Tel:+33-1 4524-9700, news.contact@oecd.org)
Os calotes americanos atraves da Historia - The Globalist
Globalist Perspective > Global Economy
A Brief History of U.S. Defaults
By Uwe Bott
The Glogalist, Wednesday, January 16, 2013
President Barack Obama and the U.S. Congress are engaged in a high-stakes standoff over the country's debt obligations. While both sides say a full-blown default by the United States is unthinkable, it is nevertheless true that the United States has defaulted before. Uwe Bott reviews the country's past episodes of default — and how it might yet avoid a repeat.
y the end of February or early March, a U.S. default on Treasury bills and notes will become a distinct possibility. As a confused world scratches its head about the United States' self-inflicted political chaos, President Obama has made it clear that the United States is not — in his words — a deadbeat nation.
America defaulted on several occasions. The country's first default occurred in 1790.
Well, not so fast. America has, in fact, defaulted on several occasions.
The 1790 default episode
The country's first default y the end of February or early March, a U.S. default on Treasury bills and notes will become a distinct possibility. As a confused world scratches its head about the United States' self-inflicted political chaos, President Obama has made it clear that the United States is not — in his words — a deadbeat nation.
America defaulted on several occasions. The country's first default occurred in 1790.
Well, not so fast. America has, in fact, defaulted on several occasions.
The 1790 default episode
The country's first default occurred soon after its founding, when President George Washington signed the Funding Act of 1790. Through this act, the new federal government of the United States assumed the war debt of its constituent states, which they had accrued during the Revolutionary War.
While creditors were ultimately better off due to this measure (because the states were in no position to make timely payments), the act also deferred interest payments on this debt until 1801. By most estimates, this was a default — as timeliness of payments of principal and interest is at the core of creditworthiness.
The 1861 default episode
Moving right along to the beginning of the Civil War, the U.S. federal government created the so-called greenbacks (in essence today's dollars) in 1861. These were demand notes that could be redeemed at a specified conversion rate into gold.
However, before you could say "I want my gold back," the federal government refused, in January 1862, to redeem them. After that, the greenbacks became "legal tender" that would not be redeemable on demand.
These legal tender laws, first implemented in February 1862, were retroactive — and hence were tested in the Supreme Court. In 1869, the Court decided in Hepburn v. Griswold that the application of the legal tender laws to debt that had existed before these laws were enacted was indeed unconstitutional.
This decision so enraged then-President Ulysses S. Grant that he appointed two new justices to the Supreme Court in 1870 who willingly took up the cases of Knox v. Lee and Parker v. Davis.
Other U.S. default episodes occurred in 1861, 1933 and 1979.
As a result, the Supreme Court ruled in December 1870 that the legal tender laws were in fact constitutional, overturning the one-year old decision of Hepburn v. Griswold. So much for the rule of law.
The 1933 default episode
This takes us to Franklin D. Roosevelt in 1933. Much like President Obama, Roosevelt found the economy in shambles. He, too, had to take a lot of emergency actions, some orthodox, others not so much.
One of the more unorthodox actions related to U.S. government bonds issued many years earlier. In 1917, after entering World War I, the U.S. Congress passed the First and Second Liberty Bond Acts.
In fact, it is the Second Liberty Bond Act that is widely considered the legislative root of today's debt ceiling. This measure allowed the U.S. Treasury to issue long-term and short-term debt up to a certain limit — rather than seeking, as was previously required, specific Congressional authorization for each borrowing transaction.
These Liberty Bonds (more were issued in 1918 to prosecute the war) also included a gold clause. This clause required that redemptions of these bonds were to be made in gold. However, outstanding Liberty Bonds were far in excess of the country's gold reserves.
Upon President Roosevelt's request, Congress passed a "Joint Resolution to Assure Uniform Value to the Coins and Currencies of the United States." This had the net effect on reneging on the government's obligation to make payment on Liberty Bonds in gold.
Such subsequent restructuring of a contractual debt agreement would constitute a default by today's definition. In fact, four legal cases made it to the Supreme Court.
President Obama's rejection of the 14th Amendment option was probably politically unwise, but constitutionally accurate.
In February 1935, the Supreme Court deemed the congressional resolution as constitutional in a 5-4 decision. Chief Justice Charles Evans Hughes, who wrote the majority opinion, described the resolution as "immoral" but legal.
The 1979 default episode
The story of U.S. defaults does not end there. On May 9, 1979 the Wall Street Journal reported that the U.S. Treasury had failed to make timely payments redeeming Treasury bills for two reasons.
The first reason was a disruptive relocation of the offices issuing the checks. The second reason — hold on to your seats — was "the postponement of several securities auctions because of Congressional debate over the national debt ceiling."
Over a period of three weeks in 1979, the U.S. Treasury Department failed to send checks out on time, for an amount totaling $122 million. Again, by all modern definitions this constitutes a default, even if it was somewhat technical in nature.
Once again, lawsuits ensued. Their very nature and context tied it all together. The class action suit of Claire G. Barton v. United States demanded that the United States government pay interest (which was high in 1979) for the period during which it failed to send out redemption checks.
The U.S. Treasury thought it had no liability, relying on the Supreme Court decision in Smyth v. United States (1937), which was another case to reach the Supreme Court on the gold clause issue. In that particular case, the court held that "interest does not run upon claims against the government even though there has been a default in the payment of principal."
In fact, the 1937 decision even referred back to the Public Credit Act of 1869, which had attempted to revert back to binding the government to make its debt payments in gold. The Act was never fully implemented. Ultimately, following the 1979 default, the government settled out of court.
The 2013 default episode?
If the United States defaults for longer than a week or two, Obama could still invoke the 14th Amendment — against his earlier constitutional judgment.
Back to the present, in the year of 2013. The hardened political stance of Congressional Republicans will push the issue of a possible debt default to the very edge.
Practically, the United States has already pierced the debt ceiling. However, certain Treasury operations are able to stave off default until the end of February or possibly early March.
So, what are the options? Of course, the U.S. Congress can lift the debt ceiling, as the President has demanded. However, this is unlikely unless President Obama commits to very severe spending cuts for future budgets. The President has noted that he will not negotiate on debt that has already been accrued.
Alternatively, it has been suggested that the President could invoke the 14th Amendment. This hardly-known Amendment has a clause that states that "the validity of the public debt of the United States, authorized by law…shall not be questioned."
On this basis, the President could declare the U.S. debt ceiling to be unconstitutional and authorize the Treasury Department to raise debt in excess of it. President Obama has rejected this option.
While it is politically unwise for Barack Obama to show his hand, he probably is constitutionally accurate. The real purpose of the 14th Amendment was to prevent Southern states from returning to the U.S. Congress after the Civil War to pass a law that might declare the debt they accumulated during the Civil War as invalid — or to pass it on to the federal government.
That is the reason why the 14th Amendment continues: "But neither the United States nor any State shall assume or pay any debt or obligation incurred in aid of insurrection or rebellion against the United States."
Finally, there are options for the U.S. Treasury to remain current on the government's Treasury bills and notes. This could be done by failing to pay Social Security beneficiaries and military personnel. This, in fact, is the most likely outcome of the current round of political theater.
The Congress might impeach Obama, but the Senate would not convict him. Of course, his second term would be wasted.
Once the Treasury runs out of movable cash, it will shut down parts of the government and stop making payments on entitlement programs. This will be an enormous shock to the system. The political cost to the Republicans will be huge.
If this situation were to last any longer than a week or two, the President could then — against his earlier constitutional judgment — still invoke the 14th Amendment.
Would the Supreme Court stand for it? Clearly, the Court has taken some liberty in interpreting the Constitution, most recently on the Second Amendment in 2008 and its Citizens United decision on campaign finance in 2010. In the latter case, it stretched itself to consider a corporation a natural person as envisioned by the Founding Fathers.
President Obama would be regarded as a hero by invoking the 14th Amendment if he did it for the purpose of resuming the issuance of Social Security checks. Republicans would be angered and likely begin impeachment proceedings against him.occurred soon after its founding, when President George Washington signed the Funding Act of 1790. Through this act, the new federal government of the United States assumed the war debt of its constituent states, which they had accrued during the Revolutionary War.
While creditors were ultimately better off due to this measure (because the states were in no position to make timely payments), the act also deferred interest payments on this debt until 1801. By most estimates, this was a default — as timeliness of payments of principal and interest is at the core of creditworthiness.
The 1861 default episode
Moving right along to the beginning of the Civil War, the U.S. federal government created the so-called greenbacks (in essence today's dollars) in 1861. These were demand notes that could be redeemed at a specified conversion rate into gold.
However, before you could say "I want my gold back," the federal government refused, in January 1862, to redeem them. After that, the greenbacks became "legal tender" that would not be redeemable on demand.
These legal tender laws, first implemented in February 1862, were retroactive — and hence were tested in the Supreme Court. In 1869, the Court decided in Hepburn v. Griswold that the application of the legal tender laws to debt that had existed before these laws were enacted was indeed unconstitutional.
This decision so enraged then-President Ulysses S. Grant that he appointed two new justices to the Supreme Court in 1870 who willingly took up the cases of Knox v. Lee and Parker v. Davis.
Other U.S. default episodes occurred in 1861, 1933 and 1979.
As a result, the Supreme Court ruled in December 1870 that the legal tender laws were in fact constitutional, overturning the one-year old decision of Hepburn v. Griswold. So much for the rule of law.
The 1933 default episode
This takes us to Franklin D. Roosevelt in 1933. Much like President Obama, Roosevelt found the economy in shambles. He, too, had to take a lot of emergency actions, some orthodox, others not so much.
One of the more unorthodox actions related to U.S. government bonds issued many years earlier. In 1917, after entering World War I, the U.S. Congress passed the First and Second Liberty Bond Acts.
In fact, it is the Second Liberty Bond Act that is widely considered the legislative root of today's debt ceiling. This measure allowed the U.S. Treasury to issue long-term and short-term debt up to a certain limit — rather than seeking, as was previously required, specific Congressional authorization for each borrowing transaction.
These Liberty Bonds (more were issued in 1918 to prosecute the war) also included a gold clause. This clause required that redemptions of these bonds were to be made in gold. However, outstanding Liberty Bonds were far in excess of the country's gold reserves.
Upon President Roosevelt's request, Congress passed a "Joint Resolution to Assure Uniform Value to the Coins and Currencies of the United States." This had the net effect on reneging on the government's obligation to make payment on Liberty Bonds in gold.
Such subsequent restructuring of a contractual debt agreement would constitute a default by today's definition. In fact, four legal cases made it to the Supreme Court.
President Obama's rejection of the 14th Amendment option was probably politically unwise, but constitutionally accurate.
In February 1935, the Supreme Court deemed the congressional resolution as constitutional in a 5-4 decision. Chief Justice Charles Evans Hughes, who wrote the majority opinion, described the resolution as "immoral" but legal.
The 1979 default episode
The story of U.S. defaults does not end there. On May 9, 1979 the Wall Street Journal reported that the U.S. Treasury had failed to make timely payments redeeming Treasury bills for two reasons.
The first reason was a disruptive relocation of the offices issuing the checks. The second reason — hold on to your seats — was "the postponement of several securities auctions because of Congressional debate over the national debt ceiling."
Over a period of three weeks in 1979, the U.S. Treasury Department failed to send checks out on time, for an amount totaling $122 million. Again, by all modern definitions this constitutes a default, even if it was somewhat technical in nature.
Once again, lawsuits ensued. Their very nature and context tied it all together. The class action suit of Claire G. Barton v. United States demanded that the United States government pay interest (which was high in 1979) for the period during which it failed to send out redemption checks.
The U.S. Treasury thought it had no liability, relying on the Supreme Court decision in Smyth v. United States (1937), which was another case to reach the Supreme Court on the gold clause issue. In that particular case, the court held that "interest does not run upon claims against the government even though there has been a default in the payment of principal."
In fact, the 1937 decision even referred back to the Public Credit Act of 1869, which had attempted to revert back to binding the government to make its debt payments in gold. The Act was never fully implemented. Ultimately, following the 1979 default, the government settled out of court.
The 2013 default episode?
If the United States defaults for longer than a week or two, Obama could still invoke the 14th Amendment — against his earlier constitutional judgment.
Back to the present, in the year of 2013. The hardened political stance of Congressional Republicans will push the issue of a possible debt default to the very edge.
Practically, the United States has already pierced the debt ceiling. However, certain Treasury operations are able to stave off default until the end of February or possibly early March.
So, what are the options? Of course, the U.S. Congress can lift the debt ceiling, as the President has demanded. However, this is unlikely unless President Obama commits to very severe spending cuts for future budgets. The President has noted that he will not negotiate on debt that has already been accrued.
Alternatively, it has been suggested that the President could invoke the 14th Amendment. This hardly-known Amendment has a clause that states that "the validity of the public debt of the United States, authorized by law…shall not be questioned."
On this basis, the President could declare the U.S. debt ceiling to be unconstitutional and authorize the Treasury Department to raise debt in excess of it. President Obama has rejected this option.
While it is politically unwise for Barack Obama to show his hand, he probably is constitutionally accurate. The real purpose of the 14th Amendment was to prevent Southern states from returning to the U.S. Congress after the Civil War to pass a law that might declare the debt they accumulated during the Civil War as invalid — or to pass it on to the federal government.
That is the reason why the 14th Amendment continues: "But neither the United States nor any State shall assume or pay any debt or obligation incurred in aid of insurrection or rebellion against the United States."
Finally, there are options for the U.S. Treasury to remain current on the government's Treasury bills and notes. This could be done by failing to pay Social Security beneficiaries and military personnel. This, in fact, is the most likely outcome of the current round of political theater.
The Congress might impeach Obama, but the Senate would not convict him. Of course, his second term would be wasted.
Once the Treasury runs out of movable cash, it will shut down parts of the government and stop making payments on entitlement programs. This will be an enormous shock to the system. The political cost to the Republicans will be huge.
If this situation were to last any longer than a week or two, the President could then — against his earlier constitutional judgment — still invoke the 14th Amendment.
Would the Supreme Court stand for it? Clearly, the Court has taken some liberty in interpreting the Constitution, most recently on the Second Amendment in 2008 and its Citizens United decision on campaign finance in 2010. In the latter case, it stretched itself to consider a corporation a natural person as envisioned by the Founding Fathers.
President Obama would be regarded as a hero by invoking the 14th Amendment if he did it for the purpose of resuming the issuance of Social Security checks. Republicans would be angered and likely begin impeachment proceedings against him.
A Brief History of U.S. Defaults
By Uwe Bott
The Glogalist, Wednesday, January 16, 2013
President Barack Obama and the U.S. Congress are engaged in a high-stakes standoff over the country's debt obligations. While both sides say a full-blown default by the United States is unthinkable, it is nevertheless true that the United States has defaulted before. Uwe Bott reviews the country's past episodes of default — and how it might yet avoid a repeat.
y the end of February or early March, a U.S. default on Treasury bills and notes will become a distinct possibility. As a confused world scratches its head about the United States' self-inflicted political chaos, President Obama has made it clear that the United States is not — in his words — a deadbeat nation.
America defaulted on several occasions. The country's first default occurred in 1790.
Well, not so fast. America has, in fact, defaulted on several occasions.
The 1790 default episode
The country's first default y the end of February or early March, a U.S. default on Treasury bills and notes will become a distinct possibility. As a confused world scratches its head about the United States' self-inflicted political chaos, President Obama has made it clear that the United States is not — in his words — a deadbeat nation.
America defaulted on several occasions. The country's first default occurred in 1790.
Well, not so fast. America has, in fact, defaulted on several occasions.
The 1790 default episode
The country's first default occurred soon after its founding, when President George Washington signed the Funding Act of 1790. Through this act, the new federal government of the United States assumed the war debt of its constituent states, which they had accrued during the Revolutionary War.
While creditors were ultimately better off due to this measure (because the states were in no position to make timely payments), the act also deferred interest payments on this debt until 1801. By most estimates, this was a default — as timeliness of payments of principal and interest is at the core of creditworthiness.
The 1861 default episode
Moving right along to the beginning of the Civil War, the U.S. federal government created the so-called greenbacks (in essence today's dollars) in 1861. These were demand notes that could be redeemed at a specified conversion rate into gold.
However, before you could say "I want my gold back," the federal government refused, in January 1862, to redeem them. After that, the greenbacks became "legal tender" that would not be redeemable on demand.
These legal tender laws, first implemented in February 1862, were retroactive — and hence were tested in the Supreme Court. In 1869, the Court decided in Hepburn v. Griswold that the application of the legal tender laws to debt that had existed before these laws were enacted was indeed unconstitutional.
This decision so enraged then-President Ulysses S. Grant that he appointed two new justices to the Supreme Court in 1870 who willingly took up the cases of Knox v. Lee and Parker v. Davis.
Other U.S. default episodes occurred in 1861, 1933 and 1979.
As a result, the Supreme Court ruled in December 1870 that the legal tender laws were in fact constitutional, overturning the one-year old decision of Hepburn v. Griswold. So much for the rule of law.
The 1933 default episode
This takes us to Franklin D. Roosevelt in 1933. Much like President Obama, Roosevelt found the economy in shambles. He, too, had to take a lot of emergency actions, some orthodox, others not so much.
One of the more unorthodox actions related to U.S. government bonds issued many years earlier. In 1917, after entering World War I, the U.S. Congress passed the First and Second Liberty Bond Acts.
In fact, it is the Second Liberty Bond Act that is widely considered the legislative root of today's debt ceiling. This measure allowed the U.S. Treasury to issue long-term and short-term debt up to a certain limit — rather than seeking, as was previously required, specific Congressional authorization for each borrowing transaction.
These Liberty Bonds (more were issued in 1918 to prosecute the war) also included a gold clause. This clause required that redemptions of these bonds were to be made in gold. However, outstanding Liberty Bonds were far in excess of the country's gold reserves.
Upon President Roosevelt's request, Congress passed a "Joint Resolution to Assure Uniform Value to the Coins and Currencies of the United States." This had the net effect on reneging on the government's obligation to make payment on Liberty Bonds in gold.
Such subsequent restructuring of a contractual debt agreement would constitute a default by today's definition. In fact, four legal cases made it to the Supreme Court.
President Obama's rejection of the 14th Amendment option was probably politically unwise, but constitutionally accurate.
In February 1935, the Supreme Court deemed the congressional resolution as constitutional in a 5-4 decision. Chief Justice Charles Evans Hughes, who wrote the majority opinion, described the resolution as "immoral" but legal.
The 1979 default episode
The story of U.S. defaults does not end there. On May 9, 1979 the Wall Street Journal reported that the U.S. Treasury had failed to make timely payments redeeming Treasury bills for two reasons.
The first reason was a disruptive relocation of the offices issuing the checks. The second reason — hold on to your seats — was "the postponement of several securities auctions because of Congressional debate over the national debt ceiling."
Over a period of three weeks in 1979, the U.S. Treasury Department failed to send checks out on time, for an amount totaling $122 million. Again, by all modern definitions this constitutes a default, even if it was somewhat technical in nature.
Once again, lawsuits ensued. Their very nature and context tied it all together. The class action suit of Claire G. Barton v. United States demanded that the United States government pay interest (which was high in 1979) for the period during which it failed to send out redemption checks.
The U.S. Treasury thought it had no liability, relying on the Supreme Court decision in Smyth v. United States (1937), which was another case to reach the Supreme Court on the gold clause issue. In that particular case, the court held that "interest does not run upon claims against the government even though there has been a default in the payment of principal."
In fact, the 1937 decision even referred back to the Public Credit Act of 1869, which had attempted to revert back to binding the government to make its debt payments in gold. The Act was never fully implemented. Ultimately, following the 1979 default, the government settled out of court.
The 2013 default episode?
If the United States defaults for longer than a week or two, Obama could still invoke the 14th Amendment — against his earlier constitutional judgment.
Back to the present, in the year of 2013. The hardened political stance of Congressional Republicans will push the issue of a possible debt default to the very edge.
Practically, the United States has already pierced the debt ceiling. However, certain Treasury operations are able to stave off default until the end of February or possibly early March.
So, what are the options? Of course, the U.S. Congress can lift the debt ceiling, as the President has demanded. However, this is unlikely unless President Obama commits to very severe spending cuts for future budgets. The President has noted that he will not negotiate on debt that has already been accrued.
Alternatively, it has been suggested that the President could invoke the 14th Amendment. This hardly-known Amendment has a clause that states that "the validity of the public debt of the United States, authorized by law…shall not be questioned."
On this basis, the President could declare the U.S. debt ceiling to be unconstitutional and authorize the Treasury Department to raise debt in excess of it. President Obama has rejected this option.
While it is politically unwise for Barack Obama to show his hand, he probably is constitutionally accurate. The real purpose of the 14th Amendment was to prevent Southern states from returning to the U.S. Congress after the Civil War to pass a law that might declare the debt they accumulated during the Civil War as invalid — or to pass it on to the federal government.
That is the reason why the 14th Amendment continues: "But neither the United States nor any State shall assume or pay any debt or obligation incurred in aid of insurrection or rebellion against the United States."
Finally, there are options for the U.S. Treasury to remain current on the government's Treasury bills and notes. This could be done by failing to pay Social Security beneficiaries and military personnel. This, in fact, is the most likely outcome of the current round of political theater.
The Congress might impeach Obama, but the Senate would not convict him. Of course, his second term would be wasted.
Once the Treasury runs out of movable cash, it will shut down parts of the government and stop making payments on entitlement programs. This will be an enormous shock to the system. The political cost to the Republicans will be huge.
If this situation were to last any longer than a week or two, the President could then — against his earlier constitutional judgment — still invoke the 14th Amendment.
Would the Supreme Court stand for it? Clearly, the Court has taken some liberty in interpreting the Constitution, most recently on the Second Amendment in 2008 and its Citizens United decision on campaign finance in 2010. In the latter case, it stretched itself to consider a corporation a natural person as envisioned by the Founding Fathers.
President Obama would be regarded as a hero by invoking the 14th Amendment if he did it for the purpose of resuming the issuance of Social Security checks. Republicans would be angered and likely begin impeachment proceedings against him.occurred soon after its founding, when President George Washington signed the Funding Act of 1790. Through this act, the new federal government of the United States assumed the war debt of its constituent states, which they had accrued during the Revolutionary War.
While creditors were ultimately better off due to this measure (because the states were in no position to make timely payments), the act also deferred interest payments on this debt until 1801. By most estimates, this was a default — as timeliness of payments of principal and interest is at the core of creditworthiness.
The 1861 default episode
Moving right along to the beginning of the Civil War, the U.S. federal government created the so-called greenbacks (in essence today's dollars) in 1861. These were demand notes that could be redeemed at a specified conversion rate into gold.
However, before you could say "I want my gold back," the federal government refused, in January 1862, to redeem them. After that, the greenbacks became "legal tender" that would not be redeemable on demand.
These legal tender laws, first implemented in February 1862, were retroactive — and hence were tested in the Supreme Court. In 1869, the Court decided in Hepburn v. Griswold that the application of the legal tender laws to debt that had existed before these laws were enacted was indeed unconstitutional.
This decision so enraged then-President Ulysses S. Grant that he appointed two new justices to the Supreme Court in 1870 who willingly took up the cases of Knox v. Lee and Parker v. Davis.
Other U.S. default episodes occurred in 1861, 1933 and 1979.
As a result, the Supreme Court ruled in December 1870 that the legal tender laws were in fact constitutional, overturning the one-year old decision of Hepburn v. Griswold. So much for the rule of law.
The 1933 default episode
This takes us to Franklin D. Roosevelt in 1933. Much like President Obama, Roosevelt found the economy in shambles. He, too, had to take a lot of emergency actions, some orthodox, others not so much.
One of the more unorthodox actions related to U.S. government bonds issued many years earlier. In 1917, after entering World War I, the U.S. Congress passed the First and Second Liberty Bond Acts.
In fact, it is the Second Liberty Bond Act that is widely considered the legislative root of today's debt ceiling. This measure allowed the U.S. Treasury to issue long-term and short-term debt up to a certain limit — rather than seeking, as was previously required, specific Congressional authorization for each borrowing transaction.
These Liberty Bonds (more were issued in 1918 to prosecute the war) also included a gold clause. This clause required that redemptions of these bonds were to be made in gold. However, outstanding Liberty Bonds were far in excess of the country's gold reserves.
Upon President Roosevelt's request, Congress passed a "Joint Resolution to Assure Uniform Value to the Coins and Currencies of the United States." This had the net effect on reneging on the government's obligation to make payment on Liberty Bonds in gold.
Such subsequent restructuring of a contractual debt agreement would constitute a default by today's definition. In fact, four legal cases made it to the Supreme Court.
President Obama's rejection of the 14th Amendment option was probably politically unwise, but constitutionally accurate.
In February 1935, the Supreme Court deemed the congressional resolution as constitutional in a 5-4 decision. Chief Justice Charles Evans Hughes, who wrote the majority opinion, described the resolution as "immoral" but legal.
The 1979 default episode
The story of U.S. defaults does not end there. On May 9, 1979 the Wall Street Journal reported that the U.S. Treasury had failed to make timely payments redeeming Treasury bills for two reasons.
The first reason was a disruptive relocation of the offices issuing the checks. The second reason — hold on to your seats — was "the postponement of several securities auctions because of Congressional debate over the national debt ceiling."
Over a period of three weeks in 1979, the U.S. Treasury Department failed to send checks out on time, for an amount totaling $122 million. Again, by all modern definitions this constitutes a default, even if it was somewhat technical in nature.
Once again, lawsuits ensued. Their very nature and context tied it all together. The class action suit of Claire G. Barton v. United States demanded that the United States government pay interest (which was high in 1979) for the period during which it failed to send out redemption checks.
The U.S. Treasury thought it had no liability, relying on the Supreme Court decision in Smyth v. United States (1937), which was another case to reach the Supreme Court on the gold clause issue. In that particular case, the court held that "interest does not run upon claims against the government even though there has been a default in the payment of principal."
In fact, the 1937 decision even referred back to the Public Credit Act of 1869, which had attempted to revert back to binding the government to make its debt payments in gold. The Act was never fully implemented. Ultimately, following the 1979 default, the government settled out of court.
The 2013 default episode?
If the United States defaults for longer than a week or two, Obama could still invoke the 14th Amendment — against his earlier constitutional judgment.
Back to the present, in the year of 2013. The hardened political stance of Congressional Republicans will push the issue of a possible debt default to the very edge.
Practically, the United States has already pierced the debt ceiling. However, certain Treasury operations are able to stave off default until the end of February or possibly early March.
So, what are the options? Of course, the U.S. Congress can lift the debt ceiling, as the President has demanded. However, this is unlikely unless President Obama commits to very severe spending cuts for future budgets. The President has noted that he will not negotiate on debt that has already been accrued.
Alternatively, it has been suggested that the President could invoke the 14th Amendment. This hardly-known Amendment has a clause that states that "the validity of the public debt of the United States, authorized by law…shall not be questioned."
On this basis, the President could declare the U.S. debt ceiling to be unconstitutional and authorize the Treasury Department to raise debt in excess of it. President Obama has rejected this option.
While it is politically unwise for Barack Obama to show his hand, he probably is constitutionally accurate. The real purpose of the 14th Amendment was to prevent Southern states from returning to the U.S. Congress after the Civil War to pass a law that might declare the debt they accumulated during the Civil War as invalid — or to pass it on to the federal government.
That is the reason why the 14th Amendment continues: "But neither the United States nor any State shall assume or pay any debt or obligation incurred in aid of insurrection or rebellion against the United States."
Finally, there are options for the U.S. Treasury to remain current on the government's Treasury bills and notes. This could be done by failing to pay Social Security beneficiaries and military personnel. This, in fact, is the most likely outcome of the current round of political theater.
The Congress might impeach Obama, but the Senate would not convict him. Of course, his second term would be wasted.
Once the Treasury runs out of movable cash, it will shut down parts of the government and stop making payments on entitlement programs. This will be an enormous shock to the system. The political cost to the Republicans will be huge.
If this situation were to last any longer than a week or two, the President could then — against his earlier constitutional judgment — still invoke the 14th Amendment.
Would the Supreme Court stand for it? Clearly, the Court has taken some liberty in interpreting the Constitution, most recently on the Second Amendment in 2008 and its Citizens United decision on campaign finance in 2010. In the latter case, it stretched itself to consider a corporation a natural person as envisioned by the Founding Fathers.
President Obama would be regarded as a hero by invoking the 14th Amendment if he did it for the purpose of resuming the issuance of Social Security checks. Republicans would be angered and likely begin impeachment proceedings against him.
Alemanha: ciencia e filosofia no seculo 18 como base de sua potencia industrial
Naturalist and explorer Alexander von Humboldt
Globalist Perspective > Global History
German Scientists as 18th-Century Globalists
By David Blackbourn
The Globalist, Friday, January 18, 2013
Evaluations of German history tend to be dominated by the 20th century. In part one of his two-part series on Germany and the birth of the modern world, Vanderbilt University historian David Blackbourn argues that it is critical to understand the role Germans played in exploring Earth's geographical and intellectual boundaries in the 18th century.
The world became a smaller place in the late 18th century. This was not yet our world, the world unprecedented globalization we celebrate (and exaggerate).
Because there was no German empire overseas, the role of Germans in world trade can easily be overlooked.
It was not yet even the world of the mid-19th century, joined together by steamship and telegraph. But networks of communication were becoming much more tightly meshed through travel and exchange, the movement of commodities, people and ideas.
When Wilhelm von Humboldt, the German philosopher and linguist and the more sedentary of two famous brothers, sat at his desk writing about world languages, he was connected with hundreds of correspondents on five continents: scholars and diplomats, merchants and missionaries.
Germans themselves were everywhere. Merchants from the Baltic and North Sea coasts were central to the carrying trade of northern Europe. They were resident in the great mercantile hubs of London, Antwerp and Amsterdam.
And they had a global presence. Because there was no German empire overseas, the role of Germans along the arteries of world trade can easily be overlooked. It could be found from West Africa to the Dutch East Indies, from the eastern seaboard of North America to the Spanish empire.
They were merchants, settlers, printers and booksellers. They served on Dutch merchantmen and Scandinavian whaling ships, and they served on land as soldiers under many flags.
The German role in the peopling of the Americas also created some remarkable transatlantic networks, religious in their origins but wider in their effects.
The Moravians of Saxony formed one. By the late 18th century, they circled the Atlantic world with their missions in London, Ireland, Greenland, West Africa, the Caribbean and North America. There they spread out from Pennsylvania to establish congregations and Indian missions from Maine to the Carolinas.
Decades before Germany became famous as the "fatherland of forestry," providing foresters to the British Raj and establishing the first Forestry Schools in the United States, German mining engineers were sought after from Russia to the Andes.
After his journey to the Americas, Alexander von Humboldt returned in 1804 a celebrity — "our conqueror of the world," in Goethe's words.
Wilhelm's brother, Alexander von Humboldt, too, was a mining engineer by training — although very much more than that. In his famous five-year journey to "the equinoctial regions" with Aimee Bonpland, Humboldt scaled volcanoes, descended mines, collected rock samples and handled electric eels.
He studied the flora and fauna and sent specimens back to Europe. He examined everything from the properties of guano to the prospects for sugar plantations, and everywhere he went, he measured things — heights, distances, and temperature.
He also established the connection between the Orinoco and Amazon River basins. He returned to Germany in 1804 a celebrity — "our conqueror of the world," in Goethe's words.
The decades on either side of 1800 have been called a "second age of discovery." In 1784, the German philosopher and literary critic Johann Gottfried Herder captured the spirit of the age when he wrote:
Man, while he continues man, will not cease from wandering over his planet, till it is completely known to him; from this, neither storms nor shipwrecks, nor those vast mountains of ice, nor all the perils of either pole, will deter him.
The poles would have to wait another hundred years. But this was a time when human knowledge of the earth advanced rapidly, and Germans had a major part in it, forging new connections as they did so.
This two-part series continues tomorrow with The French Revolution and Modern Germany by David Blackbourn.
Globalist Perspective > Global History
German Scientists as 18th-Century Globalists
By David Blackbourn
The Globalist, Friday, January 18, 2013
Evaluations of German history tend to be dominated by the 20th century. In part one of his two-part series on Germany and the birth of the modern world, Vanderbilt University historian David Blackbourn argues that it is critical to understand the role Germans played in exploring Earth's geographical and intellectual boundaries in the 18th century.
The world became a smaller place in the late 18th century. This was not yet our world, the world unprecedented globalization we celebrate (and exaggerate).
Because there was no German empire overseas, the role of Germans in world trade can easily be overlooked.
It was not yet even the world of the mid-19th century, joined together by steamship and telegraph. But networks of communication were becoming much more tightly meshed through travel and exchange, the movement of commodities, people and ideas.
When Wilhelm von Humboldt, the German philosopher and linguist and the more sedentary of two famous brothers, sat at his desk writing about world languages, he was connected with hundreds of correspondents on five continents: scholars and diplomats, merchants and missionaries.
Germans themselves were everywhere. Merchants from the Baltic and North Sea coasts were central to the carrying trade of northern Europe. They were resident in the great mercantile hubs of London, Antwerp and Amsterdam.
And they had a global presence. Because there was no German empire overseas, the role of Germans along the arteries of world trade can easily be overlooked. It could be found from West Africa to the Dutch East Indies, from the eastern seaboard of North America to the Spanish empire.
They were merchants, settlers, printers and booksellers. They served on Dutch merchantmen and Scandinavian whaling ships, and they served on land as soldiers under many flags.
The German role in the peopling of the Americas also created some remarkable transatlantic networks, religious in their origins but wider in their effects.
The Moravians of Saxony formed one. By the late 18th century, they circled the Atlantic world with their missions in London, Ireland, Greenland, West Africa, the Caribbean and North America. There they spread out from Pennsylvania to establish congregations and Indian missions from Maine to the Carolinas.
Decades before Germany became famous as the "fatherland of forestry," providing foresters to the British Raj and establishing the first Forestry Schools in the United States, German mining engineers were sought after from Russia to the Andes.
After his journey to the Americas, Alexander von Humboldt returned in 1804 a celebrity — "our conqueror of the world," in Goethe's words.
Wilhelm's brother, Alexander von Humboldt, too, was a mining engineer by training — although very much more than that. In his famous five-year journey to "the equinoctial regions" with Aimee Bonpland, Humboldt scaled volcanoes, descended mines, collected rock samples and handled electric eels.
He studied the flora and fauna and sent specimens back to Europe. He examined everything from the properties of guano to the prospects for sugar plantations, and everywhere he went, he measured things — heights, distances, and temperature.
He also established the connection between the Orinoco and Amazon River basins. He returned to Germany in 1804 a celebrity — "our conqueror of the world," in Goethe's words.
The decades on either side of 1800 have been called a "second age of discovery." In 1784, the German philosopher and literary critic Johann Gottfried Herder captured the spirit of the age when he wrote:
Man, while he continues man, will not cease from wandering over his planet, till it is completely known to him; from this, neither storms nor shipwrecks, nor those vast mountains of ice, nor all the perils of either pole, will deter him.
The poles would have to wait another hundred years. But this was a time when human knowledge of the earth advanced rapidly, and Germans had a major part in it, forging new connections as they did so.
This two-part series continues tomorrow with The French Revolution and Modern Germany by David Blackbourn.
sexta-feira, 18 de janeiro de 2013
O Bismarck americano: Lincoln e a costrucao da industria nos EUA
Abraham Lincoln
Globalist Bookshelf > Global Leaders
America's Bismarck: How Lincoln Created Industrial America
By Martin Sieff
The Globalist, Thursday, January 17, 2013
Everyone thinks they know who Abraham Lincoln is, but even after the new Steven Spielberg movie few Americans know about the full range of activities Lincoln commanded. He not only held the nation together, but he also set it onto the path of industrialization. Lincoln was America's Bismarck — and then some.
braham Lincoln was the real architect of the unprecedented global colossus of Industrial America. He pushed through and shaped the laws that allowed industrial and financial corporations to organize on an unprecedented scale. He provided them with more security from interference by government than private enterprise had ever before enjoyed in human history.
Lincoln held the United States together through an unprecedented shedding of blood. Then he tied it together with bonds of steel.
Lincoln held the United States together through an unprecedented shedding of blood. Then he tied it together with literal bonds of steel. He pushed through financial incentives for private companies to build railroads that united the continent. This made continental-scale trade possible for the very first time.
European countries did not offer anything comparable to the financial and land grants Lincoln offered the new railroad corporations. It took Russia nearly 40 more years to build its first transcontinental railroad. Lincoln gave the United States a 40-year head start on Russia.
Lincoln believed in industry over agriculture. He also believed in the primacy of manufacturing over the mining and basic commodities sectors in order to strengthen the future economy of America. He encouraged technological innovation, invention and the practical application of science to business and war in every way he could.
In his four short years as president (Lincoln was elected twice but was assassinated at the beginning of his second term), he transformed the Union from a huge agricultural "empire of liberty," half dependent on slave labor, into the world's industrial giant.
We think of Lincoln as a saintly hero — a gentle beloved male version of Mother Teresa in the White House. This vision of Lincoln is a relatively modern one, owing a great deal to Carl Sandburg. But Sandburg was a terrible historian and a shameless hagiographer. He distorted the real life of a great American leader to produce a childish caricature of reality.
Hailing from Chicago, Sandburg found his true calling as a highly touted biographer of Lincoln. He painted Lincoln as a suffering saint of the prairie. Subsequently, it has been difficult for ordinary Americans to think of the Great Liberal Emancipator in any other way.
Sandburg's achievement was extraordinary. Even after 80 years, the image he painted of Lincoln continues to define him for the American public. His clichés still blot out the lessons to be learned from the continuing flood of genuinely first-class scholarship about Lincoln's life.
Lincoln believed in industry over agriculture and in the primacy of manufacturing over mining.
Steven Spielberg's Oscar-nominated movie does much to provide a far more realistic and nuanced portrait of Lincoln, the wily politician, the caring man — and the human being riddled by doubt.
But even with that major refinement in our understanding of the 16th President of the United States, the real Lincoln still continues to hide in plain sight from the American people. This development would have given him wry satisfaction.
The real Lincoln was no Suffering Servant of Isaiah 53. He suffered, but not as a servant. He was not religious in any conventional sense.
Lincoln's skepticism was well known in his home community in Springfield, Illinois. In 1846, he turned up at one Sunday morning church meeting to campaign for support in his first election to Congress (and the only one he ever won.) The clergyman holding the meeting was fulminating on the horrors of the fires of Hell that awaited unbelievers.
Seeing Lincoln, whose skepticism he knew well, the minister asked, "And where do you think you're going, Mr. Lincoln?" "I don't know where you're going, Reverend," Lincoln replied. "But I'm going to Congress."
Lincoln was passionate in his genuine abhorrence of chattel slavery, but he was no pacifist. He wasn't gentle in his conduct of the national affairs of the United States. He also wasn't into forgiveness of those who crossed him or failed him. Although he issued many pardons, he also approved military executions of deserters from the Union Army.
There was no disagreement between Lincoln and the Radical Republicans in Congress over the need to impose a harsh peace over the conquered South in 1865. His proposed peace behind his soft words was as harsh as theirs.
"Blood and Iron"
We all know who Abraham Lincoln was. But what was his significance to American history?
Lincoln transformed the country from being half dependent on slave labor into the world's industrial giant.
What was Abraham Lincoln? He was America's Bismarck. Otto von Bismarck, chancellor of Prussia, Lincoln's exact contemporary, won the respect and fear of the world because he fought and won three wars to create the new German Empire.
He boasted that he would unify Germany and impose his will on it by "blood and iron." And he did.
Lincoln reunited America just as Bismarck united Germany. But Lincoln's achievement was on an incomparably greater, far more terrible scale. More than three times the number of soldiers was killed in the U.S. Civil War than in the 1870-71 Franco-Prussian War.
Total fatalities in the war between Prussia and France were almost 185,000. Some 650,000 soldiers died in the Civil War. Lincoln also built up America as a far greater industrialized nation than Germany became in Europe.
Lincoln had a vision of a better America that would emerge from the war. Had he lived, Lincoln would have rejoiced in the rise of American industry. If Lincoln had lived to retire from the presidency in 1869, he might have sat on the boards of Union Pacific, Standard Oil or Carnegie Steel.
To prove this, we only have to look at what Lincoln did for a living.
Abraham Lincoln was a lawyer. But he was no simple, poor, champion of the "Forgotten Man," the way legendary movie director John Ford portrayed him in "Young Mr. Lincoln" in 1939. That movie, starring Henry Fonda as the young Abe, is still watched today. It embraced Carl Sandburg's picture of Lincoln.
The real Abraham Lincoln — that is, the real unknown Lincoln — was a very different kind of man. He was a respected appeals lawyer, a lawyer for the railroad and other enterprises, and became wealthy doing so.
But in 1854, he chose to speak out against the extension of slavery through the Kansas-Nebraska Act. Though unsuccessful in his subsequent bid for a U.S. Senate seat, he had acquired the taste for politics. He went on to change the nation — socially, politically and economically.
Editor's note: This essay is adapted from That Should Still Be Us: How Thomas Friedman's Free Trade Myths are Keeping Us Flat on Our Backs (John Wiley & Sons) by Martin Sieff. Published by arrangement with the author. Copyright © 2012 by John Wiley & Sons.
Globalist Bookshelf > Global Leaders
America's Bismarck: How Lincoln Created Industrial America
By Martin Sieff
The Globalist, Thursday, January 17, 2013
Everyone thinks they know who Abraham Lincoln is, but even after the new Steven Spielberg movie few Americans know about the full range of activities Lincoln commanded. He not only held the nation together, but he also set it onto the path of industrialization. Lincoln was America's Bismarck — and then some.
braham Lincoln was the real architect of the unprecedented global colossus of Industrial America. He pushed through and shaped the laws that allowed industrial and financial corporations to organize on an unprecedented scale. He provided them with more security from interference by government than private enterprise had ever before enjoyed in human history.
Lincoln held the United States together through an unprecedented shedding of blood. Then he tied it together with bonds of steel.
Lincoln held the United States together through an unprecedented shedding of blood. Then he tied it together with literal bonds of steel. He pushed through financial incentives for private companies to build railroads that united the continent. This made continental-scale trade possible for the very first time.
European countries did not offer anything comparable to the financial and land grants Lincoln offered the new railroad corporations. It took Russia nearly 40 more years to build its first transcontinental railroad. Lincoln gave the United States a 40-year head start on Russia.
Lincoln believed in industry over agriculture. He also believed in the primacy of manufacturing over the mining and basic commodities sectors in order to strengthen the future economy of America. He encouraged technological innovation, invention and the practical application of science to business and war in every way he could.
In his four short years as president (Lincoln was elected twice but was assassinated at the beginning of his second term), he transformed the Union from a huge agricultural "empire of liberty," half dependent on slave labor, into the world's industrial giant.
We think of Lincoln as a saintly hero — a gentle beloved male version of Mother Teresa in the White House. This vision of Lincoln is a relatively modern one, owing a great deal to Carl Sandburg. But Sandburg was a terrible historian and a shameless hagiographer. He distorted the real life of a great American leader to produce a childish caricature of reality.
Hailing from Chicago, Sandburg found his true calling as a highly touted biographer of Lincoln. He painted Lincoln as a suffering saint of the prairie. Subsequently, it has been difficult for ordinary Americans to think of the Great Liberal Emancipator in any other way.
Sandburg's achievement was extraordinary. Even after 80 years, the image he painted of Lincoln continues to define him for the American public. His clichés still blot out the lessons to be learned from the continuing flood of genuinely first-class scholarship about Lincoln's life.
Lincoln believed in industry over agriculture and in the primacy of manufacturing over mining.
Steven Spielberg's Oscar-nominated movie does much to provide a far more realistic and nuanced portrait of Lincoln, the wily politician, the caring man — and the human being riddled by doubt.
But even with that major refinement in our understanding of the 16th President of the United States, the real Lincoln still continues to hide in plain sight from the American people. This development would have given him wry satisfaction.
The real Lincoln was no Suffering Servant of Isaiah 53. He suffered, but not as a servant. He was not religious in any conventional sense.
Lincoln's skepticism was well known in his home community in Springfield, Illinois. In 1846, he turned up at one Sunday morning church meeting to campaign for support in his first election to Congress (and the only one he ever won.) The clergyman holding the meeting was fulminating on the horrors of the fires of Hell that awaited unbelievers.
Seeing Lincoln, whose skepticism he knew well, the minister asked, "And where do you think you're going, Mr. Lincoln?" "I don't know where you're going, Reverend," Lincoln replied. "But I'm going to Congress."
Lincoln was passionate in his genuine abhorrence of chattel slavery, but he was no pacifist. He wasn't gentle in his conduct of the national affairs of the United States. He also wasn't into forgiveness of those who crossed him or failed him. Although he issued many pardons, he also approved military executions of deserters from the Union Army.
There was no disagreement between Lincoln and the Radical Republicans in Congress over the need to impose a harsh peace over the conquered South in 1865. His proposed peace behind his soft words was as harsh as theirs.
"Blood and Iron"
We all know who Abraham Lincoln was. But what was his significance to American history?
Lincoln transformed the country from being half dependent on slave labor into the world's industrial giant.
What was Abraham Lincoln? He was America's Bismarck. Otto von Bismarck, chancellor of Prussia, Lincoln's exact contemporary, won the respect and fear of the world because he fought and won three wars to create the new German Empire.
He boasted that he would unify Germany and impose his will on it by "blood and iron." And he did.
Lincoln reunited America just as Bismarck united Germany. But Lincoln's achievement was on an incomparably greater, far more terrible scale. More than three times the number of soldiers was killed in the U.S. Civil War than in the 1870-71 Franco-Prussian War.
Total fatalities in the war between Prussia and France were almost 185,000. Some 650,000 soldiers died in the Civil War. Lincoln also built up America as a far greater industrialized nation than Germany became in Europe.
Lincoln had a vision of a better America that would emerge from the war. Had he lived, Lincoln would have rejoiced in the rise of American industry. If Lincoln had lived to retire from the presidency in 1869, he might have sat on the boards of Union Pacific, Standard Oil or Carnegie Steel.
To prove this, we only have to look at what Lincoln did for a living.
Abraham Lincoln was a lawyer. But he was no simple, poor, champion of the "Forgotten Man," the way legendary movie director John Ford portrayed him in "Young Mr. Lincoln" in 1939. That movie, starring Henry Fonda as the young Abe, is still watched today. It embraced Carl Sandburg's picture of Lincoln.
The real Abraham Lincoln — that is, the real unknown Lincoln — was a very different kind of man. He was a respected appeals lawyer, a lawyer for the railroad and other enterprises, and became wealthy doing so.
But in 1854, he chose to speak out against the extension of slavery through the Kansas-Nebraska Act. Though unsuccessful in his subsequent bid for a U.S. Senate seat, he had acquired the taste for politics. He went on to change the nation — socially, politically and economically.
Editor's note: This essay is adapted from That Should Still Be Us: How Thomas Friedman's Free Trade Myths are Keeping Us Flat on Our Backs (John Wiley & Sons) by Martin Sieff. Published by arrangement with the author. Copyright © 2012 by John Wiley & Sons.
Reconhecimento de Titulos de Pos-Graduacao - UFPB
| Reconhecimento de Títulos de Pós-Graduação |
 |
 |
 |
| Escrito por Administrator : Universidade Federal da Paraíba |
| Qua, 03 de Junho de 2009 15:19 |
|
1. O que é reconhecimento de um título de pós-graduação?
Reconhecimento
é o ato administrativo de estabelecimento de equivalência de graus,
títulos, diplomas e certificados a homólogos emitidos pela UFPB, devendo
ser registrado e apostilado em livro próprio e terá validade nacional
como prova da formação recebida por seu titular.
Com
este ato, uma universidade brasileira considera que a tese ou
dissertação defendida na obtenção de um título de pós-graduação stricto sensu (diploma
de mestrado ou doutorado) conferido por estudos realizados no exterior
atende aos requisitos de qualidade requeridos para seus diplomados e,
portanto, o título deve ser reconhecido como válido no Brasil.
Em nível nacional, o reconhecimento é regulamentado pela Lei nº 9394/96, Lei de Diretrizes e Bases da Educação Nacional (LDB), de 20 de dezembro de 1996, publicada no D.O.U. de 23 de dezembro de 1996 e pela Resolução CNE/CES nº 1, de 3 de abril de 2001. No âmbito da UFPB, o reconhecimento de diplomas de pós-graduação é regulamentado pela Resolução Nº 06/2000 e pela Resolução Nº 54/2007, ambas do CONSEPE.
3.
Qual a principal condição para que um diploma de pós-graduação expedido
por uma instituição estrangeira possa ser reconhecido no Brasil?
Para
que um diploma de pós-graduação possa ser reconhecido no Brasil, a
condição imprescindível é que o programa estrangeiro que outorgou o
título a ser submetido ao processo de reconhecimento seja
comprovadamente reconhecido pelas instituições de acreditação do país de
origem do título e que emitam diplomas que tenham validade em todo o
país onde é sediada a instituição emitente. Algumas instituições
estrangeiras emitem diplomas próprios que não têm validade nacional no
país da instituição que emitiu o documento.
4.
Um diploma de pós-graduação decorrente da conclusão de um curso
oferecido no Brasil por uma instituição estrangeira em parceria com uma
instituição brasileira é reconhecido pelo MEC?
Não.
Somente são reconhecidos pelo MEC os mestrados e doutorados oferecidos
no Brasil recomendados pela CAPES, após passar por avaliação de seu
Conselho Técnico Científico (CTC), e posterior avaliação e aprovação do Conselho Nacional de Educação (CNE).
O reconhecimento se dá por ato do ministro da Educação publicado no
Diário Oficial da União. A relação com todos os cursos de pós-graduação stricto sensu reconhecidos pode ser encontrada na página da CAPES. Cursos de pós-graduação stricto sensu (mestrados/doutorados)
oferecidos no Brasil por instituições estrangeiras, diretamente ou
mediante convênio com instituições nacionais não podem funcionar no
Brasil sem a imprescindível autorização e reconhecimento do curso pelos
órgãos públicos brasileiros competentes. Os cursos ministrados nessas
condições cessaram o processo de admissão de novos alunos por
determinação do Conselho Nacional de Educação, através da Resolução CNE/CES nº 2, de 3 de abril de 2001.
5.
Os diplomas de pós-graduação decorrentes da conclusão de cursos
oferecidos no Brasil por instituição estrangeira em parceria com
instituição brasileira poderão passar pelo processo de reconhecimento em
universidades brasileiras nos termos do §3º do art. 48 da LDB?
Não.
Somente serão apreciados na UFPB processos de reconhecimento de
diplomas de pós-graduação expedidos por universidades estrangeiras
quando se tratar de cursos efetivamente realizados no exterior e cuja
documentação contenha prova inequívoca de que não se trata de curso de
pós-graduação oferecido por instituição estrangeira com sede no Brasil,
diretamente ou mediante qualquer forma de associação com instituições
brasileiras.
6. Os alunos concluintes de cursos de pós-graduação stricto sensu oferecidos
no Brasil por instituições estrangeiras, diretamente ou mediante
qualquer forma de associação com instituições nacionais serão, então,
prejudicados?
Não. Os titulares de diplomas amparados pela Resolução CNE/CES nº 2, de 3 de abril de 2001 e pela Resolução CNE/CES nº 2/2005, de 9 de junho de 2005
(alunos já diplomados nesses cursos ou de alunos matriculados na data
da publicação da citada resolução cujos nomes constem no cadastro da
CAPES) poderão solicitar o reconhecimento de seus diplomas. Alunos que
ingressaram após a publicação da resolução em abril de 2001 não poderão
requerer o reconhecimento de seus diplomas na UFPB.
7. Qual o prazo para requerimento dos diplomas amparados pela Resolução CNE/CES nº 2/2001?
Os interessados concluintes dos cursos amparados pela Resolução CNE/CES nº 2, de 3 de abril de 2001, publicada no Diário Oficial da União de 09/04/2001, terão até 10 de junho de 2009 para requerer o reconhecimento de seu título. Esse prazo foi dado pela Resolução CNE/CES nº 5, de 4 de setembro de 2007, publicada no DOU de 05/09/2007 que alterou a Resolução CNE/CES nº 2/2005, de 9 de junho de 2005, publicada no Diário Oficial da União de 10/06/2005.
8. Atendidos os critérios já mencionados, a UFPB pode reconhecer qualquer diploma de pós-graduação?
Não.
Somente poderão ser submetidos ao processo de reconhecimento de títulos
de pós-graduação expedidos por instituições estrangeiras de ensino
superior aqueles correspondentes a cursos ou programas devidamente
credenciados pelo Conselho Nacional de Educação e ministrados pela UFPB
em área de conhecimento afim e de nível igual ou superior ao título
estrangeiro.
9. Os certificados de cursos de especialização são reconhecidos pela UFPB?
A
Lei nº 9.394, de 20 de dezembro de 1996 (Lei de Diretrizes e Bases da
Educação Nacional), não disciplinou o reconhecimento de certificado de
pós-graduação lato sensu, bem como não há normatização elaborada pelo Conselho Nacional de Educação (CNE) a respeito do tema. Mais informações.
10. O reconhecimento de um diploma de pós-graduação na UFPB é gratuito?
Não. O aluno deverá pagar duas taxas referentes ao custeio das despesas administrativas, cujos valores foram fixados pela Resolução Nº 05/2005 do Conselho Curador. A primeira taxa, referente à inscrição, teve seu valor fixado em R$ 200,00 (duzentos reais). A segunda taxa, referente ao registro e ao apostilamento, teve seu valor fixado em R$ 1000,00 (hum mil reais) e deve ser paga após a apreciação e aprovação pelo CONSEPE da solicitação de reconhecimento do diploma. As taxas deverão ser pagas através da Guia de Recolhimento da União.
11. Onde se pode obter a Guia de Recolhimento da União (GRU) mencionada acima?
O formulário para pagamento da GRU com as instruções para o preenchimento pode ser encontrado no Portal da Pró-Reitoria de Pós-Graduação e Pesquisa.
12. Quais os documentos necessários para solicitar o reconhecimento de um diploma de pós-graduação na UFPB?
De
acordo com as Resoluções nº 06/2000 e 54/2007 do CONSEPE, a solicitação
de reconhecimento de título de pós-graduação expedido por instituição
estrangeira deve constar dos seguintes documentos reunidos em processo
devidamente protocolado no setor competente da UFPB:
1. Requerimento padrão (LINK) ao Reitor solicitando o reconhecimento;
2. Cópia de documento hábil de identidade;
3. Cópia
do diploma a ser ou reconhecido, se for o caso, devidamente visado
mediante carimbo de reconhecimento do Consulado Brasileiro sediado no
país onde o mesmo foi expedido (ver item 13);
4.
Cópia do Histórico Escolar correspondente ao diploma para o qual está
sendo requerida a o reconhecimento com visto do Consulado Brasileiro
sediado no país onde o mesmo foi expedido;
5.
Cópia do diploma de graduação como documento comprobatório de conclusão
do respectivo curso ou programa, o qual, se realizado no exterior,
deverá encontrar-se devidamente revalidado, de acordo com o §2º do
art.48 da LDB;
6. Exemplar da Tese, Dissertação ou trabalho equivalente;
7.
Documento original fornecido pela instituição contendo dados sobre as
características do curso, tais como procedimentos de seleção, duração,
cumprimento de disciplinas, duração e requisitos para a defesa da tese;
8.
Cópia integral do passaporte do interessado, comprovando o
deslocamento, quando houver, para o país onde se deram os estudos cujos
títulos sejam objeto do pedido de reconhecimento;
9. Comprovantes de residência no exterior durante a vigência dos estudos.
Além
da documentação acima mencionada, outros documentos considerados
necessários poderão ser solicitados aos interessados no reconhecimento
de seus diplomas de mestrado e doutorado emitidos por instituição
estrangeira, a juízo da Coordenação Geral de Pós-Graduação da
Pró-Reitoria de Pós-Graduação e Pesquisa – CGPG/PRPG.
13.
É obrigatória a homologação ou autenticação dos documentos relativos ao
curso na Embaixada / Consulado brasileiro do país em que os documentos
foram expedidos?
Sim. Em obediência ao Decreto Presidencial no 84.451, de 31 de janeiro de 1980,
que dispõe sobre os atos notariais e de registro civil do serviço
consular brasileiro, somente têm validade em todo o território nacional
os documentos expedidos no exterior quando autenticados por assinatura
original de autoridade consular brasileira. Apenas estarão dispensados
do visto consular aqueles graus, títulos, diplomas ou certificados
expedidos por instituições estrangeiras de países que mantenham
convenção de cooperação judiciária em matéria civil, comercial, social e
administrativa com o Brasil, como a França. Para outros países, a
comprovação caberá ao interessado.
14. Os documentos devem ser apresentados na língua de origem da instituição que expediu o diploma?
Sim.
Cópias dos documentos originais devem ser apresentadas na língua de
origem da instituição que expediu o diploma, acompanhadas
obrigatoriamente tradução dos documentos realizada por tradutor juramentado nos termos do art. 6º da Resolução Nº 06/2000.
15. Como é a movimentação ou tramitação do processo reconhecimento de um diploma estrangeiro de pós-graduação na UFPB?
16.
Qual a função da CGPG da Pró-Reitoria de Pós-Graduação (PRPG) na
tramitação do processo reconhecimento de um diploma de pós-graduação?
Cabe à CGPG:
O
tempo que o processo ficará sob a responsabilidade da CGPG está
condicionado ao número de processos com solicitação de reconhecimento (a
análise dos processos obedece à ordem de chegada), bem como ao pronto
atendimento pelo interessado e pelo programa de pós-graduação às
solicitações feitas por esta Coordenação.
17. Qual a função do Programa de Pós-Graduação da UFPB na tramitação do processo reconhecimento de um diploma?
Cabe ao Programa de Pós-Graduação da UFPB da mesma área do título em análise:
18. Diplomas obtidos nos Estados Partes do Mercosul devem passar pelo processo de reconhecimento para terem validade no Brasil?
O
Brasil não possui nenhum acordo de reconhecimento automático de
diplomas; portanto, as regras são as mesmas para todos os países.
Mesmo
o diploma de Mestre ou Doutor, proveniente de país integrante do
MERCOSUL, está sujeito ao reconhecimento. O acordo de admissão de
títulos acadêmicos, aprovado pelo Decreto Legislativo nº 800, de
23.10.2003, e promulgado pelo Decreto nº 5.518, de 23/08/2005, não
dispensa da revalidação/reconhecimento (Art.48, § 3º,da LDB) os títulos
de pós-graduação conferidos em razão de estudos feitos nos demais países
membros do Mercosul, embora permita, para o exercício de atividades de
docência e de pesquisa, conforme explicitado pelo Parecer CNE/CES nº 106/2007, aprovado em 9 de maio de 2007, e na Nota da CAPES.
19.
E os diplomas obtidos em instituições portuguesas devem também passar
pelo processo de reconhecimento para terem validade no Brasil?
De
acordo com os diversos pronunciamentos da Câmara de Educação Superior
do Conselho Nacional de Educação, devidamente homologados pelo Ministro
da Educação, o Tratado de Amizade, Cooperação e Consulta celebrado entre
Brasil e Portugal não dispensa as fases de reconhecimento nem a de
registro previstas no caput do art. 4º da Resolução CNE/CES nº 1, de 3 de abril de 2001. Se o diploma for proveniente de instituição portuguesa, deve-se consultar o Parecer PJR/JT nº 29,
do Órgão de Consultoria e Assessoramento Jurídicos da Procuradoria
Geral Federal junto à Coordenação de Aperfeiçoamento de Pessoal de Nível
Superior (CAPES), de 12/08/2002, e o Parecer CNE/CES nº 40/2007, aprovado em 28 de fevereiro de 2007.
20.
O estabelecimento de convênios entre instituições estrangeiras e a UFPB
implica o reconhecimento automático dos diplomas expedidos?
A UFPB tem firmado convênios e acordos de cooperação técnico-científica com diversas instituições nacionais e estrangeiras. Em
nenhum dos documentos já firmados está previsto o reconhecimento
automático pela UFPB do diploma expedido por instituição estrangeira,
sob pena de afrontar as normas nacionais brasileiras. Todos os
diplomas estrangeiros deverão ser submetidos às etapas já mencionadas do
processo de reconhecimento e, de acordo com a documentação apresentada e
o mérito da dissertação ou tese, ter o seu reconhecimento e registro
por esta universidade.
|
| última atualização em Qua, 03 de Fevereiro de 2010 15:07 |
Assinar:
Comentários (Atom)
Postagem em destaque
Livro Marxismo e Socialismo finalmente disponível - Paulo Roberto de Almeida
Meu mais recente livro – que não tem nada a ver com o governo atual ou com sua diplomacia esquizofrênica, já vou logo avisando – ficou final...
-
Uma preparação de longo curso e uma vida nômade Paulo Roberto de Almeida A carreira diplomática tem atraído número crescente de jovens, em ...
-
FAQ do Candidato a Diplomata por Renato Domith Godinho TEMAS: Concurso do Instituto Rio Branco, Itamaraty, Carreira Diplomática, MRE, Diplom...
-
Países de Maior Acesso aos textos PRA em Academia.edu (apenas os superiores a 100 acessos) Compilação Paulo Roberto de Almeida (15/12/2025) ...
-
Mercado Comum da Guerra? O Mercosul deveria ser, em princípio, uma zona de livre comércio e também uma zona de paz, entre seus próprios memb...
-
Reproduzo novamente uma postagem minha de 2020, quando foi publicado o livro de Dennys Xavier sobre Thomas Sowell quarta-feira, 4 de março... -
Itamaraty 'Memórias', do embaixador Marcos Azambuja, é uma aula de diplomacia Embaixador foi um grande contador de histórias, ...
-
O Chanceler alemão Merz: "Caros amigos, as décadas da Pax Americana chegaram ao fim para nós na Europa, e para nós na Alemanha também...
-
Desde el post de José Antonio Sanahuja Persles (Linkedin) Con Camilo López Burian, de la Universidad de la República, estudiamos el ascens...
-
O Brics vai de vento em popa, ao que parece. Como eu nunca fui de tomar as coisas pelo seu valor de face, nunca deixei de expressar meu pen...