Chantagem (o que mais sabem fazer os companheiros) da amante do presidente contra a presidenta ( Veja)

Rosemary Noronha fez chantagem contra o governo Dilma 

Dizendo-se abandonada, a ex-chefe do escritório da Presidência da República queria ajuda — e conseguiu

Robson Bonin

Veja, 17/05/2014

Rosemary Noronha

A discrição nunca foi uma característica da personalidade da ex-chefe do gabinete da Presidência da República em São Paulo Rosemary Noronha. Quando servia ao ex-presidente Lula em Brasília, ela era temida. Em nome da intimidade com o “chefe”, como às vezes também se referia a ele, Rose fazia valer suas vontades mesmo que isso significasse afrontar superiores ou humilhar subordinados. Nos eventos palacianos, a assessora dos cabelos vermelhos e dos vestidos e óculos sempre exuberantes colecionou tantos inimigos — a primeira-dama não a suportava — que acabou sendo transferida para São Paulo. Mas caiu para cima. Encarregada de comandar o gabinete de Lula de 2009 a 2012, Rose viveu dias de soberana e reinou até ser apanhada pela Polícia Federal ajudando uma quadrilha que vendia facilidades no governo. Ela usava a intimidade que tinha com Lula para abrir as portas de gabinetes restritos na Esplanada. Em troca, recebia pequenos agrados, inclusive em dinheiro. Foi demitida, banida do serviço público e indiciada por crimes de formação de quadrilha e corrupção. Um ano e meio após esse turbilhão de desgraças, no entanto, a fase ruim parece ter ficado no passado. Para que isso acontecesse, porém, Rosemary chegou ao extremo de ameaçar envolver o governo no escândalo.

Em 2013, no auge das investigações, quando ainda lutava para provar sua inocência, a ex-secretária Rosemary procurou ajuda entre os antigos companheiros do PT — inclusive Lula, o mais íntimo deles. Desempregada, precisando de dinheiro para pagar bons advogados e com medo da prisão, ela desconfiou que seria abandonada. Lula não atendia suas ligações. O ex-ministro José Dirceu, às vésperas da fase final do julgamento do mensalão, estava empenhado em salvar a própria pele e disse que não podia fazer nada. No Palácio do Planalto, a ordem era aprofundar as investigações. Em busca de amparo, Rose concluiu que a única maneira de chamar a atenção dos antigos parceiros era ameaçar envolver figuras importantes do governo no escândalo. Mensagens de celular trocadas pela ex-secretária com pessoas próximas mostram como foi tramada a reação. Magoada com o PT por ter permitido que a Casa Civil aprofundasse as investigações sobre suas traficâncias, Rose destila ódio contra a então ministra Gleisi Hoffmann. Em uma conversa com um amigo, em abril do ano passado, desabafa: “Tão chamando a ministra da Casa Civil de Judas!!! Ela bem que merece!!!”. O interlocutor assente: “Ela vazou a porcaria toda. Vamos em frente”. Rose acreditava que o próprio Palácio do Planalto estava por trás das revelações sobre o desfecho da sindicância — “a porcaria toda” — que apontava, entre outras irregularidades, o seu enriquecimento ilícito no cargo.

Com o fundo do poço cada vez mais próximo, Rosemary decidiu arrastar para dentro do escândalo figuras centrais do Planalto e, se possível, a própria presidente Dilma Rousseff. A estratégia consistia em constranger os antigos colegas de governo pressionando-os a depor no processo que tramitava na Controladoria-Geral da União. “Quero colocar o Beto e a Erenice Guerra”, diz Rose em uma mensagem. “Você quer estremecer o chão deles?”, questiona o interlocutor. “Sim”, confirma Rose. “Porque vai bombar. Gilberto Carvalho também?”, indaga. “O.k.”, devolve ela. As autoridades que deveriam “estremecer” não foram escolhidas por acaso. Atual chefe de gabinete da presidente Dilma Rousseff, Beto Vasconcelos era na ocasião o número 2 da Casa Civil. Ao lado da ex-ministra Erenice Guerra, ele servira a Dilma no Planalto durante anos. Rose os conhecia como a palma da mão e sabia que eles tinham plena consciência do seu temperamento explosivo. A conclusão da conversa no celular, resumida pelo interlocutor, revela as reais intenções da ex-secretária: “Vai rolar muito stress... Vão bater na porta da Dilma. Vão ficar assustados”.

O plano embutia um segundo objetivo. Rosemary também queria se reaproximar de um ex-amigo em especial. Ao tentar “estremecer” o chão de Gilberto Carvalho, o ministro da Secretaria-Geral da Presidência e homem de confiança de Lula, Rose tinha um propósito bem específico. Ela queria restabelecer as suas ligações com “Deus”, como a ex-secretária costuma se referir ao ex-presidente Lula. Em outra troca de mensagens de celular, um interlocutor diz a Rose que, com a indicação das testemunhas — Gilberto Carvalho, Beto Vasconcelos e Erenice Guerra — no processo da CGU, “o momento é oportuno para aproximação com Deus...”. Mas a ex-protegida de Lula se mostra cética e insatisfeita. “Vai ser difícil. Ele está com muitas viagens. Não posso depender dele”, diz Rose. Não se sabe exatamente o que aconteceu a partir daí, mas a estratégia funcionou. Um dos homens mais próximos a “Deus”, Paulo Okamotto, presidente do Instituto Lula, cuidou pessoalmente de algumas necessidades mais imediatas da família de Rosemary durante o processo. Além de conseguir ajuda para bancar um exército de quase quarenta juristas das melhores e mais caras bancas de advocacia do país, a ex-secretária reformou a cobertura onde mora em São Paulo e conseguiu concretizar o antigo projeto de ingressar no mundo dos negócios.

Rosemary comprou uma franquia da rede de escolas de inglês Red Balloon. Para evitar problemas com a ficha na polícia, o negócio foi colocado no nome das filhas Meline e Mirelle e do ex-marido José Cláudio Noronha. A estratégia para despistar as autoridades daria certo não fosse por um fato. A polícia já havia apreendido em 2012, na casa de Rose, todo o planejamento para aquisição da franquia. Os documentos mostravam que o investimento ficaria a cargo da quadrilha que vendia influência no governo. Na época, a instalação da escola foi orçada em 690 000 reais — padrão semelhante aos valores praticados atualmente no mercado —, dinheiro que Rosemary e seus familiares não possuíam. Como, então, a família que informava ter um patrimônio modesto conseguiu reunir os recursos? Procurada por VEJA, Meline Torres, responsável pela administração da escola, informou que todos os investimentos foram realizados a partir de “economias”. “Eu trabalhei muito durante a minha vida (Meline tem 29 anos). Trabalho desde os 18 anos com registro em carteira e tenho poupança. Meu pai também está me ajudando com recursos dele, aliás, do trabalho de uma vida”, explicou. Rosemary não quis se pronunciar.   

Para ler outras reportagens compre a edição desta semana de VEJA no IBA, no tablet, no iPhone ou nas bancas.
Outros destaques de VEJA desta semana

Socialismo para os ricos (Piketty, etc.) - Marcos Troyjo (FSP)

Socialismo para milionários

• Autor: Marcos Troyjo
 
• em Artigos, Destaque
 
• 17/05/2014
 
• 0 comentários.

Pego emprestado título de um livro de Bernard Shaw para esta coluna. A frase é perfeita para descrever o atual frenesi em torno da dualidade “crescimento-desigualdade”.

Duas investidas recentes acirram o debate. A primeira é o Índice de Progresso Social (IPS), que busca aferir o desenvolvimento relativo dos países sem utilizar o referencial do PIB. A segunda, a acalorada recepção ao “Capital no Século 21″, de Thomas Piketty.

A repercussão de ambos é multiplicada, na Europa e nos EUA, pelos traumas não curados da Grande Recessão – sobretudo as elevadas taxas de desemprego.

Tanto o IPS quanto o “Capital” de Piketty apontam para a prevalência do investimento social “para além do crescimento da economia”. Convidam a retomar a questão da moralidade do capitalismo. Repisam (sobretudo em Piketty) a desproporção nas remunerações a capital e trabalho como principal obstáculo ao bem-estar social.

Para países como o Brasil, o grande desafio é encontrar seu próprio modelo de capitalismo competitivo que o permita pagar o preço da civilização

De acordo com esses apontamentos, a desigualdade, mal maior do capitalismo, poderia remediar-se com maior carga tributária e mais investimentos “no social”.

Sem entrar demais nos altos e baixos do IPS ou de Piketty, minha percepção é que ambos devem interessar mais a países avançados do que a nações em desenvolvimento. É papo para ricos.

Dos países que ocupam as 20 primeiras posições do IPS (em que supostamente o PIB não conta), todos apresentam renda per capita anual superior a US$ 30 mil. Ainda assim, mesmo para os que já se desgarraram da armadilha da renda média, como sustentar amplo acesso a educação e saúde pública sem crescimento ao longo do tempo?

Nesse contexto, o atual debate sobre desigualdade reflete, de ponta-cabeça, a binária consideração de “crescimento” ou “austeridade” como alternativas para países em crise de dívida soberana, caso da Europa mediterrânea em 2011.

Há mérito na crítica à inércia patrimonialista no Ocidente. As soluções tributário-distributivistas apontadas por Piketty, contudo, não tratam de questão–importante o suficiente para os ricos – e absolutamente essencial para países em desenvolvimento. Que padrão de economia política adotar para, ao final do dia, gerar excedentes que custeiem os trampolins sociais?

Decepciona, em Piketty, não ver referência a “empreendedorismo”, “competitividade”, “start-ups”, “papel da inovação”, ou à “destruição criativa” de Schumpeter.

A principal tensão do mundo contemporâneo não advém do conflito distributivo entre capital e trabalho. O cabo de guerra é entre empreendedores e burocratas, seja na forma da grossa camada de gestores cujo intuito é a autopreservação ou nas inúmeras esferas estatais que esclerosam o dinamismo econômico.

Para países como o Brasil, o grande desafio é encontrar seu próprio modelo de capitalismo competitivo que o permita pagar o preço da civilização.

Deixemos para amanhã manuais de instalação de um “Welfare State 2.0″, como o IPS ou o tijolo de Piketty. Concentremo-nos, agora, nas lições de Acemoglu e Robinson em “Por que as Nações Fracassam”.

Fonte: Folha de S.Paulo, 16/05/2014.

Into Africa: China's Wild Rush - Howard French

Into Africa: China's Wild Rush

Howard French

The New York Times, May 16, 2014

NAIROBI, Kenya — For nearly a decade, as China made a historic push for business opportunities and expanded influence in Africa, most of the continent’s leaders were so thrilled at having a deep-pocketed partner willing to make big investments and start huge new projects that they rarely paused to consider whether they were getting a sound deal.

China has peppered the continent with newly built stadiums, airports, hospitals, highways and dams, but as Africans are beginning to fully recognize, these projects have also left many countries saddled with heavy debts and other problems, from environmental conflict to labor strife. As a consequence, China’s relationship with the continent is entering a new and much more skeptical phase.

The doubts aren’t coming from any soured feelings from African leaders themselves, most of whom still welcome (and profit from) China’s embrace. The new skepticism has even less to do with the hectoring of Western governments, the traditional source of Africa’s foreign aid and investment (and interference). In a 2012 speech in Senegal, Hillary Rodham Clinton, then secretary of state, implicitly warned Africa about China. The continent needs “a model of sustainable partnership that adds value, rather than extracts it,” she said, adding that unlike other countries, “America will stand up for democracy and universal human rights even when it might be easier to look the other way and keep the resources flowing.”

Some Africans found Mrs. Clinton’s remarks patronizing. What’s most remarkable, however, is how passé this now seems, given skepticism about China from Africa’s own increasingly vibrant civil society, which is demanding to know what China’s billions of dollars in infrastructure building, mineral extraction and land acquisition mean for the daily lives and political rights of ordinary Africans.

This represents a tricky and unfamiliar challenge for China’s authoritarian system, whose foreign policy has always focused heavily on state-to-state relations. China’s leaders demonstrate little appreciation of the yawning gulfs that separate African people from their rulers, even in newly democratic countries. Beijing is constitutionally uneasy about dealing with independent actors like advocacy groups, labor unions and independent journalists.

After a decade of bland talk about “win-win” partnerships, China seems finally aware that it needs to improve both the style and substance of its push into Africa. Last week, at the start of a four-country African trip, Prime Minister Li Keqiang acknowledged “growing pains” in the relationship, and the need to “assure our African friends in all seriousness that China will never pursue a colonialist path like some countries did, or allow colonialism, which belongs to the past, to reappear in Africa.”

This language came in belated response to a sea change that arguably began with an op-ed essay last year in The Financial Times by Lamido Sanusi, who was recently suspended as Nigeria’s central bank governor. He wrote: “In much of Africa, they have set up huge mining operations. They have also built infrastructure. But, with exceptions, they have done so using equipment and labor imported from home, without transferring skills to local communities. So China takes our primary goods and sells us manufactured ones. This was also the essence of colonialism.”

Mr. Sanusi’s commentary prompted critical assessments of China’s involvement in countries like Botswana and Namibia, over issues like the takeover of local construction industries, or the proper execution of building projects, working conditions, and the proliferation of Chinese newcomers — many of them illegal migrants — who have begun to dominate low-level commerce in a number of countries.

In Ghana, an estimated 50,000 new migrants, most of whom are said to have hailed from a single county in southern China, showed up recently to conduct environmentally devastating gold mining. This set off a popular outcry that forced the Ghanaian government to respond, resulting in arrests of miners, many of whom are being expelled to China.

In Tanzania, labor unions that have historically been close to the ruling party have strongly criticized the government for opening the floodgates to Chinese petty traders.

In Senegal, neighborhood associations blocked a giant property deal that would have handed over a prime section of downtown real estate to a Chinese developer with a scant track record.

Independent media have played an important role in demanding more scrutiny of government deals with Beijing. A recent op-ed article in one of Kenya’s leading newspapers, The Daily Nation, questioned whether a huge new Chinese investment in a railroad that would run from the coast all the way to landlocked Uganda and beyond was truly a good deal. The project’s first phase will increase Kenya’s external debt by a third.

The writer, David Ndii, noted that Kenya could have sought the financing for a project like this through the World Bank, which would have cost as little as a third of the Chinese commercial loan. But that would have required time-consuming processes, from competitive bidding to rigorous environmental and feasibility studies. Kenya’s Constitution insists on “intergenerational equity,” but also requires that “public money be used in a prudent and responsible manner.” Mr. Ndii asked whether the deal with the Chinese was consistent with either provision.

As someone who recently spent a year traveling widely in Africa to research a book about Beijing’s relations with the continent, I find Mr. Sanusi’s assessment too pessimistic. Yet a dose of caution for Africa, and of public scrutiny about the high-level deal-making underway, was clearly long overdue.

The booming, fast-changing China offers potentially extraordinary upsides to Africa. Without question, the continent is badly in need of more and better infrastructure. Competition among foreign investors holds the prospect of better returns for African states. Immigration, which is the central topic of my own reporting, has begun to create serious tensions between China and its new African partners, but even this is insufficiently recognized for its potential dividends. The spread of trading and business diasporas throughout history, including that of China, have a deep and proven track record for wealth creation, and properly managed, this could prove true for Africa as well.

But because China seems to be in such a hurry, and is so often seen to be looking out for itself, the potential downsides for many Africans have begun more and more to stand out: accelerated environmental destruction via mining and other activities; disregard for labor rights; the hollowing out of local industry; and even the stalling of the continent’s democratization.

This isn’t simply a matter of Beijing’s doing business with odious dictators, whether Omar al-Bashir of Sudan or Robert G. Mugabe of Zimbabwe. From Zaire to Equatorial Guinea to Rwanda, the West clearly has its own deep and insufficiently acknowledged history of doing much the same.

Rather, the problem (though not limited to China) is relying on shady arrangements made at the very top of the political system, often in the president’s office itself. Contracts are greased with monetary bribes and other enticements like expense-paid shopping trips to China and scholarships there for elite children. Adding to the opacity, China typically favors its state-owned companies for African projects and bypasses open, competitive bidding procedures.

The best way for the United States and other rich countries that have economic and political interests in Africa to respond is not by warning Africans about the advance of China — but rather, helping to strengthen African civil society and, thereby, governance. Washington should also encourage China and other up-and-coming players in the international economy, from Brazil to Turkey to Vietnam, to abide by higher transparency standards — and to rigorously abide by them, too.

In the end, though, what will minimize any downsides of China’s involvement in Africa is the deepening of African democracy. Grass-roots activism and vibrant independent media are, everywhere, the ultimate check on corrupt legislators and on foreigners who get lucrative but unsound deals by handing over bags of cash.

 Howard W. French  is an associate professor of journalism at Columbia University, a former correspondent for The New York Times and the author, most recently, of “China’s Second Continent: How a Million Migrants Are Building a New Empire in Africa.”

36 Hours in Washington, DC - Jennifer Steinhauer (NYT)

Preparando uma visita à capital federal:

36 Hours in Washington, D.C.

Jennifer Steinhauer

The New York Times, May 15, 2014

While most Americans associate Capitol Hill with Congressional misadventures and general dysfunction, thousands of people — senators, reporters, congressional aides, artists, working-class long-timers and young families — call it home. Amid the charming rowhouses and grand federal buildings, Capitol Hill is dotted with restaurants and night spots. Its history is vibrant and largely accessible, from the United States Capitol to the Navy Yard, where the banks of the Anacostia River were once lined with military ships, to dynamic H Street, the site of riots after the 1968 assassination of the Rev. Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. And don’t forget baseball. Take in a Nationals game, if possible, among cheering fans and very good stadium chow.

FRIDAY

1. Green Oasis | 3 p.m. 

Most tourists are drawn to the city’s spectacular array of admission-free Smithsonian museums, but the United States Botanic Garden is an overlooked pleasure in the shadows of the Capitol. Created by Congress as an instructional garden, this is an oasis of roses; medicinal plants; native, exotic and endangered flowers; orchids; shoots and seeds; ferns and the occasional carnivorous plant and more. You could while away an hour in the National Garden alone, with its Butterfly Garden and the First Ladies Water Garden, which explores the history of White House residents and their gardening interests. Also on the grounds is the lovely Bartholdi Park, where visitors can pick up horticulture tips. No gift shop, no restaurant. Just flowers, and more flowers.

2.  Rose and Rye | 6 p.m. 

By 4:30, locals are lined up for the first seating at Rose’s Luxury, a cultish little Barracks Row spot that has a distinct Charleston vibe. Head upstairs to the bar for a cocktail served in gorgeous mismatched barware. Try the rose-water cocktail, with a generous splash of rye ($11). The fried oysters ($3 each) are among the best you’ll find in any city, and don’t miss the confit jerk chicken ($13).

3. H Street Sustenance | 8 p.m.

Head north to bustling H Street, where gentrification has been slow but steady, to begin the rest of your evening. Start at the Atlas Room, where tables fill quickly and reservations are recommended. Residents know to sidle up to the bar for a bourbon and innovative American cooking, including pork shoulder with eggplant in a spicy peach sauce ($23) or foie gras with truffle vincotto appetizer ($13). The bartender can be a little cranky at first; engage him on the wine list and chickpea dish, and he’ll be your best friend.

4. Pub Crawl | 10 p.m.

Revitalization means the arrival of fun bars and good pie. Start at the Biergarten Haus — try a König hefeweizen — and then head to the H Street Country Club, a multilevel space with table games and an elaborate mini-golf course with Washington-themed holes like one with a replica of the Washington Monument. Round it out at the Pug, a local bar that smells vaguely of a high school party, and also the place where diners wait for a seat at the wildly popular Toki Underground restaurant upstairs, which annoyingly doesn’t take reservations but does serve sublime Japanese food.

SATURDAY

5. Dive Bar Breakfast | 8 a.m.

A family-owned, decades-old dive bar extraordinaire, where Capitol Hill’s older and working-class residents pull on Budweisers and scarf down burgers at night, the Tune Inn is also a decent place to start the morning. The coffee is meh — a problem throughout much of the city — but the French toast tastes of nutmeg, the Irish omelet with grits is legitimate and the service is professional. Expect to pay about $10 for breakfast. If you were hoping to spot Speaker John A. Boehner, hit Pete’s Diner, a few blocks away.

6. History at the Library |  9 a.m.

One of the city’s greatest troves of stories, artwork, history and architecture, the Library of Congress, which began as Thomas Jefferson’s personal library, is often skipped over, although there is much to see here. While it is best known for its ornate main reading room, the library offers a number of exhibits on Civil War history, music, cartography, poetry and the like.

7. For Shakespeare Buffs | 11 a.m.

After the hustle and bustle of the Mall’s Smithsonian museums, like the National Air and Space Museum and the National Gallery of Art, the Folger is a quiet, hidden respite. A “bardophile” paradise, the reading rooms of this library are open only to scholars, although Saturday tours are available; sign up in advance. Open to all at no cost is the world’s largest collection of objects related to Shakespeare and his world, including paintings, etchings, sculptures, books and manuscripts. The Tudor-style theater, based on the Globe in London, has an intimate orchestra level and balcony tiers straight from “Shakespeare in Love.” Plays run almost nightly.

8. Pizza on the Hill | 12:30 p.m.

Sometimes lost in the shadows of We, the Pizza, the “Top Chef"-star-run competitor down the street, Seventh Hill Pizza serves up the real deal: crisp, charred, thin-crusted pizza. Try the Eastern Market with goat cheese, tapenade and mushrooms ($10.95 for an eight-inch pie) or the Potomac Ave. with Felino salami and arugula ($10.95), washed down with a little glass of grenache or maybe a Purple Haze beer.

9. Cemetery Stroll |  2 p.m.

Stretching beneath the unforgiving walls of the city jail is the Congressional Cemetery, with long walking paths and benches. The cemetery is filled with the graves of lawmakers, including Representative Stephen J. Solarz, Democrat of Brooklyn, who once had a nine-hour conversation with Fidel Castro and alienated many in his own party when he supported the Persian Gulf war in 1991; and Representative Tom Lantos, the only Holocaust survivor to serve in Congress. Here, also, is John Philip Sousa’s burial site, marked with a stone lyre, and the grave of J. Edgar Hoover, which is suitably forbidding, surrounded by a wrought-iron fence. The ladies in the welcome center smile as they offer self-guided tour maps. Visitors can pay $10 for a day pass for their dogs to run off the leash among the dead.

10. Straight From New York | 8 p.m.

With Osteria Morini, the New York chef Michael White managed to break the rule about the inverse relationship between food quality and view: Giant windows overlook the Anacostia River and new riverfront park. But be prepared for a high noise level in this bustling spot. Among the best bets are the cured meats with cherry jam ($17), a succulent duck breast with farro, braised greens and cherries ($29) and the mixed grill of lamb, skirt steak, sausage and pancetta ($29). Desserts include an inventive selection of gelati — stracciatella and grapefruit-Campari among them (three for $9).

11. Jazz It Up | 10 p.m.

Not merely a club, HR 57 is a cultural center devoted to the history of jazz and blues. The name of the place is pure Washington: It refers to a 1987 House of Representatives resolution — HR 57 — that designated jazz a rare and valuable national American treasure. Don’t expect ambience: A large old-school video screen flashes acts, the décor is decidedly sparse and drink selection is minimal. But it’s all about the music, and you’ll hear some of the best jazz gigs in the city, including the up-and-comer Antonio Parker.

SUNDAY

12. Pancakes and Crab Cakes | 10 a.m.

The indoor Eastern Market has some competition from the more upscale Union Market, but the food purveyors and artisans make this a draw for visitors and locals who crowd the counter space at Market Lunch for blueberry pancakes ($5.50 for a short stack) or a crab cake sandwich ($9.95), the most vernacular of Washington fare. Then check out the market’s wares, including woven bracelets, or giraffes made out of aluminum cans. If there is time, zip over to the adorable Hill’s Kitchen, which occupies an 1884 townhouse, to fill your suitcase with some crazy, colorful kitchenware.

13. Around the Park | 2 p.m.

End your visit at the sprawling Lincoln Park. On the west end of the park sits a monument to the activist Mary McLeod Bethune, and at the other a striking, and bizarre, statue of President Lincoln holding the Emancipation Proclamation with a presumably freed slave kneeling at his feet. If you need refreshment before hitting the road, head to Ted’s Bulletin, a 15-minute walk away, for a divine milkshake ($8.99); if you’re not driving, get one spiked.

THE DETAILS

1. United States Botanic Garden, 100 Maryland Ave SW; usbg.gov.

 2. Rose’s Luxury, 717 Eighth Street SE; rosesluxury.com.

3. The Atlas Room, 1015 H Street NE; theatlasroom.com.

 4. Biergarten Haus, 1355 H Street NE; biergartenhaus.com. H Street Country Club,  1335 H Street NE; thehstreetcountryclub.com.  The Pug, 1234 H Street NE; thepugdc.com.

5. Tune Inn, 331 Pennsylvania Avenue SE.

6. The Library of Congress, 10 First Street, SE; loc.gov.

7. Folger Shakespeare Library, 201 East Capitol Street SE; folger.edu/index.cfm.

8. Seventh Hill Pizza, 327 Seventh Street SE; montmartredc.com/seventhhill.

9. Congressional Cemetery, 1801 E Street SE; congressionalcemetery.org.

10. Osteria Morini, 301 Water Street SE; osteriamorini.com.

11. HR 57, 1007 H Street NE; hr57.org.

12. Eastern Market, 225 Seventh Street SE; easternmarket-dc.org. Hill’s Kitchen,  713 D Street SE; hillskitchen.com.

13. Lincoln Park, nps.gov/cahi/historyculture/cahi_lincoln.htm. Ted’s Bulletin, 505 Eighth Street SE; tedsbulletincapitolhill.com.

Lodging

The major chain hotels can be found within a mile of the Capitol, but a better option is the Hotel George (15 E Street NW; hotelgeorge.com; from $249), a Kimpton Hotel with a fun George Washington theme and animal- print robes. A stone’s throw from Union Station and the Capitol, it has the added bonus of a very decent restaurant, Bistro Bis, which also has a sexy bar.

A less expensive and slightly less elegant but equally convenient option is the Liaison Capitol Hill (415 New Jersey Avenue NW; affinia.com; from $219), an Affinia Hotel, with 343 rooms and a seasonal rooftop deck and pool, an unusual feature for hotels at this price. Locals still flock to the four-year-old Art and Soul, run by Art Smith, best known as Oprah’s chef.

Book review: o racismo cientifico num livro que pode ser cientificamente racista

Concordo com o resenhista: o livro é uma má construção de um problema real: pessoas estão sempre refletindo o ambiente em que foram criadas...

Paulo Roberto de Almeida 

A TROUBLESOME INHERITANCE

Genes, Race and Human History

By Nicholas Wade

278 pages. The Penguin Press. $27.95.

Reviewed by Arthur Allen

The New York Times Book Review, May 15, 2014

Few areas of science have contributed more to human misery than the study of racial difference. In the 1920s, eugenicists from top American universities promoted the sterilization of the unfit and later praised Hitler’s racial codes while advocating laws that would exclude thousands of Jews from our shores.

Contemporary researchers have found it useful to examine genetic variations that affect traits like diabetes in Native Americans or high blood pressure in African-Americans. But in the shadow of the Holocaust, scientists in the United States have largely avoided the classification of races as a “futile exercise,” in the words of the population geneticist Luigi Luca Cavalli-Sforza; the very concept of race is a matter of scientific debate.

In “A Troublesome Inheritance: Genes, Race and Human History,” however, Nicholas Wade argues that scientists need to get over their hang-ups and jump into studies of racial difference. “The intellectual barriers erected many years ago to combat racism now stand in the way of studying the recent evolutionary past,” he writes. 

Mr. Wade, a longtime science writer for The New York Times, draws on the wealth of evolutionary data that has emerged from the decoding of human genomes. This research has enabled scientists to imagine our prehistory with more precision, and the picture is one of unexpectedly significant genetic change since many of our ancestors left Africa. Since this evolution affected traits such as skin color, body hair and the tolerance of alcohol, milk and high altitude, why not intelligence and social behavior as well? Mr. Wade asks. 

The central problem here is that if significant genetic-controlled behavioral differences exist among races, with scant (at most) exception they haven’t been discovered yet. To build a case with the evidence at hand requires a great deal of speculation, with the inevitable protrusion of the nonscientific worldview. 

Mr. Wade presents a few scattered genetic studies and attempts to weld them into a grand theory of global history for the past 50,000 years. Where Jared Diamond argued in  “Guns, Germs and Steel”  that environment and geography enabled Europe to develop a highly successful civilization, Mr. Wade says environmental pressures led to genetic differences that account for much of that advantage. “The rise of the West,” he writes, “is an event not just in history but also in human evolution.” 

Conservative scholars like the political scientist Francis Fukuyama have long argued that social institutions and culture explain why Europe beat Asia to prosperity, and why parts of the Mideast and Africa continue to suffer destabilizing violence and misery. 

Mr. Wade takes this already controversial argument a step further, contending that “slight evolutionary differences in social behavior” underlie social and cultural differences. A small but consistent divergence in a racial group’s tendency to trust outsiders — and therefore to accept central rather than tribal authority — could explain “much of the difference between tribal and modern societies,” he writes.

This is where Mr. Wade’s argument starts to go off the rails.

At times, his theorizing is merely puzzling, as when he notes that the gene variant that gives East Asians dry earwax also produces less body odor, which would have been attractive “among people spending many months in confined spaces to escape the cold.” No explanation of why ancient Europeans, presumably cooped up just as much, didn’t also develop this trait. Later, he speculates that thick hair and small breasts evolved in Asian women because they may have been “much admired by Asian men.” And why, you might ask, did Asian men alone prefer these traits?

Mr. Wade occasionally drops in broad, at times insulting assumptions about the behavior of particular groups without substantiating the existence of such behaviors, let alone their genetic basis. Writing about Africans’ economic condition, for example, Mr. Wade wonders whether “variations in their nature, such as their time preference, work ethic and propensity to violence, have some bearing on the economic decisions they make.” 

For Mr. Wade, genetic differences help explain the failure of the United States occupations in places like Iraq and Afghanistan. “If institutions were purely cultural,” he writes, “it should be easy to transfer an institution from one society to another.” It’s hard to know how to begin to address such a puzzling statement. 

Mr. Wade acknowledges that specific evidence for the influence of “social behavior” genes is quite limited. The one example he presents repeatedly is the MAOA 2R variant, the so-called warrior gene that has been linked to violent behavior in men abused as children and is more common in blacks than whites or Asians. Mr. Wade admits that such genes at most create a tendency to violence, and adds that there may be other, yet undiscovered violence-susceptibility genes that could skew the racial picture.

Mr. Wade’s distinctive focus is on how evolution, in his view, shaped different races’ “radius of trust,” or ability to assume loyalty to, say, a nation rather than a tribe, and to punish those who violate social rules. Modern civilizations select out violent individuals and their genes, which might be more valuable in tribal societies, he argues.

When it comes to his leitmotif — the need for scientists to drop “politically correct” attitudes toward race — Mr. Wade displays surprisingly sanguine assumptions about the ability of science to generate facts free from the cultural mesh of its times. He argues that because the word “racism” did not appear in the Oxford English Dictionary until 1910, racism is a “modern concept, and that pre-eugenics studies of race were “reasonably scientific.” This would surely surprise any historian of European colonies in Africa or the Americas. 

“Science is about what is, not what ought to be,” Mr. Wade writes. “Its shifting sands do not support values, so it is foolish to place them there.” Yet he acknowledges that views of scientific truth are highly contextual. The philosopher Herbert Spencer “was one of the most prominent intellectuals of the second half of the 19th century, and his ideas, however harsh they may seem today, were widely discussed,” Mr. Wade writes. Why does he suppose that Spencer was so popular? Was it science’s “shifting sands” that gave his ideas credibility, or their tendency to support what powerful people wanted to believe? 

The philosopher Ludwik Fleck once wrote, “ ‘To see’ means to recreate, at a suitable moment, a picture created by the mental collective to which one belongs.” While there is much of interest in Mr. Wade’s book, readers will probably see what they are predisposed to see: a confirmation of prejudices, or a rather unconvincing attempt to promote the science of racial difference. 

Arthur Allen is the author of “The Fantastic Laboratory of Dr. Weigl,” to be published by W. W. Norton in July.

Egito e Siria: um pouco da miseria do mundo - Foreign Policy

Inacreditável... É tudo o que eu consigo dizer... Paulo Roberto de Almeida  Defense Lawyers Quit Egypt’s Trial of Al Jazeera Journalists

The lawyers for two of three Al Jazeera journalists being tried in Egypt on charges of fomenting violence have quit accusing the Qatar-based news agency of a "vendetta." The lead defense lawyer, Farag Fathy said "Al Jazeera is using my clients" and that the network was "fabricating quotes" attributed to him. Additionally, the court has demanded defense lawyers pay $170,000 to view footage prosecutors say shows the journalists fabricated news reports to incite unrest. The trial has been adjourned until May 22, and the journalists have again been denied bail. Meanwhile, Al Jazeera Arabic correspondent Abdullah Elshamy, who has been held without charges since August 2013, has been transferred to solitary confinement after smuggling a video out of Tora prison highlighting his deteriorating health. Elshamy has been on hunger strike for 107 days protesting his detention. Syria A car bombing killed at least 43 people in the Syrian province of Aleppo near the Bab al-Salam border crossing into Turkey. The area is the main route used by Syrians refugee fleeing into Turkey. The region has been controlled by the Islamic Front's Tawhid Brigade, which has been engaged in fierce fighting with the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant (ISIL) since January. Iran has reportedly been recruiting thousands of Afghan refugees to fight alongside President Bashar al-Assad's forces in Syria. The Iranian Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC) has been offering $500 a month as well as Iranian residency and has been training Afghan fighters. Meanwhile, growing frustrated with the inability of the United Nations to deliver humanitarian aid to Syrians, U.S. Secretary of State John Kerry said the United States is exploring other options for providing aid, including circumventing the Syrian government. Additionally, Kerry stated he has seen evidence suggesting that Assad's forces have used chlorine gas in attacks on rebel fighters and civilians in recent months, which would be against the weapons convention signed by the Syrian government.

James Madison, como se fosse hoje... - A new biography by Lynne Cheney

JAMES MADISON

A Life Reconsidered

By Lynne Cheney

Viking. 563 pp. $36

Book review: “James Madison: A Life Reconsidered,” by Lynne Cheney

By H.W. Brands, 

The Washington Post, Friday, May 16, 2014

The enduring appeal to Americans of our founding generation lies not in the genius of its members, who were smart but no smarter than typical students at a first-rate law school today; not in their high-minded devotion to the common weal, for they could be as petty and provincial as any local pol in our times; not in their deep insight into human nature, which was no greater and arguably was less than that of the modern scientific age. Rather, the appeal of the founders lies in the fact that we have no idea what they would have thought about the pressing issues of our times.

Consequently liberals and conservatives, Democrats and Republicans can claim the founders and cite their words and actions in support. Are taxes too high? The American Revolution started in a dispute over taxes, so yes, the founders would have thought so. But no: The crux of the complaint was that taxes were imposed by a body in which Americans weren’t represented. Politics too partisan? Of course: The founders, almost to a man, condemned the influence of parties. But no sooner was the ink dry on the Constitution than they created a party system that was, if anything, nastier than our own. Obamacare? Who can say, of an era when the principal instruments of medical care included the lance and the leech?

Though demonstrating this ambiguity is not Lynne Cheney’s intention, her graceful and balanced life of James Madison shows it well. The author, who has written several books of history primarily for young readers, works a bit too hard at justifying a new biography of Madison. She contends that the common view of Madison is of a “shy and sickly scholar, someone hardly suited for the demands of daily life, much less the rough-and-tumble world of politicking.” This might be the view of some, but the more general impression is the one Cheney herself conveys: of a brilliant, shrewd statesman who, more than anyone else, was responsible for the Constitution. Yet she needn’t have worried: A good story bears retelling, especially a story as important as Madison’s.

Interestingly, given Cheney’s criticism of what she takes for the conventional wisdom on Madison, she devotes substantial space to his physical maladies, especially a syndrome involving attacks akin to those of epilepsy. Madison shunned that label, not least because epilepsy still carried connotations of demonic possession. But the attacks understandably distressed him, until he concluded from his reading that the physically challenged could be the most intellectually able. “The strongest and soundest minds [possess] the most infirm and sickly bodies,” he wrote in his commonplace book. “The knife cuts the sheath, as the French materially express it.”

Madison’s ailments didn’t prevent him from diving precociously into politics. At 23 he helped push Virginia toward revolution and independence. At 36 he conspired to overthrow the existing American government and replace it with another. At 37 he guided the convention that committed the overthrow to writing, and in the following months he collaborated on an anonymous propaganda campaign to ratify the radical new Constitution.

Cheney doesn’t dwell on the radical nature of the events of America’s founding. Conservatives generally don’t, as they lay special claim to the founders. But it is worth a reminder that conservatives don’t make revolutions. This is almost a tautology: Conservatives want to keep things as they are, while revolutions turn things upside down. But it is also further evidence that history is a dubious guide to current politics. Madison was an unabashed early advocate of big government, especially a big federal government. He proposed granting the new Congress a veto over all state laws but settled for a veto over state laws that contradicted federal laws. Even then he fretted that the Constitution didn’t go far enough to counter the “unwise and wicked proceedings” of the states.

But would Madison have been a modern liberal? Would he believe that bigger is always better in government? There is no way of telling. Bigness is a comparative concept in politics. Cheney demonstrates that Madison wanted a bigger central government than existed in 1787, but this doesn’t mean he would have wanted a bigger central government than exists in 2014. He might well have decided that the optimal size was reached long ago.

Cheney makes clear that Madison was a practical politician. “He was capable not only of deeply creative thinking,” she writes, “but of turning his thoughts into reality.”

Like any practical politician, Madison was willing to change his mind — and change it again. After helping establish a government far stronger than the one it replaced, Madison promptly sought to restrain the new government. Having argued against a bill of rights in the Constitution, he drafted what became the Bill of Rights. When Alexander Hamilton, an even more ardent advocate of big government than Madison, put forward a plan for a national bank, Madison as a member of Congress opposed it. But later, as president, he backed the idea. Madison in Constitution-drafting mode wanted to give the federal government a veto over state laws; as a member of the opposition party in Congress, he anonymously argued that states should be able to take action against federal laws they deemed unconstitutional, in particular the Alien and Sedition Acts of 1798.

On this point and others, Cheney does a nice job of showing how Madison was a cooler version of Thomas Jefferson, his mentor and sponsor. Jefferson employed the verb “nullify” in describing the appropriate response to the Alien and Sedition Acts. His words prompted the state legislature of Kentucky to threaten secession. Madison preferred the less provocative “interpose,” which gave his and Jefferson’s Republican Party the issue they wanted in the election of 1800, without encouraging the fire-eaters.

As Jefferson’s secretary of state and then his successor as president, Madison had to deal with Jefferson’s disastrous Embargo Act of 1807, which sought to punish Britain and France for their depredations on American shipping by the bizarre device of imposing economic sanctions on Americans. The embargo failed, and war with Britain ensued. Cheney successfully argues that the War of 1812 wasn’t as dismal as it is often portrayed. It confirmed U.S. independence and opened the West to American growth (at the expense of the Indians, some of whom had fought on the American side).

Bill Clinton in the 1990s got in trouble after promising a “two-fer” in the event of his election: America would get Hillary as well as Bill. Cheney delivers a two-fer readers will welcome: Dolley along with James. Dolley was a force of nature, and though her story is familiar, it is still a delight to read. And it affords another reminder that the past was a different place. Certainly no first lady today would be caught baring as much flesh as Dolley did for portraitist Gilbert Stuart.

Cheney might have written a book that made Madison a prop in today’s political battles. She did not, which is greatly to her credit and true to the life of the man. Madison was principled but pragmatic, sincere but complex. His world was complicated. So is ours, and it can use more people like him.

H.W. Brands has written about several American presidents. He is completing a biography of Ronald Reagan.