World Cup 2014 – Day 1
This was the scene on the beach in Ipanema yesterday. Mostly cloudy with the beaches fairly quiet. Was this a bad omen?
Well, after all the anticipation, speculation, worry and protest, the day has finally dawned. Day 1 of the World Cup 2014. Yesterday was my first chance to get out of the house and wander the streets of Ipanema to see how things looked and I have to say it didn’t look great.
Packing up after a quiet World Cup eve.
Dark grey clouds hung low over Dois Irmãos, rain was a constant threat and the streets and beaches were quiet.
A few locals look over some World Cup merchandise for sale in Ipanema.
I know it’s superstitious, but I couldn’t help wondering if the grey clouds could be a bad sign for cup. There was near grid-lock on my way home and I started to get a very bad feeling that all the fears of the last 4 years were about to come true.
Even if all the pre-Copa planning went well, there would always be the chance of a 2 week downpour leading to major flooding. That would be a disaster and there wouldn’t be much anyone could do about it.
So when I woke up this morning, the first thing I did was look out of the window. Would we have more dark clouds and gloom? Take a look:
Hooray! The sun is out, there will be a copa and Cinderella will go to the ball Tom will go to the beach to watch the game. Sunshine brings good times on the beach, reasonable traffic and happy tourists. Four more weeks of this, topped off with a victory for Brazil, and we’ll end up talking about one of the best World Cups in decades.
The scene from the roof of Eat Rio HQ this morning. Looking good Rio, looking good…
Nice dramatic progression from an ominous beginning yesterday to a sunny morning today. I have to admit I was concerned that you might be losing your usual optimism even in the face of grim circumstances, but no worries. ;-)
Heh heh, well you can tell that I wrote what all that positive stuff before going out to see the actual game. Brazil will need to do a lot better when facing serious opposition. And as for that penalty decision? Conspiracy theorists are already having a field day… Hopefully day 2 will be an improvement :)
I am so glad to hear positive remarks about the World Cup!
There’s no point complaining about it now. It’s time to root for our time and have fun!!
I am keeping my fingers crossed and hoping that your words will become reality and this would be the best World Cups in decades!
Hi Lidi – well I’m feeling really excited about all the football that’s coming up, but I don’t really agree that there’s no point in complaining now. Sure, the tournament is going ahead and the money has been spent, but I think that people who have been forcibly evicted from their homes or people that feel outrage that their taxes have been spent on what will surely go on to become white elephants, have a right to complain. If nothing else, perhaps it will make FIFA and Brazilian politicians think twice before attempting something similar in future.
Well, that’s just my 2 cents worth. Luckily I’m pragmatic/hypocritical enough to be able to put my concerns aside and enjoy the football as a separate thing ;)
Sign of the times.
LOL Gritty…..soccer fans loudly expressing their opinions? Yes, that’s a first. ;-)
Not a big surprise, but rather uncomfortable – I guess politicians develop thick skins to this kind of thing. Interesting to hear that the chants were reported to have started in the VIP areas, so I guess these are anti-PT types (with plenty of money for those expensive tickets) rather than anyone complaining about forced evictions or health and education spending…
Phil,
A president so inept to the point of not being able to open World Cup festivities out of fear of being booed silent is actually a first. Look it up. No concerns though as she and her party will probably use the old class warfare card to dismiss it (the oh so evil elite hates us because we love the poor). After all it usually works overseas, but according to the latest polls most people in Brazil now consider her government to be poor, or just downright terrible. And most of those polled are not part of the “evil elite”. Oh well, maybe they’re just ingrates (the holy leader and her party have done so much for their miserable souls).
Gritty, I’m not sure that one can accurately read into the event everything that you’ve stated. The fact that people disapprove of Dilma and voiced their objections does not necessarily mean that Dilma is inept, any more than Lula’s record high public approval ratings through the end of his presidency proved that he was a great leader. One thing upon which we can probably agree: such a display would never have been permitted during the Ditadura. I’d rather see free expression, even if it’s embarrassing, than enforced silence.
As for how Dilma and her party may deal with the incident, why not wait before criticizing them for what you think they might do? I’m uncomfortable when people choose to criticize a political leader by assigning labels which the leader and his/her supporters never use themselves. To the best of my knowledge, neither Dilma nor the PT refers to her as “the holy leader” (but correct me if I’m wrong). Your use of that phrase reminds me of President Obama’s opponents who like to use terms like the “Messiah” when they criticize him (that is, when they aren’t accusing him of being a secret Muslim). It ascribes unfounded aspirations to one’s opponent, and reduces his/her supporters to blind followers. It seems to be a form of straw man argument, which may be convenient, but really isn’t valid.
Phil,
Dilma is inept because she managed to bring the progress Brazil was making to a standstill. The reason behind that is her adherence to statist dogmas, especially regarding economic matters. Her party´s constant involvement in corruption scandals also contributes to her growing unpopularity.
As for PT´s use of class warfare to either explain the party´s corruption scandals, or the dire results of their policies, I recommend you do a bit of research as this is usually their go to excuse. Perhaps you can start by googling “Lula culpa elite”, afterwards you can just include any phrase of similar connotation involving either the grand leader or his party blaming the so called well off for their incompetence.
I would also point out that one shouldn´t use examples of extreme and irrelevant claims laid against a person or a point of view as a premise to go ahead and argue that the overall body of criticism against said person or idea is false: when you mention the obtuse and irrelevant claims against Obama (Muslim, born in Kenya, etc) this does not mean that it isn´t true to say Mr. Obama has not suffered the same scrutiny during his tenure as a Republican counterpart. Maybe he has, or not, but to analize this you would have to put forth fowl ups of equal or similar gravity comitted by both to then see if the reaction to them was the same.
To conclude just some food for thought: http://www.weeklystandard.com/blogs/hillary-clinton-poverty-and-taxes
Gritty,
If Dilma “managed to bring the progress Brazil was making to a standstill,” is it safe to assume that you’re giving Lula some credit for the progress which occurred during his eight years in office? FHC’s supporters attribute much of that progress to policies which FHC put in place, and since the economy can be slow to respond, they may be right. But if that’s the case, then is Dilma truly to blame for the problems which Brazil’s economy faces today? I’m not expressing an opinion here, just asking some questions.
I never said that the PT hasn’t used questionable arguments to defend its leaders and their actions. I said that before one assumes that they’ll do so in this case, it might be wise to wait.
I neither said nor implied that “the overall body of criticism against said person or idea is false” just because some critics make extreme or unfounded claims. My very specific point was that I’m uncomfortable when critics resort to using hyperbolic descriptions (“Messiah,” “the grand leader,” “the holy leader”). To me, it sounds more like propaganda than a valid argument, but that’s just my opinion.
In the case of Obama, the labels you cite are not just obtuse, they are demonstrably false. Whether or not President Bush was unfairly criticized is irrelevant, since if he was, it still does not make it right.
I’m well aware that Mr. Kristol’s “Weekly Standard” and other neo-cons are already working to discredit the former Secretary of State, apparently under the impression that she’ll be running for President. Let’s wait and see on that one, too. ;-)
Phil,
FHC put in place the policies that set Brazil on the right track during that period Lula and his party did everything they could to sabotage said policies (they voted agaist the Real Plan, the Fiscal Responsibility Act, and all other legislation which ultimately stabalized the Brazilian economy and currency). Once in power Lula basically ignored his party´s program and kept Cardoso`s, at least during his first term. His second term wasn the beginning of what we see today since little by little the likes of Guido Mantega started gaining more influence, yet at that time Lula would at least side with then central bank president Henrique Meirelles on economic matters – Meirelles was world president of BankBoston before going to the central bank, Mantega was and is just a parochial academic that never made a name for himself in the private sector (one wonders why . . .). Anyway Dilma Rousseff always sided with Mantega, and when she became president championed and implemented his interventionist model. The results are there for all to see http://www.economist.com/news/leaders/21586833-stagnant-economy-bloated-state-and-mass-protests-mean-dilma-rousseff-must-change-course-has
Regarding the article from my previous message would it not be better to argue the content instead of attacking Mr. Kristol?
Gritty,
Thanks for your detailed analysis, which more clearly explains your position, and makes more sense than calling someone inept because they were publicly booed. I don’t agree with everything you wrote, but I too am an admirer of FHC and enjoyed reading his book “The Accidental President of Brazil.”
I don’t believe that saying Mr. Kristol is seeking to discredit Hillary Clinton amounts to an “attack,” but if the word “discredit” bothered you, I can understand. I apologize, and I’ll withdraw it in favor of “criticize.” In his podcast for last week, entitled “Hillary’s Horrible Week,” Kristol says “We can take some pleasure in Hillary Clinton’s really extraordinarily bad week.” He goes on to say “she made one gaffe after another, one ridiculous statement after another,” and that “she made more mistakes this week than Sarah Palin did in the entire vice-presidential campaign.” There’s more in that vein, much of which can be fairly characterized as criticisms of her (some of them valid, by the way). He has every right to do so, and I have a right to point it out.
Phil,
How about the content of the link though: what say you?
http://www.weeklystandard.com/blogs/hillary-clinton-poverty-and-taxes
Gritty,
The blog entry itself was fairly even-handed. I think I probably agree with the author’s final statement:
“Clinton may be right that redistribution is in some cases an effective means of lifting people out of poverty, but the Brazilian example in and of itself is not compelling.”
The World Bank study cited in the blog is from 2009, but I’m not discounting the data. However, it’s always risky to implement an economic policy in one country based on the results that similar policies *seem* to have achieved in another country. There are too many variables. For example, Brazil’s slow growth rate may be due to tax rates, but I think you would agree that government red tape and corruption are also factors that play a bigger role there than in the US.
So it’s *possible* that redistribution via higher tax rates for the wealthy might work more effectively in the US than in Brazil. I think that Clinton may have the right idea about taxes, but as the author of the blog pointed out, she may have chosen the wrong example to support her idea.
Interesting points Phil. I don´t agree with the premise that wealth distribution is a fair (even when trying to remedy a past injustice) and in the long term effective way to lift people out of poverty; however given the context of the post I think your train of thought makes sense. I should pursue this discussion with you as I think it to be fruitful and enlightening, but soccer has taken over my preocupations as of late (and Tom´s also it seems: need new post Tom). Anyway congrats on the American win, and may the best team take the cup (and by best I mean Holland from what I´ve seen so far).
I would just add one thing regarding our debate: for capitalism to work, and I think it is the best system to help men prosper and cooperate freely among themselves, then people need access to capital. How to achieve this without coercion (taking from some and handing it to others) is the main challenge that faces our world methinks.