Could you please clarify something

In the one side we have historical monarchy - rule by personal fiat.

On the other, we have the British royal family - a historical relic with some moinor ceremonial functionality remaining.

So when the Brazillian people were told that one of the choices was a parliamentary monarchy, it seems to me that term implies a degree of political power far beyond that emjioyed by the British monarchy.

What exactly was this parlimentary monarchy?

I don't see the point here, nor do I understand its relevance to anything at all.

Though skirting any mention of capitalism, your write-up raises concerns about the distribution of power and the redistribution of wealth that occurs in the US. What are Brazilian views on capitalism in a presidential republic?

Hope Jose Murilo de Carvalho's book will be translated.

Way to include a potshot at the President at the end. It only helps to confirm that the last five minutes of my life were very poorly spent.

Don't you see? It has no relevance. It is just another liberal taking another opportunity to bad-mouth George Bush, and, in this case, his whole family. And, of course, to bad-mouth America, a favorite pasttime of people from countries with far less wealth, prosperity, equality, and relevance than the United States. Sad.

To imply that only people from countries with comparable wealth, prosperity and relevance should voice their opinions about the US shows a level of ignorance and arrogance that is absolutely un-American (I did not mention equality because if you still believe in the myth of equality in the US you are not just ignorant and arrogant, but a complete idiot).

It is indeed amazing that in a country of almost 300 million people, with perhaps dozens of people qualified to be president, we have to restrict ourselves to the Bush, Clinton and Kennedy royal families... It goes against the very idea of meritocracy the we Americans like to believe in (but not always practice...).

Regarding the UK, the ultimate test will be if it survives Charles becoming the king. If that does not kill the British monarchy, nothing will...

Everyone is certainly free to voice their opinions about the U.S., but it would be nice, every once in a while, to see the caustic criticism aimed at the U.S. aimed inwards toward the countries from which the U.S. bashing typically comes. The U.S. does not have perfect equality, but compare it to most other countries in the world and it is a beacon of equality. Think of Brazil! Social inequality runs rampant there and the U.S. has to be lectured about meritocracy and equality in a post about Brazil? And I have reported your comment as offensive for referring to me as a "complete idiot." That is offensive and closed-minded.

I don't think it was a pot shot at the president .Rather it was againt Clinton. I feel degraded that our great country is becoming a banana republic by electing a wife of the ex president. Only Argentina does that.

I'm a North American anthropologist who works in Brazil's Northeast. My research concerns (among other things) relations between wealthy and poor Brazilians in the region. Of course, there are social problems of every description in Brazil, but my impression is that "average" Brazilians are not nearly as naive about such things as "average" North Americans are about our own challenges. I think the world (and especially the US) could learn a lot from the history and present reality of Brazil -- economically, politically, socially -- if we could get beyond our chauvinism and arrogance. It's my experience that Brazilians are quite open-minded about all kinds of ideas, whether home-grown or imported, and this trait has led them to try some innovative solutions to problems facing the whole world.

It concerns me a bit that within four posts we have already started railing against the opposing view point and other people before discussion is even started about the nuances in Brazil's history. I don't think she was taking a pot-shot at either side. She was a journalist trying to make her article relevant to the people she knew would be reading it. We probably could have done without the "God save all of you" comment but the rest of that paragraph is a pretty good summary of the how things look in our country right now. It's true that only two families have held the most powerful office in our government over the last 20 years and it's hard to talk of our country as being equal or being a healthy democracy when people raising 15 million dollars for their presidential runs are termed "second-tier candidates."

RE: Vince's comment

Maybe you need to expand your corn-fed ideas. Brazil is in fact becoming one of the wealthiest, most fuel efficient/indepent, and technically savvy nations in the world. AND they have a world of space and resources similarly to what we had. In the 1800's. While we return to the dark ages, THEY are moving to the future. The ability to drop a bomb or launch a missile does not make us superior. Your kids may someday be speaking Portugese or Chinese. Ignorance....

Re: Zac the Hoople. Can you explain how the United States is moving towards the "dark ages"? This is exactly what I am talking about - the inability of some people to resist criticizing the United States at every opportunity! I repeat .... SAD!

The U.S. is shirking stem cell research and the teaching of evolution in schools because of the pernicious influence of the Christian right. That is the triumph of superstition over science and that's what I call moving towards the Dark Ages.

Vince,

I hope you did not report my "offensive" comment to "Fox Security" (as a certain Fox News "personality" frequently does with people with dissenting views...). Given that the WP, as far as I know, does not hire a gang of former law enforcement people to intimidate US citizens (that disagree with the sad state of our nation under the Bush/Cheney duo), I believe "Fox Security" must have been your choice...

People like you are the kind who make our friends, in friendly countries, start to profoundly dislike us...

You tried to immediately disqualify her opinion, by asserting that a Brazilian is not entitled to comment on the US, because Brazil is a poorer, less relevant country. Maybe you believe that because we are the sole military superpower we can tell others just to "shut up" when thay say something we do not agree with... That is indeed idiotic.

Not that it's terribly relevent to the main topic, but for the sake of your debating 'credibility' Zac the Hoople, it's pretty unwise to make the hollow, sweeping generalization of a point that a ban on federal stem cell research funding and "teaching of evolution" (I take it you meant Creation?) -which, by the way, hasn't been a terribly successful movement to date, what with even ID being panned in the courts- is having the effect of a "Dark Ages" on the state of science and tecnhology in the United States.

In doing so, you betray the advancements being made, even in those fields, and other fields of science across the country. If you REALLY wanted to make a reasonable (let alone CONVINCING) argument about US' state of scientific affairs, you'd be bringing up the fact that there isn't enough of a push to get people interested in math & science. THERE'S you're REAL problem.

Sorry, Edward, but I have no idea what you are talking about. I simply clicked on the "REPORT OFFENSIVE COMMENTS" link just below each post. If that has caused you to become so rude and nasty toward me, I am sorry.

I am amazed that it takes someone from Brazil to point out that the United States is headed for its own monarchy, the Clinton-Bush Monarchy.

I only wish that foreign journalists would abstain from couching their criticisms of our system of government with insults toward our current chief executive. Frankly, I don't see how suggesting that continuing the "current monarchy" would be more pernicious than the alternatives helps people understand the apparent the similarities between Brazil's history and the nascent fondness for familial political legacy in this country. Honestly, her argument does not depend on whether the last name of our president is Bush or Clinton. Such sillinees only serves to tarnishes an otherwise interesting and probably cogent observation, turning many readers off to the author's point.

Hi! I'm John Strass and i like your site!
cheap viagra
Thank you!