Brazil fact of the day

Just 8 percent of Brazilians told the Pew Research Center in 2017 that representative democracy is a “very good” form of government – the lowest of all 38 countries surveyed.

Most of the article is about what we can expect from Jair Bolsonaro, sometimes called “the Brazilian Trump,” who is very likely to be Brazil’s next president, recommended and interesting throughout.


So that is what Brazil has become: a country that has replaced democracy with the Führerprinzip. Sad.

Well, actually, there is also an apparent attempt to bring American economic liberty to Brasil (as if the rich in Brazil haven't had generations of practice in getting richer) - 'Laugh if you want. But the Trumpian formula of a strong alliance with business, a hard line on crime, unapologetic nationalism and the rhetoric of economic liberty is now seen by the Brazilian right as a wildly successful test case – and an example to be followed.'

Make of that trumpeting as you will, but at least some people seem to be betting on their ability to jump on the latest shiny American bandwagon.

It is not true. According to recent poll, 69% of Brazilians believe Democracy is the best political system.

Not necessarly contradictory - you can belive (like apparently 82% of Brazilians) that representative democracy is not a "very good" system of government, but, at the same time, believe that is less bad all those other forms that have been tried from time to time

Yet it is misleading only advertising that Brazilians do not think democracy is very good as if Brazilians were a bunch of savages ready to dismantle democracy institutions.
Brazil's democracy is solid.

The most important poll is their vote, which demonstrates that their revealed preference is little fascist Capt. Bolsonaro.

Many times, President Captain Bolsonaro said he opposes fascism.

How many helicopter rides is Bolsonaro going to sponsor when he becomes president?

Latin America has a history of the "caldero" or strongman being popular, starting with Porfirio Díaz (ruled 1876-1911) in Mexico, if not before. It's all good if they can deliver growth via market oriented policies such as practiced by the dictator Pinochet. Or so it's said.

Question for the group: do people really value growth, or freedom? I say freedom. Because look at Nigeria: if they valued growth they'd have elected to remain a British colony or commonwealth; same for most of Africa. But they valued freedom more. Same with Bernie Sanders supporters: if they valued growth they'd vote for [fill in here] not Sanders. Same with most of you reading this: if you valued growth you'd be up in arms--akin to misguided silver bug agitation during the gold standard era and W. J. Bryan--over better patent laws, and AlexT type prize funds to increase innovation and productivity (down since the Great Recession). But you're not. You value not increasing the size of the economic pie, but making the slices more equal. Typical IQ 80-120 response. A predictable chess move.

People value physical integrity and autonomy. Freeedum isn't a very useful concept. Neither is growf.

For example I value not having my wife’s black boyfriend coming over every night but there’s not a damn thing I can do about it, so I come and post on this blog to forget.

Caudillo, Ray, Caudillo. A caldero is a pot.

Ray was thinking of "tin pot dictators."

People value riches and a good life. The reason why Nigeria became independent was because a group of locals wanted to rule.

I would say it goes back further than that. Gran Colombia, Colombia, Venezuela, Bolivia, Ecuador during and after the spanish-american wars of independence. Isn't it exactly what Simon Bolivar predicted as the outcome for the people's of spanish-america were they to win their wars of independence.

'and address in the coldest, most factual terms possible how Bolsonaro might work to fix Brazil’s worst-ever economic crisis and a homicide epidemic that killed a record 63,880 people in 2017'

Maybe he will crib his policies from the same place that the AfD's Gauland cribs his speeches from.

Or maybe not - 'This is after all Bolsonaro’s number-one policy priority: relaxing laws and rules for security forces, allowing them to shoot first and ask questions later (to an even greater extent than today, considering police already kill 5,000 people per year).' German security forces over the past century have never really followed such policies, apart from those stationed along the wall defending East Germany from the fascists. (Well, that is what the DDR said, make of it what you will.)

It is stupid to refer to Latin America as if it is done coherent super state. Brazil is very different from Mexico which is different from Argentina which is different from Peru.

Brazil has the same problem of the rest of the African diaspora - a low IQ coupled with a propensity for violence - perhaps low impulse control. There is a massive, violent, low-IQ black underclass in Brazil. Perhaps it needs a strong man who takes a hard line with this large population of violent dumb criminals.

It is not true. According to Brazilian research, the Brazilian IQ is high. Most of the violent issue is dueto bad laws and foreign guns.

I wish Brazilians would stop seducing upper-middle-class NYC women with fighting-dance classes (I forget the name of it -- you know, those slinky wiggly kicks that go over your dance-partner's head)? It's not fair -- our women can't resist that stuff. Plus these women then go and get sexy tattoos. This is just Wrong. So tell your guys to cut this out, okay, Thiago? Oh -- now I remember: it's called "Capoiera" or something like that.


Foreign guns aim and pull their own triggers at innocent victims?

No, they are sold to criminals. The point is, Brazil shares miles and miles of borders with unstable countries. Some instability spills over. President-elect Bolsonaro, however, has vouched to strenghten border security, deal with refugees and crush gangs.

>According to Brazilian research, the Brazilian IQ is high.

Yeah, but knowing them, they probably read the results upside-down.

No, they didn't. They have high IQ.

Leading scientists have also shown that Brazilians have brains that are 40% larger than American caucasian brains.

Who's a bigger genius Bolsonaro or Trump?

Obviously Bolsonaro, because his Brazilian brain is proven to be much larger than an American one.

The 8% figure it's quite misleading:

55% of Brazilians said democracy is "total good", 8% said it is "very good" and 33% said it is "total bad".

That 33% figure is certainly a matter of concern but it does not paint the picture of a country massively against democracy.

Yes. A even more recent poll says 69% of Brazilians believe democracy is the best political regime.

I'm actually disappointed at Tyler for not seeing this through before publishing, makes me doubt his judgement.

'makes me doubt his judgement'

He is unconcerned about that - though if the people behind his moon shot operations ever grew to doubt his judgment, that would definitely be concerning in his eyes.

It is sad to see hiw deep the anti-Brazilan prejudice runs even among people who should know better. Brazil is a stable, peaceful democracy.

Prwsident Captain Bolsonaro has vouched to keep democratic institutions and hear the people's voice.

He will fight crime, oppose drug dealing, oppose corrupt dealings, block any atempt of introducing abortion or chuch taxing in Brazil, allow every family to have a gun, fight the gay mafia, fight the Native Brazilian lobby, fight the quilombola (descendents of former Black slaves settlers) lobby, militarize public schools (America's police magnet schools can be a model), oppose Red China's influence ("Red China can by from Brazil, not buy Brazil") and sell state assets.

For the resident Brasilophile who works favorable impressions of Brazil into any and every post, it's not surprising you see it this way.

Your comments are a walking, talking example of Mood Affiliation. You are indistinguishable from a paid Brazilian government propagandist.

"You are indistinguishable from a paid Brazilian government propagandist."

No, I am not. And the difference is simple (although I do not expect you to understand): I have principles, I am not paid to say what I say.
By the way, the Brazilian government did not support President-elect Bolsonaro's presidential run. Government's candidate was millionary banker Meirelles.
Brazil has declared in one voice: "We will not go quietly into the night! We will not vanish without a fight! We’re going to live on! We’re going to survive!"
President-elect Bolsonaro's motto is, "Brazil above everything; God above everyone".

Yes, it is hard to take Thiago seriously most time but here he is right. Brazil has a pretty stable democracy, at least compared to the rest of AL and the world for that matter. Bolsonaro is a Trumpian figure but I do believe he can be a major improvement over the current let wing who has had power for the last 90 years (Brazil still deals with *a lot* of crap left by 1930s reforms done by a FDR like figure named Getulio). So yes, the poll referred here is misleading.

Doctor Getúlio Vargas was actually a centrist figure. He was supported by a large coalition. It was a popular front of Southern and Northeastern farmers, the Catholic Church (if I am not wrong, Archbishop Leme presided the states' flags burning ceremony which marked the power centralization under the new regime), unions, public servants, intellectuals, military officers and entrepreneurs. It was a national salvation government created to deal with the '29 Crash and its aftermath. Brazil overcame the world crisis without resorting to the extremes Nazi Germany, Fascist Italy, New Deal's America and the Soviet Union did.

Evidently, the status quo needs refoms. President-elect Capatain Bolsonaro will block taxes raises, block Chinese investments, militarize public schools and sell unprofitable state companies. More important, he will fight crime, send back refugees and pass stricter laws. He is studying adopting America's three strikes laws and make easier to honest people buy and use guns.

Thiago IS a paid propagandist. Otherwise, he could not afford internet access in his glass bottle favela.

No, I am not. And I do not live in a favela. I live in a lovely college town.

I love Brazil, Brazilian culture, and the Brazilian people. Sadly, Brazil, like the USA, is suffering the consequences of African slavery. Approximately 6 million African slaves were brought to the Americas - 2 million to Brazil and 500,000 to North America. The pathologies in the African-American and Afro-Brazilian communities are partially the result of slavery, and the difference in scale between the USA and Brazil are proportional to the number of imported African slaves.

Trajectories, histories, and contingencies matter.

@TR - you don't really like Brazil do you? It's clear from your parody posts. Why don't you like Brazilian bounty and booty? There was a black Brazilian girl in Greece, she was very fat, arrogant, sad, I tried to strike a conversation with her but she would not talk. After about a year she left back to her home country. I think she was homesick.

Brazil is the only important country in the world that nwver fought a war of aggression. It invented the airplane, the typewriter, the Walkman, the caller ID and dicovered the pion.

I realized some time ago that he was Peruvian.

Haha! good one peri. It explains why TR implicitly disses the Brazilians, he's a Peruvian! Good catch. Sometimes when I misbehave I tell people I'm Turkish, even though I'm a Greek. Misdirection!

A strongman leader takes a hard view of all crime but his own.

We see that here. Local cops are celebrated, but the FBI is maligned. Pure situational logic, motivated thinking. Sadly though, a certain sort follows along.

Take off the Trump goggles, bro. The world will be a lot clearer when not seen thorough your hatred of Trump.

No goggles, no goggles, you have the goggles.

Joking aside everything I said is accurate. Which do you want links for, Trump stroking local law enforcement, or Trump claiming that the FBI is terrible?

The FBI is of questionable Constitutional provenance and exists as much for its own aggrandizement and to settle political scores as for any actual police function.

I guess in retrospect Arnold had to be messing with us. The referenced article talks about Trumpism, Tyler quotes the bit about "the Brazilian Trump."

It is not unreasonable to allude to the actual Trump and his practices.

On the FBI itself, right now it is a hundred and ten year old institution of United States government. It has a good record of doing useful things, like stopping terrorists.

That is not to say it is always been perfect for the oversight is unreasonable, but the goal here should be to strengthen the institution, if not just simply reject Politically Incorrect results.

Er. That is not to say it is always been perfect OR THAT oversight is unreasonable, but the goal here should be to strengthen the institution, AND not just simply reject Politically Incorrect results

I think a Bolsonaro victory is going to be very good for growth which tends to actually spur pro-democracy sentimate - which ends up killing growth. It’s a vicious cycle, as most serious economists now realize we need to limit or jettison democracy to have real growth.

Maybe we need a unicorn chaser,

Don't Be A Sucker, America, 1947

"Most independent experts warn such an approach [giving police carte blanche to kill criminals] is doomed..."

Well, the Brazilian people tried it the experts' way. Let's let them experiment with another way and see which one works better.

I actually think the Bolsonaro way IS the way that most experts would recommend doing things now. Most business leaders and economists favour Bolsonaro over Hadad.

Yes. President-elect Captain Bolsonaro's victory led to a stock market rally.

Democracy is rule by the majority. The end. If the voters elect an authoritarian executive, it's still democracy. Brazilians are tired of criminality and a culture that indulges its cruder, marginal elements. God bless the Brazilian people. Don't want a Reich, don't allow a Weimar.

Interestingly, in long ago Anglo-America, the franchise was restricted and government was a lot smaller; the frontier-capitalists who founded the place liked it that way. But I never see libertarians arguing for 1) less voters, and 2) more frontier.

On the contrary I think libertarianism is pretty much at the forefront of restrictive voting advocacy. See Bryan Caplan for example.

Yes, the man who complains about voters' anti-foreign bias and brags about living in a Bubble.

It's probably a little too tangential. I don't see Caplan as intellectually consistent. He just autistically insists on less government, but doesn't argue for concrete measures, like fewer voters or a smaller tax base.

We have the 2nd as a remedy.

On average, democracies are much more libertarian than non-democracies. Restricting the franchise to an elite works sometimes, but most of the time leads to the elite using the government to keep everyone else down. Even the early US had smaller government, but was less libertarian than the government today in many pretty important dimensions (slavery, Indian removal, wars for territory, etc.). And getting “more frontier” means aggression and conquest, pretty much the opposite of libertarianism.

I could see the argument that slavery was private, but what is the argument for Indian removal?

The argument would be that the indigenous hunter-gatherers didn't have a civil order that recognized legal title to land.

Basically, classical international law, which is anarchic, not civic. So if the sovereign British Empire destroys the sovereign Iroquois Federation, then that's that. There's no High Court of Sovereigns to adjudicate the matter.

That line of reasoning suggests that all property rights come from the government. Libertarians generally believe that property rights are moral rights that individuals have, even in the state of nature.

I’m so beta.

That's why libertarians are children who live in ideological daycare centers. In the state of nature you have whatever rights you can afford, and only the rights you can afford. Relations between sovereigns are anarchic not civic, whether the sovereigns are individuals or nation-states.

I think the people least ready for anarcho-capitalism will be the anarcho-capitalists themselves.

Not that it matters, as there will never be anarcho-capitalism on a scale larger than a city block.

The multi-billionaires have run out of things to buy. Eventually they'll just buy countries. Commercial syndicates will take over territories abandoned by democratic governments unable to maintain order. They will negotiate infrastructure and sojourners' rights and form alliances which, over time, will become hereditary.

Hey I like sci-fi too but none of that is going to happen.

No. I am deeply inclined to libertarianism. But most cultures aren't amenable to it, and it depends very heavily on having exit rights to a frontier. I am quite jaded by the libertarian movement signing on for State-enforced multiculturalism, and filling the place up so there will be literally no area left in the US where people can say they're taking their ball and going home.

Expressions of faith in democracy remind me of expressions of faith in Jesus. Don't get wrong. Some of my best friends are hypocrites.

Life in the USA could become much more free under a military dictatorship -- freedom of association could be restored. Only a military dictator could get rid of all the laws and regulations that now prevent people from freely associating (and from freely declining association, which is the flip-side of the same thing).

This is an insightful comment. It took Pinochet to dismantle the leftist machine in Chile. It would take a dictator in the US to dismantle the unconstitutional social welfare state and substantial infringements on liberty.

Restrictions on liberty appear to have a ratchet effect.

Which country is more socialist/liberty-constrained today, Chile or the US?

Chile is on par with the US, with lower tax incidence and better public finances.|unitedstates&src=ranking

And yet, you and Willitts would never live there.

I don't speak Spanish. But I'd consider it.

My querida linda objects to Brazil’s compulsory voting requirements. Don’t vote, get fined. She was not happy with the first round candidates and less happy with the second round. I ask her how she would like not having the first round and she says she would prefer a system where she wasn’t forced to vote. She says the candidates should have to earn her vote. From this I gather everything is relative. Maybe the grass is greener, but I would prefer Brazilian elections to my gerrymandered district in which the incumbent doesn’t even need to campaign.

Voting is a civic duty.

Yes, and I imagine compulsory voting keeps registration rolls accurate thereby reducing voting fraud. Brazil has bee a global leader in participative budgeting, so I wonder if dissatisfaction with civic spending also gets transferred to irritation with democracy generally.

Yes. If one misses three elections in a row (every two years, there are elections), one is stricken from the rolls. People who did not registered their fingerprint at the electronic database were stricken from the records, too -- at least three million people.

I think there is the feeling things are not going so well as they used to.

Waaal, if their politicians quit spinning their wheels and could manage to build institutions which could successfully combat the horrendous street crime the country suffers, the broad public might think better of elected officials. Just a suggestion.

I wish someone would stick up for then cucks like me!

Does constitutional democracy lose its appeal today because egalitarianism is perceived to have begun losing all of its cogency as a political ideal?

Is our politics shifting (however belatedly) from 18th century idealism to 21st century "realism"?

--or will Americans be forced to reckon with this shift from political idealism to a "realistic" political economy by formally overhauling the US Constitution (which would constitute a timely overhaul: Rome's travels from the establishment of the Roman Republic through the Patrician Era to the end of the "Conflict of the Orders" lasted all of 222 years [509 BC to 287 BC]).

The Kavanaugh Episode shows us amply the dire need for a Constitutional overhaul: I note that NOT ONE COMMENTATOR of any stripe has dared to mention such a thing over the past six or eight weeks. Not even our US population of cosmopolitan sophisticates inhabiting the DC-to-Boston Corridor has yet publicly broached (within my hearing) the prospect of the Constitutional overhaul Americans surely face well before the end of this century.

But if you want constitutional reform of the judiciary, here is a modest proposal I posted on Arnold Kling’s blog about a week ago:

I can’t work up too much interest one way or the other. Not invested at all in Kavanaugh, but not wholly sympathetic to the accuser, a university professor, either. Both seem to be elites to me, and the conflagration only confirms my priors about elites generally not being worthy of the immense powers with which they are entrusted.

There may be many other important considerations, but for me, the single most important thing that the supreme court nomination hearings going on this week signify is the need for constitutional reform of the judiciary in the United States.

The failure of the US constitution to adequately provide for the rule of law was proven nearly instantly upon its adoption by the case of Marbury v. Madison in which the supreme court, on its own initiative, threw out the principle of parliamentary sovereignty and arrogated to itself a legislative veto (misleadingly known as “judicial review”) that allows a majority of the court to declare whatever legislation they disagree with as “unconstitutional.”

This has led to the anarchy that is US constitutional law. Official supreme court interpretations of this simple document run to hunreds of thousands of pages. By any definition, this is not the rule of law.

Not surprisingly, this institutional barratry has also fattened the pockets of the US lawyers guild at the expense of the public.

This is why the appointment of a single justice is so fraught with hysteria. And given the apparent stakes of a single judicial appointment, it is not in the least surprising to see the US ranked as low as it is on various international rankings of judicial system quality.

The US Constitution provides but two short sections in Article III providing for a supreme court and authorizes other courts in Article II. In contrast, nations such as Denmark have much more substantial constitutional provisions relating to the courts.

Denmark’s consitition of 1953 provides:

Ҥ 59 (1) The High Court of the Realm shall consist of up to fifteen of the senior ordinary members of the highest court of justice in the Realm (according to length of office) and an equal number of members elected for six years by the Folketing according to proportional representation. One or more substitutes shall be elected for each elected member. No member of the Folketing shall be elected a member of the High Court of the Realm, nor shall a member of the Folketing act as a member of the High Court of the Realm. Where, in a particular instance, some of the members of the highest court of justice in the Realm are prevented from taking part in the trial of a case, an equal number of the members of the High Court of the Realm last elected by the Folketing shall retire from their seats. (2) The High Court of the Realm shall elect a president from among its members. (3) Where a case has been brought before the High Court of the Realm, the members elected by the Folketing shall retain their seats in the High Court of the Realm for the duration of such case, even if the period for which they were elected has expired. (4) Rules for the High Court of the Realm shall be provided by statute.
§ 60 (1) The High Court of the Realm shall try such actions as may be brought by the King or the Folketing against Ministers. (2) With the consent of the Folketing, the King may also cause other persons to be tried before the High Court of the Realm for crimes which he may deem to be particularly dangerous to the State.
§ 61 The exercise of judicial authority shall be governed only by statute. Extraordinary courts of justice with judicial authority shall not be established.
§ 62 The administration of justice shall always remain independent of executive authority. Rules to this effect shall be laid down by statute.
§ 63 (1) The courts of justice shall be empowered to decide any question relating to the scope of the executive’s authority; though any person wishing to question such authority shall not, by taking the case to the courts of justice, avoid temporary compliance with orders given by the executive authority. (2) Questions relating to the scope of the executive’s authority may by statute be referred for decision to one or more administrative courts, except that an appeal against the decision of the administrative courts shall be referred to the highest court of the Realm. Rules governing this procedure shall be laid down by statute.
§ 64 In the performance of their duties the judges shall be governed solely by the law. Judges shall not be dismissed except by judgement, nor shall they be transferred against their will, except in such cases where a rearrangement of the courts of justice is made. A judge who has completed his sixty-fifth year may, however, be retired, but without loss of income up to the time when he is due for retirement on account of age.
§ 65 (1) In the administration of justice all proceedings shall to the widest possible extent be public and oral. (2) Laymen shall participate in criminal proceedings. The cases and the form in which such participation shall take place, including which cases shall be tried by jury, shall be provided for by statute. ”

The US could do very well for itself by simply amending its constitution to strike the existing judicial provisions and replace them with a provision modeled after the Danish provision above.

But given the US’s lamentable judicial history, I would suggest further adding the following additional clauses to the Constitution:

To be eligible for appointment as a member of a court, an individual must demonstrate mastery of mathematics, the english language, microeconomics, and logic, by means of an objective multiple-choice examination the scores on which shall be publicly available prior to appointment.

Robes and other quasi-religious adornment shall not be worn by members of a court while acting in an official capacity. Members of a court are not deities, demigods, priests, holy persons, etc. Business casual as defined in statute shall be the required attire for a member of a court while acting in an official capacity.

In order to prevent the use of the courts from being used to plunder the public for the benefit of the legal guild, individuals who have trained, studied for, or been admitted to a bar association or other legal guild shall be ineligible to be appointed as a member of a court.

The Danes have an interesting system.

Given our population and the importance of decisions, we probably should have many more people on the court. A single, fairly long, fixed term might also be good. Then a fixed number chosen in each presidential term.

On the legislative side I would really like to rebalance the 50 states for more equal population, but like that's going to happen.

Or maybe something where Senators are more regional and balanced to population.

The appointment of a single justice is so fraught with hysteria because the federal government over time has eclipsed the states in terms of governing power. Let’s make federalism great again. Devolve governing power to the states, and people will care less what the federal government does. People already don’t care what dumb decision gets made in a state other than their own.

Also, I don’t want parliamentary sovereignty. The courts don’t always get it right when upholding or striking laws, but sometimes they strike laws correctly in important matters, such as in US v. Lopez, where Congress, under the guise of having authority under the Interstate Commerce Clause, tried to impose a nationwide ban on possessing a gun in a school zone. I’m fine with federal courts being a check on Congress and the President. These judges were appointed and confirmed by them in the first place, and they can be removed by Congress if they misbehave. Alternatively, amend the Constitution to have judges elected, like they are in many states.

That's my perspective. I want a night watchman state with a Supreme Court that adjudicates a few inter-branch or federal-State cases a year, like it was intended to do. I was told that was delusional and cruel, even racist. What about the children? The refugees? Abortion? Gay marriage? The furries? Who protects them?!

So I voted for a billionaire who despises my enemies. Kavanaugh's part of that team. Why would I punch Right against the Team?

The larger point is pretty significant. With whole urban counties more populous than most States, the urban majorities aren't going to abide by the Constitution's counter-majoritarian provisions forever. Simultaneously, I don't see the flyovers giving up their guns, God, and provincial loyalties for rule by the coastal elites. Congress is also hilariously under-populated in violation of Article I.

There are a lot of political and economic imbalances being overlooked in the hope that it will all work out somehow.

Plus I’m here having to mop up the c(_)m that my wife’s black boyfriend sprayed all over the bedroom last night. There ought to be a damn amendment!

Randy Barnett has been a singularly righteous advocate af a constitutional convention. Mark Levin has a book out advocating a con-con. Frank H. Buckley’s The Once and Future King demonstrates the complete superiority of parliamentary systems over presidential systems. And these are but three of our brightest luminaries.

Vice prwsident-elect General Mourão has said he wants a new Brazilian Constitution more in line with the new realities. Brazil's current Constitution was crafted during the Cold War.

Oooo Frank H. Buckley said ... so we should do it!


And nobody cares what Denmark doe. Denmark is a homogeneous nation of 2.5 million. What a joke!

"What To Expect from Jair Bolsonaro": "1. Bloodshed."

To be fair, Brazil has already seen horrific bloodshed. Supporting a stronger security crackdown on violence makes some sense.

There will be no bloodshed. President Captain Bolsonaro has vouched fight crime and jail criminals. He said, "I would rather have a jail full of criminals than a cemetery full of innocent people".

Bolsonaro is the manifestation of democracy: he is the first president that is actually explicit aligned with the values of it's people. Saying that his election is signs of danger for democracy is plain ignorance: The freaking communist Worker's Party ruled the country through its corrupt iron first for 14 years and now some foreign observers are saying that the election of a conservative politician who is tough on crime is a threat to democracy!

There was a conservative prior to Lula.

I do wish we could do something about the obvious impostors.

And when does clockwork_prior get back his original name, though I have forgotten it? The fig leaf has slipped.

These days, the happiest Brazilians are those who emigrated to Uruguay years ago.

Comments for this post are closed