PROJETO ESTÁDIOS EM HABITAÇÃO!

Architects Propose Converting World Cup Stadiums Into Affordable Housing

Arquitetos Propõe Converter Estádios da Copa em habitação acessível.

With the World Cup settled and its new stadiums emptied of fans, Brazil faces the question of how to best use these structures. According to a duo of French architects, turning the buildings into much-needed housing is a good answer.

Axel de Stampa and Sylvain Macaux of 1week1project have suggested that many of Brazil’s World Cup stadiums might be converted into low-cost housing. The transformation would require the insertion of prefabricated units of approximately 105 square meters (1,130 square feet) between existing, load-bearing pillars. According to their Casa Futebol proposal, it would contribute a significant amount of living space to host cities while still allowing use of the stadium as an athletic and event space, the proceeds of which could support maintenance.

While the plan may not be feasible as is, the idea is relevant; passionate protests concerning poor public services as well as the estimated $14 billion cost of the World Cup have rocked Brazil, drawing international attention to the increasing needs of its citizens.

Yet Brazil is only one of many places with the burden of trying to re-purpose large-scale facilities while off-setting an enormous tab. Russian officials are currently addressing the leftovers of the Sochi games, and claim to be experiencing success in transforming sports arenas into community resource. As photographers Jon Pack and Garv Hustwit explore in their project The Olympic City, cities such as Sarajevo, Atlanta, and Montreal have been forced to abandon structures ranging from statues to whole stadiums, leaving them to ruin.

Other cities have triumphed, however, in adapting large-scale architecture to their contemporary needs. Over the centuries, the city of Lucca, Italy absorbed the ancient Roman amphitheater at its center, filled it with commerce, and renamed it the Piazza San Michele. Similarly, Rome’s classical Theater of Marcellus currently houses (admittedly wealthy) residents in what were its upper rows of seating. More recently, architect Richard Rogers transformed Barcelona’s Las Arenas bullfighting arena into a high-end shopping center.

Brazil’s choices for handling its surplus of sports facilities are many, and, with any luck, its offers for good guidance will be, too.

EDUCAÇÃO NO BRASIL É RUIM, MAS NA ARGENTINA É PIOR!

In World Cup Of Education, Brazil Is Bad, But Argentina Is Worse. Na Copa da Educação, Brasil é ruim, mas a Argentina é muito pior.

EDUCAÇÃO:

Dos países que participam da Copa, aqui esta o ranking:
10º - Holanda 
15º - Bélgica
16º - Alemanha
25º - França
56º - Costa Rica
58º - Brasil
59º - Argentina
62º - Colômbia

QUEM FALA A VERDADE?

Obs: A Fonte é do (FORBES.com) Eles divulgaram que foram gastos, $14.1 bilhões com a Copa, e a suspeita de $1,2 de custo acima do orçamento. As perguntas são, porque no Brasil a maioria fala em $35 Bilhões? E porque esta notícias não chega aqui?

One of the underplayed sub-plots of this year’s World Cup is that many of those who vociferously protested on the streets of Brazil were doing so on behalf of better teacher pay and benefits. In other words, education was a huge subtext in this futbol-crazed country’s first World Cup since 1950. And beautiful, hilarious, resource-rich Brazil – which does not often register in American consciousness outside of Carnival, Amazon deforestation, and Gisele Bundchen – actually does want to be known around the world for more than soccer greatness. Especially now that their presumed stranglehold on this year’s Cup was surgically eviscerated, 7-1, by a superior German squad in last Tuesday’s semifinal in Sao Paulo.

But, as Brazilians now know, expectations for greatness do not always correlate with success. This is especially true when it comes to education. In no surprise to close Brazil watchers, on the eve of the 2014 World Cup, Brazilian protestors fulsomely, and often violently, argued that the record-breaking $14.1 billion that Brazil spent on staging the Copa Do Mundo — including a suspicious $1.2 billion cost overrun in building 12 new soccer stadiums – would have been better allocated towards building hospitals, public housing and, most urgently, schools and other education infrastructure.

The leftist government of the otherwise popular President Dilma Rousseff has been flat-footed in its response. To such an extent that now, with the distracting bread and circus of a Brazil World Cup triumph off the table,“Dilma” is in danger of being removed from office altogether.

The protesters have a point. FIFA officials often argue that a World Cup is an investment that offers dramatic boosts to business, infrastructure and prestige, with concomitant boosts in tourism. But is this the best possible use of such funds in nations like Brazil, just now emerging from decades of military rule and command economy corruption and stagnation? As education data collected on this year’s World Cup quarterfinalists point out, probably not.
____________________________________________

The Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development’s (OECD) Programme for International Student Assessment (PISA) collects global education data — including literacy, aptitude in science and mathematics, and state support — in more than 65 countries. Scores from standardized tests in each category are compiled and normalized to an average of 500 points each.

The 2012 data, the most recent made available by the OECD, are summarized in a collection of reports, as well as a master list ranking each country across academic and economic statistics.

Unfortunately, Brazil, a semifinalist at this year’s World Cup, showed dismal PISA results in elementary-level education. According to the OECD, when accounting for economic, social and cultural status, Brazil ranked among the lowest countries it measured in academic performance, particularly in mathematics. Moreover, self-confidence among Brazilian students ranked dead last.

The Brazilian government might attempt to atone for its poor academic standing and make the promised economic investments after the World Cup dust settles, but, according to the PISA analysis, for every unit of increased educational spending, Brazil ranked among the lowest in improvements of any country. These are troubling statistics for South America’s most populous country, given that the OECD reports Brazil as having one of the widest achievement gaps for students across socio-economic categories. In particular, the academic achievement gap between Brazil’s upper and lower classes, as well as between its immigrant and non-immigrant populations, is among the highest in the PISA rankings.

Sadly, on this head, Brazil — to put it in soccer terms — is clutching its shins in mock agony, blaming its own missteps on the challenges of overpopulation, “social disaffection,” and lack of qualified teaching staff in the country.

However, as Andrea Novais notes in a scathing report in The Brazil Business, the problem is primarily cultural: “almost 10% of the Brazilian population is completely illiterate … and 68% of the population is functionally illiterate. If we add these percentages, we will get to [a] stunning 78%, which corresponds to 150,053,666 Brazilians who are unable of  [sic] reading a text like this one (in Portuguese, of course) and making any meaning out of it. This scenario has led Brazil to an economic growth that was built upon a very fragile structure and that is now falling apart. Every year, millions of students graduate from secondary school without being able of [sic] writing an essay, solving basic Math problems or understanding basic concepts of sciences. And the most preoccupying aspect of all this is that it is socially acceptable. People know that there is a great probability that school will not teach them anything.”

The solution, at least for higher education — a large market even in a country with only 17 percent university enrollment (32% of  Brazilian undergrads are functionally illiterate) — has been relegated to for-profit entrepreneurs.

“The government has had no choice but to work with the private sector. It cannot meet the demand on its own,” Fernando Iunes, global head of investment banking for Brazil’s Itaú BBA, told the New York Times.

Brazil’s public universities are still highly regarded for their prestige and research quality. Moreover, tuition is free at public universities. Unfortunately, non-immigrant university students come disproportionally from Brazil’s upper class. In addition, generous research budgets and unionized work forces make the cost per student at public universities three and a half times as much as at private colleges.

PISA data for Colombia — Brazil’s intrepid victim in the World Cup quarterfinals — are disturbingly similar. Colombia ranks near or below Brazil on all individual rankings measured by the OECD, and last out of its fellow World Cup quarterfinalists. Costa Rica, a nation oft lauded for its high literacy rates and effective education system, still performs low on PISA rankings in terms of problem-solving, math and science proficiency.

Most shocking, World Cup finalist Argentina, a South American soccer powerhouse and  home country of soccer luminary Lionel Messi — and a nation much-heralded by its denizens for its “European” values and culture – performed near the bottom, scoring nearly 100 points below average on every single PISA assessment.

By contrast, World Cup quarterfinalist Belgium performed slightly above average in overall PISA academic rankings, and notably above World Cup finalist Germany (which also ranked above average in PISA statistics) across all individual measures.

The Netherlands – which faces off against a depleted and demoralized Brazil in Saturday’s third place match — also ranked high under PISA assessments, scoring better than the global average across all categories. One-third of students in the Netherlands attend government-supported private schools.

The United States, eliminated by Belgium in the Round of 16, functions as an at-or-below-average comparative for academic performance, scoring below-average in science and mathematics, but high in reading comprehension and student satisfaction. Just over one quarter of students in the US do not meet the PISA baseline for mathematics proficiency.

In order of overall scores, the Netherlands ranked highest out of the World Cup quarterfinalists in educational achievement, sitting at 10th out of the 65 countries assessed. Belgium ranked 15^th. Germany and France followed at 16^th and 25^th, respectively. European nations, all.

The gap widened dramatically for the World Cup’s Latin-American quarterfinalists. Costa Rica ranked 56^th, followed by Brazil at 58th and Argentina at 59th. Colombia trailed the pack at 62nd overall.

Matching its middling performance on the soccer pitch, the United States ranked 36^th in overall academic performance.

The achievement gap dividing World Cup contenders seems to imply no relationship between athleticism and scholarship. South Korea, Japan, and China — the highest academic performers according to OECD data — are not typically FIFA’s strongest competitors (though South Korea did reach the 2002 World Cup semifinals, which was played in Seoul).

Despite its global popularity, soccer, in particular, is not an indicator of education level. Olympic medals offer a slightly stronger correlation, but the relationship is, at best, loose.

What soccer does seem to tell us is that passion for sport can be powerful enough to elevate countries in at least one international spotlight.

If similar energy and support were funneled into other tools for social mobility, such as primary-level education, the results might be equally thrilling.

Citation # 015503331

Dear Mr. Reis,  May 30, 2014. 1:51 Pm

 

Please be advised that our office has contacted on your behalf with the San Francisco County Superior Court.  At that time we were successful at obtaining a dismissal in your matter and no further action is required at this point.

                 

You may now consider the matter closed and our representation ended. We would like to let you know that Mr. Uthman does do representation in all criminal matters, D.U.I.’s, and D.M.V. matters. We would also like to thank you for choosing David Uthman, Attorney at Law and the San Francisco Traffic Clinic for representation and ask that if you find yourself in need of legal counsel in the future you think of us.

 

Congratulations on the successful outcome of your case and thank you for your business. 

 

Truly yours,

 

Peixia Si

San Francisco Traffic Clinic

 

 

David Uthman, esq.
855 Bryant Street Suite 200
San Francisco, CA 94103
Phone: 415-556-9200
Fax: 415-556-9220
Website: http://www.nololawoffices.com/
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
THIS TRANSMISSION IS INTENDED FOR THE USE OF THE INDIVIDUAL OR ENTITY TO WHOM IT IS ADDRESSED AND MAY CONTAIN INFORMATION THAT IS PRIVILEGED, CONFIDENTIAL AND EXEMPT FROM DISCLOSURE UNDER APPLICABLE LAW. IF THE READER OF THIS TRANSMISSION IS NOT THE INTENDED RECIPIENT OR THE EMPLOYEE OR AGENT RESPONSIBLE FOR DELIVERY OF THE TRANSMISSION TO THE INTENDED RECIPIENT, YOU ARE HEREBY NOTIFIED THAT ANY DISSEMINATION OR COPYING OF THIS COMMUNICATION IS STRICTLY PROHIBITED. IF YOU HAVE RECEIVED THIS COMMUNICATION IN ERROR, PLEASE NOTIFY THE ABOVE NAMED TRANSMITTER BY EMAIL.

ANDREW'S SCHOOL BUS

My School Bus RideHaving fun!

 Inside the School Bus

 

O REAL DE FHC A DILMA

O aniversário do real e o valor do dinheiro. 

Os jornais publicam  matérias mostrando que a nota de 100 reais, lançada no Plano Real, por Fernando Henrique Cardoso, hoje vale apenas R$ 22.

É verdade! Então vamos fazer as contas?

A inflação, claro, come o valor do dinheiro.

Então, vamos lá na “Calculadora do Cidadão” do Banco Central ver como foi este processo de desvalorização, para saber quanto aquela nota perdeu em cada governo.

Mas não esqueça de fazer a outra conta, tão importante ou mais, que é a de quanto dinheiro (o de papel e o verdadeiro, que é o seu poder de compra) recebe.

Acompanhe com atenção.

A azulada pelega de 100 de FHC, em fevereiro de 2002, oito anos depois de sua estréia, tinha sido vítima de uma inflação de 143,3%.

Para comprar o mesmo que os 100 reais de 94,  seriam precisos 243,29 reais.

A nota de 100, portanto,  valia  41,11 reais.

No governo Lula, aqueles R$ 41,11 também perderam valor, é claro.

Até fevereiro de 2011 – iguais oito anos – a inflação pelo IPCA foi de 65,37%.

E a cédula de R$ 100, que já começou este período valendo somente R$ 41,11, desvalorizou-se para R$ 24,85.

No governo Dilma, com a inflação de 19,74% acumulada até fevereiro e mais 6% de inflação estima da até fevereiro de 2015, a perda será de 27,1%, aproximadamente.

O que faria aquela nota de R$ 100, que FHC transformou em R$ 41, que baixou com Lula a R$ 25, vá chegar, ao final do período Dilma, valendo R$ 19,56.

Se eu fosse fazer uma conta desonesta – não sei onde já se viu fazer contas desonestas na imprensa brasileira, né? – poderia dizer que Fernando Henrique tirou 59 reais da nota, ou R$ 7,37 por ano, enquanto Lula tirou bem menos, 26 reais ou R$ 3,66 por ano, e Dilma, em quatro anos, perto de R$ 4,50, ou R$ 1,10 por ano.

Mas não é assim que se avalia, exceto quando se quer fazer comparações desonestas.

O certo é dizer que FHC fez a nota perder 59% de seu valor, ou seja 6 por cento ao ano, em oito anos.

Que Lula assistiu a uma redução de 39,4% do seu valor, em oito anos, o que dá  4,2% ao ano.

E que Dilma a viu reduzir-se em  21,3%, ou 4,9% ao ano, em quatro anos.

Um pouco acima de Lula, bem abaixo de FHC.

Agora, a trajetória do dinheiro real, para milhões de trabalhadores, aposentados, pensionistas e avulsos: o salário mínimo.

No final do Governo FHC ele era pago com duas daquelas notas de cem reais que, como vimos, valiam R$ 41,11. Então, em valor deflacionado, valia R$ 82,22.

A história de que Fernando Henrique deu ganho real ao salário mínimo está apoiada precariamente no fato de ele ter “herdado” quatro meses de salário a R$ 80, fixado por ele mesmo no finzinho do Governo Itamar Franco.

Já no final do Governo Lula, em 2010, o salário mínimo era de R$ 510, ou pouco mais que cinco notas de cem. Como, no fim deste período, cada uma destas notas tinha valor real de R$ 25, isso equivalia, em dinheiro “forte” do início do real a R$ 127, 50, ou 55% mais do que aqueles R$ 82,22 que Fernando Henrique deixou como herança.

E com Dilma, o que temos hoje?

O salário mínimo passa de sete notas de cem: 7,24 delas, precisamente. Como cada uma delas valerá R$ 19,56, isso dá R$ 141,61, sempre naquele “real forte” do início do plano.

Em percentagem: 11% mais que no final do Governo Lula e 72% mais que no final do Governo Fernando Henrique.

Esta é a verdadeira medida do poder de compra.

Não apenas o da moeda, mas o da moeda que se recebe.

O que, no caso de quem trabalha, chama-se salário.

Mas salário não é santo do altar dos nossos economista, mais devotos do “santo tripé” macroeconômico, não é?