Coca-Colla boliviana: de verdade

Coca dos índios Colla - na real. O novo refrigerante feito de folhas de coca começou a ser vendido esta semana na Bolívia, segundo informa o jornal The Guardian.

As primeiras 12 mil garrafas de Coca-Colla já estão sendo distribuídas em algumas das principais cidades do país. A bebida gasosa de cor preta vem numa garrafa de meio litro com um rótulo vermelho que lembra muito sua rival mais velha do norte - que, ao que parece, ainda não se manifetsou oficialmente sobre o lançamento.

Se a bebida energizante vingar, a produção de coca deve aumentar na Bolívia, para desgosto de quem contava com a elimação da tradicional planta boliviana. Um garrafa de meio litro de Coca-Colla sai por aproximadamente R$ 2,60.

Como tirar dinheiro dos moradores de favelas

Matéria da Folha Online de hoje mostra vídeos em que pastor da Igreja Universal ensina como tirar dinheiro das pessoas. De quebra, ele expõe a visão da igreja sobre o envolvimento de policiais com o crime. O vídeo, que foi entregue ao Ministério Público por um pastor, mostra uma videoconferência transmitida de São Paulo para todo o Brasil. O bispo Romualdo Panceiro, que aparece nas imagens, é o segundo homem da Universal depois do bispo Macedo.

Em vídeo, Bispo da Universal ensina a arrecadar durante a crise

Chocante?

E quem vigia o WikiLeaks?

Isso é o que pergunta o jornal The Guardian sobre o site que tem revelado diversos documentos secretos, e que divulgou o vídeo em que helicóptero dos EUA massacra civis no Iraque.



Who watches WikiLeaks?

This week a classified video of a US air crew killing unarmed Iraqis was seen by millions on the internet. But for some, the whistleblowing website itself needs closer scrutiny

Chris McGreal in Washington
guardian.co.uk, Friday 9 April 2010 21.28 BST
Article history

It has proclaimed itself the "intelligence service of the people", and plans to have more agents than the CIA. They will be you and me.

WikiLeaks is a long way from that goal, but this week it staked its claim to be the dead drop of choice for whistleblowers after releasing video the Pentagon claimed to have lost of US helicopter crews excitedly killing Iraqis on a Baghdad street in 2007. The dead included two Reuters news agency staff. The release of the shocking footage prompted an unusual degree of hand-wringing in a country weary of the Iraq war, and garnered WikiLeaks more than $150,000 in donations to keep its cash-starved operation on the road.

It also drew fresh attention to a largely anonymous group that has outpaced the competition in just a few short years by releasing to the world more than a million confidential documents from highly classified military secrets to Sarah Palin's hacked emails. WikiLeaks has posted the controversial correspondence between researchers at East Anglia University's Climatic Research Unit and text messages of those killed in the 9/11 attacks.

WikiLeaks has promised to change the world by abolishing official secrecy. In Britain it is helping to erode the use of the courts to suppress information. Its softly spoken Australian director, Julian Assange, was recently in Iceland, offering advice to legislators on new laws to protect whistleblowers.

Assange, who describes what he does as a mix of hi-tech investigative journalism and advocacy, foresees a day when any confidential document, from secret orders that allow our own governments to spy on us down to the bossy letters from your children's school, will be posted on WikiLeaks for the whole world to see. And that, Assange believes, will change everything.
But there are those who fear that WikiLeaks is more like an intelligence service than it would care to admit – a shadowy, unaccountable organisation that tramples on individual privacy and other rights. And like so many others who have claimed to be acting in the name of the people, there are those who fear it risks oppressing them.

Assange has a shock of white hair and an air of conspiracy about him. He doesn't discuss his age or background, although it is known that he was raised in Melbourne and convicted as a teenager of hacking in to official and corporate websites. He appears to be perpetually on the move but when he stops for any length of time it is in Kenya. Almost nothing is said about anyone else involved with the project.

WikiLeaks was born in late 2006. Its founders, who WikiLeaks says comprised mostly Chinese dissidents, hackers, computer programmers and journalists, laid out their ambitions in emails inviting an array of figures with experience dealing with secret documents to join WikiLeak's board of advisers. Among those approached was the inspiration for the project, Daniel Ellsberg, the US military analyst who leaked the Pentagon papers about the Vietnam war to the New York Times four decades ago.

"We believe that injustice is answered by good governance and for there to be good governance there must be open governance," the email said. "New technology and cryptographic ideas permit us to not only encourage document leaking, but to facilitate it directly on a mass scale. We intend to place a new star in the political firmament of man." The email appealed to Ellsberg to be part of the "political-legal defences" the organisers recognised they would need once they started to get under the skin of governments, militaries and corporations: "We'd like … you to form part of our political armour. The more armour we have, particularly in the form of men and women sanctified by age, history and class, the more we can act like brazen young men and get away with it."

Others were approached with a similar message. WikiLeaks organisers suggested that it "may become the most powerful intelligence agency on earth". Its primary targets would be "highly oppressive regimes in China, Russia and central Eurasia, but we also expect to be of assistance to those in the west who wish to reveal illegal or immoral behaviour in their own governments and corporations."

But the group ran in to problems even before WikiLeaks was launched. The organisers approached John Young, who ran another website that posted leaked documents, Cryptome, and asked him to register the WikiLeaks website in his name. Young obliged and was initially an enthusiastic supporter but when the organisers announced their intention to try and raise $5m he questioned their motives, saying that kind of money could only come from the CIA or George Soros. Then he walked away.

"WikiLeaks is a fraud," he wrote in an email when he quit. "Fuck your cute hustle and disinformation campaign against legitimate dissent. Same old shit, working for the enemy." Young then leaked all of his email correspondence with WikiLeak's founders, including the messages to Ellsberg.

Despite this sticky start, WikiLeaks soon began making a name for itself with a swathe of documents and establishments started kicking back.

Two years ago, a Swiss bank persuaded a US judge to temporarily shut down the WikiLeaks site after it published documents implicating the Julius Bare bank in money laundering and tax evasion. That revealed WikiLeaks' vulnerability to legal action and it sought to put itself beyond the reach of any government and court by moving its primary server to Sweden which has strong laws to protect whistleblowers. Since then the Australian government has tried to go after WikiLeaks after it posted a secret list of websites the authorities planned to ban, and members of the US Congress demanded to know what legal action could be taken after the site revealed US airport security manuals. Both discovered there was nothing they could do. It's been the same for everyone from the Chinese government to the Scientologists.

Yet WikiLeaks worries more than just those with an instinctive desire for secrecy. Steven Aftergood, who has published thousands of leaked documents on the Secrecy News blog he runs for the Federation of American Scientists, turned down an invitation to join WikiLeaks board of advisers.

"They have acquired and published documents of extraordinary significance. I would say also that WikiLeaks is a response to a genuine problem, namely the over control of information of public policy significance," he says. Yet he also regards WikiLeaks as a threat to individual liberties. "Their response to indiscriminate secrecy has been to adopt a policy of indiscriminate disclosure. They tend to disregard considerations of personal privacy, intellectual property as well as security," he says.

"One of the things I find offensive about their operations is their willingness to disclose confidential records of religious and social organisations. If you are a Mormon or a Mason or a college girl who is a member of a sorority with a secret initiation ritual then WikiLeaks is not your friend. They will violate your privacy and your freedom of association without a second thought. That has nothing to do with whistleblowing or accountability. It's simply disclosure for disclosure's sake." Aftergood's criticism has angered WikiLeaks. The site's legal advisor, Jay Lim, wrote to Aftergood two years ago warning him to stop. "Who's side are you on here Stephen? It is time this constant harping stopped," Lim said. "We are very disappointed in your lack of support and suggest you cool it. If you don't, we will, with great reluctance, be forced to respond."

WikiLeaks has also infuriated the author, Michela Wrong, who was horrified to discover her book exposing the depths of official corruption in Kenya, It's Our Turn To Eat, was pirated and posted on WikiLeaks in its entirety on the grounds that Nairobi booksellers were reluctant to sell it for fear of being sued under Kenya's draconian libel laws.

Wrong was angry because, while she supports what WikiLeaks is about, the book is not a government document and is freely available across the rest of the world. From email distribution lists she could see that the pirated version was being emailed among Kenyans at home and abroad. "I was beside myself because I thought my entire African market is vanishing," says Wrong. "I wrote to WikiLeaks and said, please, you're going to damage your own cause because if people like me can't make any money from royalties then publishers are not going to commission people writing about corruption in Africa." She is not sure who she was communicating with because the WikiLeaks emails carried no identification but she assumes it was Assange because of the depth of knowledge about Kenya in the replies.

"He was enormously pompous, saying that in the interests of raising public awareness of the issues involved I had a duty to allow it to be pirated. He said: 'This book may have been your baby, but it is now Kenya's son.' That really stuck in my mind because it was so arrogant," she says. "On the whole I approve of WikiLeaks but these guys are infuriatingly self-righteous." WikiLeaks does apparently expect others to respect its claims to ownership. It has placed a copyright symbol at the beginning of its film about the Iraq shootings.

Assange has countered criticism over some of the material on the site by saying that WikiLeak's central philosophy is "no censorship". He argues that the organisation has to be opaque to protect it from legal attack or something more sinister. But that has also meant that awkward questions – such as a revelation in Mother Jones that some of those it claims to have recruited, including a former representative of the Dalai Lama, and Noam Chomsky, deny any relationship with WikiLeaks – are sidestepped.

Despite repeated requests for a response to the issues raised by Aftergood, Wrong and others, WikiLeaks' only response was an email suggesting to call a number that went to a recording saying it was not in service.

NYT tenta justificar massacre de tropas dos EUA

Pois então o New York Times invoca a psicologia e a ciência cognitiva para tentar justificar o massacre cometido pelos soldados dos EUA e mostrado no vídeo divulgado pelo WikiLeaks.org.




Psychologists Explain Iraq Airstrike Video
By BENEDICT CAREY
Published: April 7, 2010

The sight of human beings, most of them unarmed, being gunned down from above is jarring enough.

But for many people who watched the video of a 2007 assault by an Army Apache helicopter in Baghdad, released Monday by WikiLeaks.org, the most disturbing detail was the cockpit chatter. The soldiers joked, chuckled and jeered as they shot people in the street, including a Reuters photographer and a driver, believing them to be insurgents.

“Look at those dead bastards,” one said. “Nice,” another responded.

In recent days, many veterans have made the point that fighters cannot do their jobs without creating psychological distance from the enemy. One reason that the soldiers seemed as if they were playing a video game is that, in a morbid but necessary sense, they were.

“You don’t want combat soldiers to be foolish or to jump the gun, but their job is to destroy the enemy, and one way they’re able to do that is to see it as a game, so that the people don’t seem real,” said Bret A. Moore, a former Army psychologist and co-author of the forthcoming book “Wheels Down: Adjusting to Life After Deployment.”

Military training is fundamentally an exercise in overcoming a fear of killing another human, said Lt. Col. Dave Grossman, author of the book “On Killing: The Psychological Cost of Learning to Kill in War and Society,” who is a former Army Ranger.

Combat training “is the only technique that will reliably influence the primitive, midbrain processing of a frightened human being” to take another life, the colonel writes. “Conditioning in flight simulators enables pilots to respond reflexively to emergency situations even when frightened.”

The men in the Apache helicopter in the video flew into an area that was being contested, during a broader conflict in which a number of helicopters had been shot down.

Several other factors are on display during the 38-minute video, said psychologists in and out of the military. (A shortened 17-minute version of the video has been viewed about three million times on YouTube.)

Soldiers and Marines are taught to observe rules of engagement, and throughout the video those in the helicopter call base for permission to shoot. But at a more primal level, fighters in a war zone must think of themselves as predators first — not bait. That frame of mind affects not only how a person thinks, but what he sees and hears, especially in the presence of imminent danger, or the perception of a threat.

The fighters in the helicopter say over the radio that they are sure they see a “weapon,” even though the Reuters photographer, Namir Noor-Eldeen, is carrying a camera.

“It’s tragic that this all begins with the apparent mistaking of a camera” for a weapon, said David A. Dunning, a psychologist at Cornell University. “But it’s perfectly understandable with what we know now about context and vision. Take the same image and put it in a bathroom, and you swear it’s a hair dryer; put it in a workshop, and you swear it’s a power drill.”

To a soldier or a pilot, it can look like life or death. “I worked with medevac pilots, and vulnerability is a huge issue for them,” Dr. Moore said.

The video does show that the second object that the soldiers identified as a weapon was a rocket-propelled grenade, or R.P.G. “An R.P.G. can take them down in a second,” Dr. Moore said.

After the helicopter guns down a group of men, the video shows a van stopping to pick up one of the wounded. The soldiers in the helicopter suspect it to be hostile and, after getting clearance from base, fire again. Two children in the van are wounded, and one of the soldiers remarks, “Well, it’s their fault for bringing their kids into a battle.”

Here again, psychologists say, when people are intensely focused on observing some specific feature of the landscape, they may not even see what is obvious to another observer. The classic demonstration of this is a video in which people toss around a basketball; viewers told to count the number of passes rarely see a person in a gorilla suit who strolls into the picture, stops and faces the camera, and strolls out.

The soldiers were looking for combatants; experts say it is not clear they would have seen children, even if they should have.

The video’s emotional impact on viewers is also partly rooted in the combination of intimacy and distance it gives them, some experts said. The viewer sees a wider tragedy unfolding, in hindsight, from the safety of a desk; the soldiers are reacting in real time, on high alert, exposed.
In recent studies, researchers have shown that such distance tempts people to script how they would act in the same place, and overestimate the force of their own professed moral principles.
“We don’t express our better angels as much as we’d like to think, especially when strong emotions are involved,” Dr. Dunning said. He added, “What another person does in that situation should stand as forewarning for what we would do ourselves.”

A version of this article appeared in print on April 8, 2010, on page A6 of the New York edition.