À qual o autor da pergunta dá uma resposta errada, mas que é corrigida pelos comentadores, pelo que vale a pena ler tudo:
Uma, a primeira, mais recente, outra já com alguns dias, são dois passos simbólicos (e não só) num caminho com um destino que, por exemplo entre nós, ainda está distante: meter na cabeça que ser mulher não é ser menos.
“The thing that’s distinctive about state churches is that they exist to serve the whole of society, not just a small number of religiously committed people. For most of its history, that’s how the Church of England saw itself. In recent decades, however, it’s been dominated by people who wanted it to become an exclusive “sect” rather than an open, liberal church. The maintenance of male privilege was a major element in their strategy.
The fact that they have finally lost that battle is a significant victory for those who want to see the Church of England regain lost respect and serve the whole nation again. But there’s still a long way to go.”
“The European Court of Human Rights upheld France’s ban on face-concealing veils like the burqa and niqab on Tuesday as judges accepted the country’s argument that the ban is justified because it improves social interaction among citizens.”
Ou, por João Cardoso Rosas, “O (des)governo das Universidades“.
“Light finds the following patterns and characteristics in the dataset of significant government failures:
1.Most of the failures involved errors of omission, not commission.
2.Some failures were obviously more visible than others.
3.Vision with execution is the clear driver of success, just as its absence is an equation for failure.
4.Some of the stories contained elements of both success and failure.
5.The number of government failures has increased over time
6.There are differences between the five presidents in office during the failures. Government had four failures during Reagan’s final two-and-a-half years (1.6 per year), five during George H. W. Bush’s four years (1.2 per year), 14 during Clinton’s eight years (1.8 per year), 25 during George W. Bush’s eight years (3.1 per year), and 16 during Obama’s first five-and-a-half years (2.9 per year).
7.The differences are just large enough to suggest that government may be somewhat more likely to fail during the last few years of a two-term presidency, perhaps because presidents start to lose focus, appointees begin to turn over, the other party becomes more assertive, and the media becomes more aggressive.
8.Government had just 10 failures during the Bush administration’s first term (2.5 per year), but 15 failures during the administration’s second (3.8 per year). In turn, government had just eight failures during the Obama administration’s first term (2.0 per year), but matched its entire first-term total in just eighteen months of the second (5.3 per year).
9.These failures involved both oversight and operations.
10.More of the post-2001 government failures occurred during steady demand (27) than during surging demand (14), perhaps confirming the unconventional notion that surges sharpen organizational acuity.”
Chegou a nossa vez. Haverá poucos advogados de Lisboa, pois não são afectados. E haverá quem diga que estamos a defender o nosso trabalho, como se isso fosse criminoso ou estúpido, como acusam os médicos, os carteiros, os professores, os investigadores, os homens do lixo, os polícias, de defender o seu ordenado e as suas reformas. Como houve portadores da cédula profissional de advogado que, desconhecendo por certo o significado da palavra advogado, já disseram que a Ordem se deve preocupar em defender apenas os advogados e deixar a administração da justiça para outros, como se não fosse da tradição de muitos dos nossos mais ilustres e se não estivesse bem claro no nosso estatuto que constitui atribuição da Ordem defender o Estado de direito e os direitos, liberdades e garantias dos cidadãos e colaborar na administração da justiça.
Experimentem viver em Trás-os-Montes e ficar, sem apelo nem agravo, sem hospital, sem escola, sem junta de freguesia, sem correios e sem tribunal num raio de largas dezenas ou centenas de quilómetros e verão que agradecem que alguém, com capacidade para o fazer, vos defenda.
1. Is the BES case an isolated case in which problems had grown too big to be hidden any more? It may also foreshadow a changing supervisory regime, with the ECB gradually taking over, which changes supervisory incentives and increases the pressure on banks and supervisors to act. If the latter, will we be seeing more such instances happening in the next months?
2. How and how much will the BES case affect economic growth of Portugal? Hopes are it will be an instance of de-zombification, which improves growth prospects, but negative market reactions and spreading contagion could undermine growth instead, at least in the short run.
3. Will the relatively tough bail-in rules be implemented? If yes, will the system prove robust enough to withstand the shock or will financial nervousness increase? If no, will the Portuguese government eventually have to step in with state aid and how much will this undermine debt sustainability increasing market nervousness instead?
Overall, the current case is not only very interesting on its own right but even more so in its broader implications for Europe’s emerging banking union. Answers to the questions above will be crucial for Europe’s banking union.”
“O governo britânico vai criar nova legislação para dificultar a aquisição de empresas nacionais por parte de investidores estrangeiros. Em causa estão regras mais duras para garantir que são respeitados compromissos como o de manter postos de trabalho no país e também o direito de veto do Governo em certos negócios.”