quarta-feira, 13 de abril de 2011

D. Zacarias Kamwenho


Zacarias Kamwenho (nasceu a 5 de Setembro de 1934, em Chimbumbu, município de Bailundo, Huambo), Arcebispo-Emérito de Lubango e activista da Paz. Ele teve um papel relevante no processo de paz que conduziu ao fim da guerra civil de Angola, sendo Presidente da Comissão Episcopal de Justiça e Paz da Conferência Episcopal de Angola e São Tomé e Príncipe.

Foi ordenado presbítero a 9 de Julho de 1961 e, desde logo, nomeado professor na Missão da Bela Vista (Nova Lisboa, actual Huambo) onde exerceu durante oito anos, tendo sido nomeado vice-reitor em 1970. Posteriormente foi nomeado Reitor do Seminário Maior do Cristo-Rei de Nova Lisboa (actual Huambo), acumulando a função de Vigário-Geral da Diocese de Nova Lisboa a 26 de Agosto de 1974.

Foi nomeado Bispo-auxiliar de Luanda a 23 de Novembro de 1974, altura em que recebeu a ordenação episcopal. A 10 de Agosto de 1975 foi promovido a Bispo-titular e residencial de Novo Redondo, actual Sumbe. A 12 de Novembro de 1995 foi colocado como coadjutor com direito a sucessão na Arquidiocese de Lubango, tendo, a 15 de Janeiro de 1997, sido nomeado titular da mesma arquidiocese pelo Papa João Paulo II, assumindo as funções de Arcebispo de Lubango a 2 de Fevereiro de 1997.

A 6 de Setembro de 2009, após ter completado 75 anos de idade passou a exercer o cargo de Arcebispo emérito de Lubango, sendo o seu sucessor na Arquidiocese de Lubango, Dom Gabriel Mbilingui.

Prémios:

Em 2001 foi um dos laureados com o Prémio Sakharov para a Liberdade de Pensamento, atribuído também a Nurit Peled-Elhanan (Israel) e a Izzat Ghazzawi (Palestina). Foi o primeiro eclesiástico, o segundo laureado de expressão portuguesa, depois de Xanana Gusmão, e o segundo africano, depois de Nelson Mandela, a receber o Prémio Sakharov.

Parabéns, D. Zacarias!

E por que será que nada disto se soube por aqui? É um prémio importantíssimo!
Bem, provavelmente nem se sabe da existência deste senhor.

Mas eu sei quem é...

terça-feira, 12 de abril de 2011

Versão original do anterior

Portugal has become a diversified and increasingly service-based economy since joining the European Community - the EU's predecessor - in 1986. Over the past two decades, successive governments have privatized many state-controlled firms and liberalized key areas of the economy, including the financial and telecommunications sectors. The country qualified for the Economic and Monetary Union (EMU) in 1998 and began circulating the euro on 1 January 2002 along with 11 other EU members. The economy had grown by more than the EU average for much of the 1990s, but fell back in 2001-08, and contracted 2.6% in 2009, before growing 1% in 2010. GDP per capita stands at roughly two-thirds of the EU-27 average. A poor educational system and a rigid labor market have been obstacles to greater productivity and growth. Portugal also has been increasingly overshadowed by lower-cost producers in Central Europe and Asia as a destination for foreign direct investment. Portugal's low competitiveness, low growth prospects, and high levels of public debt have made it vulnerable to bond market turbulence. The government is implementing austerity measures, including a 5% public salary cut which went into effect on January 1, 2011 and a 2% increase in the value-added tax, to reduce the budget deficit from 9.3% of GDP in 2009 to 4.6% in 2011, but some investors have expressed concern about the government's ability to achieve these targets and cover its sovereign debt. Without the option for stimulus measures, the government is focusing instead on boosting exports and implementing labor market reforms to try to raise GDP growth and increase Portugal's competitiveness - which, over time, may help mitigate investor concerns.

Quantas vezes os professores (ou pelo menos alguns) já o disseram??
Quem fez caso??
Como desta vez é a CIA a dizer...

Quem semeia ventos...


...Durante los años noventa el crecimiento económico portugués se situó por encima de la media de la Unión Europea, pero cayó entre el 2001 y el 2008. Su producto interior bruto está cerca de los 2/3 de la media de la UE. El pobre sistema de educación, en particular, ha sido un obstáculo al crecimiento económico y al aumento de la productividad.
(The World Factbook 2008 - CIA)

sexta-feira, 8 de abril de 2011

Chairless...is better?



Your chair is your enemy.

It doesn’t matter if you go running every morning, or you’re a regular at the gym. If you spend most of the rest of the day sitting — in your car, your office chair, on your sofa at home — you are putting yourself at increased risk of obesity, diabetes, heart disease, a variety of cancers and an early death. In other words, irrespective of whether you exercise vigorously, sitting for long periods is bad for you.

That, at least, is the conclusion of several recent studies. Indeed, if you consider only healthy people who exercise regularly, those who sit the most during the rest of the day have larger waists and worse profiles of blood pressure and blood sugar than those who sit less. Among people who sit in front of the television for more than three hours each day, those who exercise are as fat as those who don’t: sitting a lot appears to offset some of the benefits of jogging a lot.

So what’s wrong with sitting?

The answer seems to have two parts. The first is that sitting is one of the most passive things you can do. You burn more energy by chewing gum or fidgeting than you do sitting still in a chair. Compared to sitting, standing in one place is hard work. To stand, you have to tense your leg muscles, and engage the muscles of your back and shoulders; while standing, you often shift from leg to leg. All of this burns energy.

For many people, weight gain is a matter of slow creep — two pounds this year, three pounds next year. You can gain this much if, each day, you eat just 30 calories more than you burn. Thirty calories is hardly anything — it’s a couple of mouthfuls of banana, or a few potato chips. Thus, a little more time on your feet today and tomorrow can easily make the difference between remaining lean and getting fat.

You may think you have no choice about how much you sit. But this isn’t true. Suppose you sleep for eight hours each day, and exercise for one. That still leaves 15 hours of activities. Even if you exercise, most of the energy you burn will be burnt during these 15 hours, so weight gain is often the cumulative effect of a series of small decisions: Do you take the stairs or the elevator? Do you e-mail your colleague down the hall, or get up and go and see her? When you get home, do you potter about in the garden or sit in front of the television? Do you walk to the corner store, or drive?

Just to underscore the point that you do have a choice: a study of junior doctors doing the same job, the same week, on identical wards found that some individuals walked four times farther than others at work each day. (No one in the study was overweight; but the “long-distance” doctors were thinner than the “short-distance” doctors.)

So part of the problem with sitting a lot is that you don’t use as much energy as those who spend more time on their feet. This makes it easier to gain weight, and makes you more prone to the health problems that fatness often brings.

But it looks as though there’s a more sinister aspect to sitting, too. Several strands of evidence suggest that there’s a “physiology of inactivity”: that when you spend long periods sitting, your body actually does things that are bad for you.

As an example, consider lipoprotein lipase. This is a molecule that plays a central role in how the body processes fats; it’s produced by many tissues, including muscles. Low levels of lipoprotein lipase are associated with a variety of health problems, including heart disease. Studies in rats show that leg muscles only produce this molecule when they are actively being flexed (for example, when the animal is standing up and ambling about). The implication is that when you sit, a crucial part of your metabolism slows down.

Nor is lipoprotein lipase the only molecule affected by muscular inactivity. Actively contracting muscles produce a whole suite of substances that have a beneficial effect on how the body uses and stores sugars and fats.

Which might explain the following result. Men who normally walk a lot (about 10,000 steps per day, as measured by a pedometer) were asked to cut back (to about 1,350 steps per day) for two weeks, by using elevators instead of stairs, driving to work instead of walking and so on. By the end of the two weeks, all of them had became worse at metabolizing sugars and fats. Their distribution of body fat had also altered — they had become fatter around the middle. Such changes are among the first steps on the road to diabetes.

Conversely, a study of people who sit for many hours found that those who took frequent small breaks — standing up to stretch or walk down the corridor — had smaller waists and better profiles for sugar and fat metabolism than those who did their sitting in long, uninterrupted chunks.

Some people have advanced radical solutions to the sitting syndrome: replace your sit-down desk with a stand-up desk, and equip this with a slow treadmill so that you walk while you work. (Talk about pacing the office.) Make sure that your television can only operate if you are pedaling furiously on an exercise bike. Or, watch television in a rocking chair: rocking also takes energy and involves a continuous gentle flexing of the calf muscles. Get rid of your office chair and replace it with a therapy ball: this too uses more muscles, and hence more energy, than a normal chair, because you have to support your back and work to keep balanced. You also have the option of bouncing, if you like.

Or you could take all this as a license to fidget.

But whatever you choose, know this. The data are clear: beware your chair.

Tampo inclinado...e trabalhar de pé! mesmo por que não????

Mesa ergonómica


Mesa ergonómica, de tampo inclinado (inclinação regulável).
Que saudades dos tempos em que se pensava nas consequências...
Pelos vistos, hoje ainda se pensa, mas não por estes lados e muito menos nas nossas escolas, é claro.
Irra!

domingo, 3 de abril de 2011

Still alive...still singing...still the best!


Emmylou Harris, of course.

Perdidos..a remos e a velas?



O artigo do sr. Charles Forelle no The wall Street Journal, em 25 de Março último, parece ter mexido com gente e instituições (veremos se também com estas), ou pelo menos é o que se depreende da leitura de alguns dos comentários furibundos ao mesmo (ver link abaixo) feitos por gente que decerto não gosta nada de ouvir dizer mal de Portugal, nem eu gosto. Ver um estrangeiro pôr o dedo em certas feridas de modo tão exacto fez-me chegar quase à angina pectoris (como se ouvisse dizer mal de meu pai) mas a triste realidade é que o sr. Charles Forelle por muito pulitzeriado que seja não sabe da missa nem metade, até porque não exerceu o professorado no sistema de ensino português durante trinta e nove anos, como eu por exemplo, e outros.
Algumas das conclusões aliás sábias do dito sr. Forelle ancoram-se no facto de que apenas 28% dos portugueses entre os 25 e os 64 anos terminaram a "high school" - ou seja, e dado que se trata de um americano a falar, o ensino secundário. Mas o que este articulista ignora (e nao sei se deva dizer "ainda bem" ou "infelizmente") é o estado em que muitos o terminam, avançam para a licenciatura e chegam a...professores, talvez.

Há algum tempo atrás dei início a um pequeno trabalho estatístico, em que acompanhei o percurso dos 80 alunos que no ano lectivo de 2002/2003 entraram para o 5º ano de escolaridade na Escola onde trabalhava e dos quais alguns tinham sido ou eram meus alunos. No final de 2009/2010, pela ordem natural das coisas, boa parte desses alunos completaria o ensino secundário com sucesso, com a realização dos exames nacionais.

Boa parte, esperava eu. Na verdade foram 11 (onze) que o completaram, em dois cursos, e ainda destes onze quatro tiveram negativa, no exame, em Português; ou seja, teríam reprovado se fosse apenas a nota do exame a contar para a passagem. Pode dizer-se então que pelo menos sete alunos concluíram, com sucesso, o ensino secundário na altura própria. Sete - em oitenta.

Que sucedeu aos restantes sessenta e nove (pois os tais quatro passaram, mal ou bem)? Muitos foram reprovando pelo caminho, do 5º ao 11º anos, muitos ficaram só com o 9º ano, abandonando o estudo, muitos transferiram-se para o ensino profissional, alguns (poucos) mudaram de curso e consequentemente de escola...outros ainda por lá estao e estarão, pelo menos enquanto existirem exames nacionais.

Que sucedeu à Escola onde isto aconteceu? Nada, é claro. Bem, como também não lhe aconteceu nada no ano lectivo em que ocupou o último lugar no ranking das escolas portuguesas. E fica tudo dito...

Concluindo, está mais que visto que vou escrever ao sr. Forelle, e agradecer-lhe...o remédio amargo.