Another Treat for Ebeneezer

Here is another inexistent conspiracy where all that happened was a misunderstanding, or perhaps an unfortunate misplacement of documents.  Yes, yes, what the link might carry the reader to is simply a story of innocence lost.

Ebeneezer, Conspiracy Theories, and Misunderstanding Occam's Razor

Ebeneezer, a very good friend of mine, is probably one of the more interesting people I know. He is, first of all, bright and clever -always a welcome combination (or not). Moreover, he is a man of extreme talent, ever ready to learn something new, whether in music, technology, or cooking fish. He has also studied political science, history, and psychology whilst in college and when completing his masters, but for some reason hates discussing any of these topics. Be it some dinner conversation on Brazil's future or some musing (at, say, a bar) on the political economy, Ebeneezer, for whatever reason, dislikes (or so he tells us) discussing these or similar matters.

He also gets extremely annoyed when someone does indeed start discussing history, political science, or psychology and says that a certain event has taken place for something other than the simplest of reasons. (This would be Neezer's insistence on Occam's Razor, though he's getting the definition wrong, as most people do, confusing topicality with simplicity). Like when I insist that the latest war in Iraq began for reasons other than messianism (i.e., bringing Jesus and free markets to those heathen Muslim protectionists for the sake of all civilization). According to him, these are conspiracy theories and therefor ridiculous.

Like many, many others, my friend of old assumes that there are no conspiracies, that people do not get together and conspire to do a, b, or c. Funny and tragic at the same time: being from Brazil, he should understand that not only do many conspiracy theories exist, but some of them are no longer theories, such as Globo Television attempting to defraud the 1982 Rio de Janeiro elections for Governor. To Ebeneezer, this would be absurd: never would Globo's owner, Roberto Marinho, do such a thing! Never would he have such power! Then again, there's that BBC documentary from 1993, Beyond Citizen Kane, which Globo had courts prohibit from circulating in Brazil, and the very helpful book on Globo by V.C Brittos and C.R.S. Bolaño, which detail (beyond doubt, in my opinion) just how powerful Marinho was and Globo continues to be. Ebeneezer would do well to check out these sources, but something tells me he won't.

As Noam Chomsky once observed (actually, he did so many times, since he is incredibly repetitive), a lot of folks, usually from sectors of the establishment, like to dismiss any notion that several individuals might conspire against the public good as, again, conspiracy theories. They do so with disgust, a frown or menacing look on their faces. So when we suggest Florida's Secretary of State, Kathleen Harris, helped steal the 2000 election for George W. Bush, it's a conspiracy theory. When it is pointed out that wars are started to increase corporate profits, (amongst other reasons, obviously) we're lunatics, the kind of people that think no one ever landed on the moon. When it is suggested that the American Media purposefully presents the Israel-Palestine conflict in a very biased fashion, with an obvious favoritism towards the Jewish State, we're crazy, prone to hateful "anti-semitic" propaganda (the quotes are due to the fact that anti-semitic is used in a mistaken fashion in the US and much of the world, implying that only Jews are Semites). And, of course, the latest episode recently seen in the news showing a willingness by some of its major participants to conspire against the public good is the latest financial crisis, with Henry Paulson and Ben Bernanke continuously cheating the American public out of hundreds of billions, soon to be trillions of dollars to help out banks, financial institutions, and other major corporations that, since the eighties (at least), have been making one outrageous mistake after another, creating a shitball of ill-conceived choices that has ultimately led us to the present state of things -that, my friends, is just hippie Marxist ranting.

I'm sure Neezer would simply read a post like this and piss all over it, since it is presumably full of crap: to my good friend, Iraq was but a series of debacles born of dumbfounding incompetence, oil was never a real issue; Globo and its (thankfully) now-defunct owner Marinho aren't/weren't as powerful or mean-spirited as they are/were made out to be; the 2000 US Presidential election was never stolen, it was simply organization incompetence at work; wars are started with a dynamic all their own (very true), but never due to private interests (laughable); Israel just chanced into unbridled, unquestioning support from the American government and population; and Paulson and Bernanke would never act out of naked self-interest or to shamelessly help out their rich finance mates. In Ebeneezer's magical world, when something doesn't happen in a vacuum, we can always understand events as people fucking up or getting really lucky; otherwise, the explanation's faulty. There are no class interests, folks don't conspire, people don't scheme.

Again, it would be funny were it not tragic; it's like a brilliant mind going to waste. Ultimately, I understand complaints that the lament I just uttered in this post is without importance, for indeed it is; actually, this post is here just so I can tell Ebeneezer, should he ever again make fun of my "tendency to believe in conspiracy theories", that he can go fuck himself, with evidence provided. But all kidding aside, I do hope that this post might help my ever-talented, ever-skeptical good friend and bandmate to see the world is actually more complicated than his misreading of Occam's Razor would have him believe.

Obs. 1: Neezer, in case you're wondering: yes, I love you, and for trashing you I owe you a nice single malt and a blowjob, though I guess you'll only want the former.

Obs. 2: The video concerning the American Media's bias towards Israel is quite revealing but I can't embed it; I strongly urge the reader to see it, though, it brings to light issues with which many are not familiar.

Laços de Família

O que mais me traz arrepios em blogs, especialmente quando em sites de relacionamento, é o tom confessionário de alguns deles, quando seus/suas autores(as) nos contam de suas últimas compras, suas últimas fodas e o quão verbalmente abusivo era o técnico de tênis que tinham aos quinze anos. É uma puta duma chatice e, além de ser um grande indicador da solidão da nossa sociedade dita pós-moderna, é uma maneira de certificar-se de que tal solidão permaneça intocada, não tratada.

Uma pena, já que aqui vai uma confissão.

Sou, como os dois ou três leitores deste blog bem sabem (beleza aí, Marquinhos? Certo aí, Pots?), um hipócrita: reclamo da miopia das pessoas quando estas não enxergam além do Capital, do Estado e de Deus, mas o faço do extremo conforto de Capital acumulado pela minha família (um computador bacanão, livros e revistas mil, etc.).  Enfim, sou (meio que) um bostão, não tenho muita envergadura moral para reclamar do jeito que reclamo, mas penso ser muito pior fazer de conta que um defeito de personalidade (o meu seria um gritante conformismo) me impeça de perceber algumas realidades por aquilo que são (ou, para usar a terminologia marxista, não ser refém de uma eventual falsa consciência, apesar de tal conceito ser, sim, bastante contestável).

Por exemplo, ter dinheiro no Brasil não significa que você automaticamente é ladrão, i(a)moral, de direita, etc. Pode-se até ser o que os franceses chamam de gauche-caviar (que é o meu caso, diga-se de passagem), mas mesmo isso não implica que devamos aceitar o conservadorismo, ou o reacionarismo; não vejo porque falhas de caráter como as que tenho deveriam fazer-me automaticamente me filiar ao DEM.

A razão, então, pela qual contesto as opiniões de muitos membros de meus familiares: o conservadorismo socio-econômico e religioso destes me é nojento, verdadeiramente escroto, em descompasso com os tempos (exceto, claro, no Brasil, onde insistimos em viver num eterno passado). Enquanto o bonde da história transporta-nos a possibilidade do multiculturalismo, do pluralismo, de um maior entendimento com O Outro, meus familiares (há, claro, nobres exceções) insistem em ser classistas, racistas, xenófobos, avessos a outras religiões que não o Judaísmo, belicistas e reacionários; ao leitor que não acreditar em mim, resta-me apenas estender um convite a um jantar ou em minha residência ou na de minha avó, curiosamente a duas quadras de onde moro.

Melhor exemplo não há do que Kleison (nome fictício). Kleison é um homem culto, lido, tem fundos, maravilhosa família, etc. Não é um ser qualquer, um daqueles filósofos de poltrona que ao ler uma reportagem sobre espiões na Super Interessante decreta-se pronto a chefiar a CIA (ou, nos dias de hoje, a Abin). Formado em Direito pela PUC-SP (ainda uma das melhores escolas no Brasil para tal disciplina), Kleison certamente é bem versado naquilo que é, pela maioria das sociedades do Ocidente e muitas do Oriente, aceito como certo e errado, moral e imoral (ética, claro, é outro papo).

Mas Kleison vê o mundo não através das possibilidades que este oferece, e sim pelo prisma do medo do Outro e, portanto, daquilo que ele deseja que o mundo deixe de oferecer. Afim de explicar, vale a pena verificar suas escolhas ideológicas para com a política no Brasil.

Primeiro, a aceitação cega daquilo que a Grande Imprensa (ou a "mídia nativa", como a denomina Mino Carta) diz ser a Verdade. E como é integrante da Classe A, a Revista Veja é sua fonte de Verdade;  o fato de a revista em questão ser claramente golpista não importa, já que ele mesmo participaria de um golpe contra o governo Lula (mais acerca disto em seguida); o fato de a revista em questão ser fonte do jornalismo mais chulo hoje visto no Brasil (clicar aqui e aqui para meros dois exemplos) não só não o impressiona como não registra, para começo de conversa.

Depois, um ódio visceral e absolutamente irracional para com o PT. Agora, vale aqui uma ressalva: não resta dúvida, ao meu ver, que o PT não só tornou-se um partido igual aos outros partidos grandes do Brasil (corrupto, sem ideologia ou projeto político, unicamente preocupado com a manutenção do poder), como é infinitamente mais desapontador em seu esfalecimento do que foi, por exemplo, o PSDB já que, a certa altura do campeonato, chegou a representar uma grande possibilidade de mudança. Mas isso Kleison não vê: ao invés, cínico, enxerga o fracasso retumbante do PT no simples fato de que todo e qualquer partido precisa ser, no Brasil, corrupto. Como disse Oscar Wilde, "the cynic knows the price of everything and the value of nothing", e Kleison cabe certinho nesta descrição, portanto ignorando qualquer projeto de um Brasil melhor que provenha de um partido político. Ele dirá que, por hora, tal projeto é possível através do PSDB, mas ignora que tal partido, nos 8 anos em que esteve no poder, agiu de maneira idêntica àquela do PT recente, com a exceção de que, respaldados pela mídia nativa (para isso, ver O Consenso Forjado, de Francisco Fonseca), não sofreram escrutínio em demasia quando compravam votos para reeleger Fernando Henrique Cardoso ou quando sumiam com as centenas de bilhões de dólares provenientes das privatizações dos anos 90.

Grande parte deste grotesco cinismo de Kleison (e tantos outros membros de minha família) tem sua origem no mais absoluto classismo e racismo. Não é aceitável, ao ver destes, que um ex-metalúrgico nordestino que, por bem ou por mal, representa, de alguma maneira, os pobres (e, portanto, muitos não-brancos e, pior, não-judeus!) seja Presidente da República, que tenha em suas mãos, por exemplo, o poder para com o Orçamento da União. Se ele foi o Presidente que mais ajudou a tornar os ricos mais ricos; se foi ele o presidente que mais favoreceu as instituições financeiras no Brasil, nada disso importa, pois Lula é (e, para a grande maioria de meus familiares, nunca deixará de ser) um sujeito pobre (pecado #1), analfabeto (pecado #2), proletário (pecado #3) e, independente do que hoje fala o presidente, de esquerda (pecado #4).

Tendo isso em mente, qualquer vitória do presente governo no âmbito social e político é mera obra do acaso. Logo, qualquer bom sinal proveniente do Bolsa Família é ou vitória exclusiva de Ruth Cardoso, criadora do programa, ou resultado de altos preços de commodities. Nunca o programa em questão (cuja mera existência, diga-se de passagem, considero vergonhosa para o País como um todo) pode ter obtido sucesso pelo esforço daqueles que o promovem, planejam e executam. Pior: nos é dito que o Bolsa Família e péssimo para o Brasil porque faz com que seus beneficiados não queiram trabalhar. Que o Bolsa Família paga muitas vezes menos de R$100 para quem faz parte dele, ou que o dito "efeito preguiça" seja uma lenda fundada mais em ódio de classe do que em dados empíricos, é obviamente irrelevante, já que pelo menos no discurso que ouço de minha família a uns vinte-e-poucos anos, lugar de pobre é ou servindo ao rico ou na cadeia. (Quem quiser maiores informações a respeito do programa pode verificar este artigo do Le Monde Diplomatique Brasil ou, se tiver tempo, pesquisar os dados relevantes através das fontes usadas pelo autor do artigo como, por exemplo, a PNAD.)

Para completar este ódio, similar àquele visto em 1984 quando os habitantes da Oceania vilificam Goldstein, traidor-mor do Partido, é sempre divertido verificar que qualquer defesa das vitórias do presente governo é imediatamente atacado com alguma interjeição do tipo "petista de merda!", ou "pára de ler panfleto do PT, caralho!". É uma impossibilidade até física para meus familiares imaginarem que dar mérito ao governo Lula por suas conquistas não implica automaticamente apoio incondicional ao governo, ou que não haja sérias ressalvas para com o mesmo (atitude esta similar a incapacidade de muita gente na esquerda brasileira de dar mérito aos governos Itamar Franco e FHC por conta de suas políticas econômicas, por exemplo, que têm indubitáveis qualidades). Exemplo disto é a atitude de Kleison junto ao já mencionado Mino Carta, editor de Carta Capital: um vendido, segundo meu tio, simplesmente porque Carta declarou abertamente seu apoio a Lula em 2002 e 2006. Carta fez o que a vasta maioria da grande imprensa do primeiro mundo faz, ao dar o apoio de sua revista a um político candidato a presidente/primeiro-ministro (nunca vi Kleison falar mal da Economist por abertamente apoiar Barack Obama). Mas, visto que a nossa Grande Imprensa nunca divulga abertamente seu apoio aos seus candidatos (quase sempre de direita), a atitude de Carta o transforma em bandido. Seria risível se, mais uma vez, não estivéssemos falando de alguém com diploma universitário e pelo menos algum treinamento em lógica (Kleison, afinal, é advogado).

Eu poderia, sem exagero, transformar este post em dissertação: poderia falar da hipocrisia de Kleison (e, aliás, de quase toda minha família) quando se trata do conflito Israelo-Palestino, onde os israelenses estão sempre certos, respeitem eles ou não o direito internacional. Se os israelenses querem ocupar Gaza ou a Cisjordânia, não só podem como devem; se um palestino reagir e for morto junto a sua família, é mais um terrorista que se foi. É uma cegueira ideológica violenta, pois já se trata de doutrina: judeus são sempre perfeitos e sempre vítimas, e o fato que o mundo (ou, como insisto em dizer, o bonde da história) acredita cada vez menos neste discurso nefasto simplesmente quer dizer que há 6-e-alguma-coisa bilhões de anti-judeus por aí, obrigando nós pobres coitados judeus a aceitar e permitir que Israel tenha mais de 200 ogivas nucleares e colonize qualquer território que bem entender; devemos, no final das contas, tratar Israel (e, claro, os EUA) como um time de futebol, e a ela nos dedicarmos de maneira absolutamente irracional, como corintianos que choram no estádio quando seu time cai para a Segunda Divisão.

Poderia também falar de seu preconceito para com homossexuais, como quando disse que Foucault era um devasso, um perverso, simplesmente porque buscava uma maior liberdade sexual para as pessoas. Chegou, inclusive, a dizer que a minha curiosidade para com o pensador francês era parecida com a curiosidade que tantos tinham pelas idéias de Hitler nos anos 20 e 30; seria gozado se, em sua absurda ignorância, não fosse triste. Digo desde já que considero Foucault um interessante historiador e, enquanto filósofo, um masturbador que algumas vezes acertou em suas descrições e considerações.  Mas Kleison, um tanto homofóbico e machista, já não consegue aceitar a busca do autor de História da Sexualidade por maior liberdade porque este era gay e morreu devido à AIDS. É aquele velho papo que o comportamento devasso dos viados (sic) trouxe o HIV ao mundo, mas que sempre ignora que a guetoização, assim por dizer, de um grupo de pessoas pode nos levar a desconsiderar a verdadeira natureza de um evento como a AIDS. Hoje, vemos que AIDS afeta gente em geral, e que a homofobia de pessoas como Ronald Reagan nos impediu de começar mais cedo a busca pelo entendimento da doença e um possível tratamento em âmbito internacional.

Enfim, poderia aqui escrever ad infinitum sobre Kleison e seu conservadorismo. Aliás, sobre ele e tantos familiares meus. Escrevo, na verdade, porque acho lamentável ver-me cercado por pessoas bem mais inteligentes e capazes do que eu que insistem em serem reacionários da pior espécie, aquela que o faz para não se avaliar ou reavaliar. Vejo aqueles mais próximos a mim insistirem no ódio, no preconceito, no mesmo tipo de atitude que, na pior das hipóteses, pode levar a exatamente o tipo de comportamento coletivo sobre o qual alguns deles tanto se obcecam: o nazismo. A vida inteira escutei que devemos recordar do holocausto promovido pelos nacionais-socialistas alemães, que é tão fácil repetir aqueles terríveis anos; mesmo assim, vejo em Kleison e tantos outros entes queridos o mesmo tipo de pensamento, a mesma atitude que ajudou Hitler, Himmler, Hydrich e tantos outros a não só obterem poder como também usá-lo para fins dos mais cruéis e desumanos. Quando no colégio, um professor de história, Jeff Lippman, perguntou ao final de um filme sobre campos de concentração se qualquer um de nós poderia fazer o que fizeram os alemães. Na hora, ingênuo, respondi que não, mas vejo em minha própria família que ser nazista, tornar-se cruel e indiferente, é demasiado fácil.

Now that the Masturbation is Over

The last year or so of US elections has been the biggest circle jerk I've seen in my entire life; the willingness of otherwise sane and reasonable people, both in the US and abroad, to treat Barack Obama as God's gift to humanity was frightening. It is perfectly understandable that after eight years of G.W. Bush, people should look forward to some sort of shift (or change, as Obama followers/worshippers kept repeating for the past year or so), but this blind devotion, this reckless following of the man's every move and every word, should be of some concern.

Especially because we must not forget that Obama is now the president-elect not of Mali or Bhutan, but of the United States of America. We've already seen what this entails when we were still in the Democratic primaries, and both Obama and Hillary Clinton went to grovel at the feet of Israel (represented, it would seem, by AIPAC) -here is a transcript of Obama's speech to the organization. It is surreal (or is it unreal?) how every presidential candidate since 1967 (the date the Israelis proved "useful" to the US in keeping them frisky Arabs in their place) has had to pledge alligiance and undying support, right or wrong, to Israel. That said country's intentions towards those whose territories it occupies might be most sinister, or that the country regularly proves to be incredibly biggoted and indifferent to others' cultures or feelings, is apparently irrelevant. Of course, Obama might have been lying (or something to that effect) when pledging his eternal love for Israel over AIPAC's watchful eyes; perhaps he is sane enough to realize the US is the one country that can force the Israelis to go for peace by simply not paying for their present attitudes. Here's hoping that's true, not just for the sake of Palestinians or Iranians, but for the sake of Israelis, too (after all, as Eric Alterman pointed out, Israel is much more than the conflict we see on TV or read about in irrelevant blogs such as this one).

But Israel is one part of the problem: already, Obama plans to focus on Afghanistan -soon to become his own Vietnam, as such a war is, at least according to America's British allies, unwinnable (and if not unwinnable, too costly). If his plan for change is to leave Iraq (quite sensible) and fight the Taliban (utterly useless and stupid), then his followers and worshippers are in for a surprise. As a general prediction (something I'm not particularly good at), it might be wise for Obama's legions to realize his strategies for foreign policy, though not as awful as those of G.W. Bush, are no great improvement over the mistakes America has been committing since the end of the Cold War.

Worry also stems, again concerning Obama's inexhaustable supply of blind devotees, from the man's choice in cabinet, from keeping Robert Gates as Secretary of Defense to making Robert Rubin a part of the economics team for the White House. If by change he simply means not being as bad as Bush, great, he's well on his way; real change in this particular matter, however, seems to be a rather distant dream. This again brings us back to what being the President of the USA means and entails, and one can't seriously expect any drastic, shocking change to come about in a country as conservative and as addicted to the status quo as America.

To see just how conservative America and Americans are, it would be wise to consider another side of the election, which is where a sizeable portion of the citizenry chose to formally declare through the vote that gays and lesbians (and, in some places, unmarried people in general) are lesser citizens. Not only this, but a whopping 48% of the popular vote went to John McCain; and considering the past eight years and said candidate's brutally incompetent campaign (not to mention his choice of VP in Sarah Palin, of whom we have "shocking" new revelations), 48% of the popular vote indicates a huge amount of people that still buy the shtick, the nonsense that emanates from the Republican "information" machine, from the party being all about smaller government and less taxes to its ideals being about success for all and love of family. 48% of the popular vote is, at this point in time, frightening.

But we must be realistic: Obama's election is a huge victory for America, even if the man turns out to be as much of a lie as Bill Clinton was. A black man (or, still in some parts of the country, a nigger) being elected to the nation's top political post is nothing short of dazzling, a victory not only of common sense but of Justice, social and otherwise. It is now almost possible to believe once again that the United States is a land of opportunity for all, that it is indeed a country of greatness. It might have been important that Obama's message won, were it not shameless propaganda, but it is of paramount importance that he won; between having a walking victory for civil rights, an individual both calm and serene, in the White House, as opposed to a war-mongering shit who trades in fear and masturbates to the Cold War: it might be wise to go with the former. It is also safe to say that if McCain had taken the vote (or shall we say Palin, for McCain is quasi-senile and about to exit, stage left, from some form or other of cancer), any hope of America becoming halfway decent again could have been tossed in the shitter for good. Thankfully, we can use the shitter for other purposes.

I sincerely do hope Obama's campaign message materializes into something other than crude, disgusting propaganda, and I do hope that he might help make a better America not just for Americans but for the whole world as well. It is high time someone stepped into the Oval Office and took the United States from being a rogue country, a danger to civilization itself, and made it into the dream we've always wanted to believe the US might be. It is worrisome that he has stepped into office with such blind devotion following his every move, his every word, but it can't be too much to hope (yes, that word again) that such devotion might prove well-founded in the end. Caution is called for because being President of the United States more often than not entails preventing change rather than promoting it, and it is essentially this notion which makes Obama worship worrisome. But if the man does turn out to be the agent of change he (and his fans) professes to be and tranforms the US from an agent of agression to an agent of peace; and from a country of inequality and religious fanaticism to a land of economic and social justice and tolerance, then we are in for a truly wondrous and happy surprise. May it be so.

Priorities in Brazil

According to political scientist Cecília Olivieri, there is a direct correlation between overall success and promotion of land reform for nineteenth century societies, i.e. societies which promoted land reform have more equality, social justice, etc.

Which helps explain why Brazil is such a champion at inequality, lack of social justice, and those other wonderful indicators we have upside down: we've never promoted land reform (actually, one of the reasons for the '64 coup was the mere mention of such reform by our then-president João Goulart), and our rural elite continues to shit on the idea.

Luckily, our Agriculture Ministry has its priorities straight and through its official gazette shall let the world know what the guidelines for our famous caipirinha drink are. That's right, people, Brazil still has landless peasants, a quasi-guerrila in the southeast of the state of Pará, quasi-paramilitary squads wrecking havoc across states such as the one just mentioned, but the world can now know just how a caipirinha should be made. Officially.

The New York club scene must be thrilled.

Tragédias do Brasil 2: A Ressurreição (lançamento em breve)

Ao ler um post do Blog do Mino, lembrei-me de meu post "Tragédias do Brasil" e percebi que faltavam duas outras importantes calamidades na história do Brasil: a escravidão e, é claro, as Organizações Globo. Mas, como a Álgebra Linear me chama (haverá prova amanhã), escreverei sobre isso depois. Sim, eu sei, será doloroso demais esperar este update teórico, mas first things first. Até.

A Monumental Waste of Talent

The nineties I hold to be an unfortunate decade and in music few examples lead to more exasperation than Mariah Carey. She was the best-selling artist of that decade, and one of the best-selling artists of all time; I am also sure that, American marketing discourse aside, Carey was quite the inspiration to many a singer. It is amply saddening, then, to realize that after some fifteen years this artists has one decent recorded song to her name. But what a song, and what a performance.

However, as much as I would love to embed the song just below these lines, some shit on or from YouTube made sure that this video could not leave the site, and so I hope the link alone will suffice. Enjoy, dear reader, and sigh alongside me at what a waste these fifteen-odd years have been.

Perilous Poker

Here we've gone from Skinemax to "North & Jameson: Would You Like Some Cream With That, Sugar?"

Yes, I'm Giving You The Opportunity

Because I care about you, dear reader, I've made available on my diary two opportunities for self-improvement: subscription through various means (Google, Yahoo, etc.) to my blog and comments contained herein, and the possibility of following my diary by joining my list of Minions. So don't miss this chance to become a part of this blog's soon-to-be-growing list of people that matter and make Fafinha's Diary a part of your life, too. After all, folks, what kind of pseudo-scholarly pseudo-intellectual pseudo-pundit amdits to his own mistakes (see the post "Mr. M. and Me, a Love Story, pt. 2")?

Mr. M. and Me, a Love Story, pt. 2

Usually, I wouldn't write anything else concerning Marcos's (yes, that's Mr. M.) replies, but it would seem he's got me between a rock and that Monolith from 2001: A Space Odyssey. Allow me to quote my friend of old:

"This doesn't change the gist of my argument. Just because something is making headlines in local papers does not mean it is, as you imply, taking the place of more important news. In fact, every single newspaper you mentioned has had recent first page news stories on the economy. (The CBS news you posted, however, is simply from their campaign blog, which by definition should cover such things.)

I am however surprised you don't find this disturbing, or worthy of telling as a story. If the head of the law enforcement for your county was saying inflammatory things, I damn well would like to see it reported.

To say this is not important is not disingenuous, perhaps, but it certainly is naïve. You and I are no strangers to issues of police corruption, given where we come from. Can you imagine how an Obama voter, or perhaps a disinterested minority in the area, would feel about this, knowing that the man in charge of your security possibly thinks you're 'palling around with terrorists'??

This goes back to your core argument about how American local democracies work. Sheriffs are elected officials. To report this is the media's job, so that the local residents can make a decision whether or not they should reward such behavior (and what it might imply) with more of their tax dollars.

To have this reported in national newspapers is to serve as curios for its readers; for it to be reported in the local media is paramount to preserving democracy in a local level.

I'm not belittling local papers; I'm saying that "this making headlines" in the local level IS important for its local citizens. And as for it being linked on Andrew Sullivan, it is because some of us of the Eastern latte-sippin' elites fear that the McCain campaign is fear-mongering.


GOOD DAY, SIR."

Indeed, it would seem -to my horror- that I've been caught conceptually red-handed. However, a few qualifiers are in order.

First off, I didn't say that the Lee County Sheriff's remarks were taking the place of more important news, and from reading papers like the New York Times online, it seems clear that the economy is front-and-center in these papers' minds. I am also glad the word "disingenuous" is no longer associated with my name. Finally, the latte-sipping liberal elite is wasting its time fearing the McCain campaign uses fear as currency: they do, as have Democrats (Johnson) and Republicans (Reagan) before the Senator from Arizona put his show on the road.

Having said all this, Marcos, it would seem, is still correct in his argument: it does indeed serve a purpose, at other times espoused by myself, to have the Sheriff's remarks covered, and it is fairly naïve on my part, considering I'm from Brazil, to think otherwise.

So yeah: oops, my bad on that one.

Mr. M. and Me, a Love Story, pt. 1

I have just been accused by one Mr. M. of being disingenuous, since I claimed that the Lee County Sheriff's remarks concerning Barack Obama were making headlines (see my post "Brazil's Forced Democracy, continued"). Mr. M., who, like myself, is a reader of mainstream papers, seems to think that if these news vehicles don't speak of the Lee County Sheriff, than whatever the Sheriff said is not making headlines. Of course, if we search Google, we find that more than one small town paper were discussing the remark and its ramifications (see here, here, here, and here).

I wholeheartedly agree that this news is not important; the reason I selected it as an object of scorn is because people are discussing it at all. However, to claim the news is not making headlines simply because it is not appearing in Mr. M.'s favorite newspapers and magazines does not mean it isn't appearing elsewhere. And however insignificant these elsewheres may be, they are still places for headlines, be they blogs, news sites, small town papers or any other insignificant or poor quality media. Just because you don't read it doesn't mean it isn't there.

Mr. M., I am not disingenuous in my blog and I was not so in that particular post; you and I just happen to disagree on what "making headlines" means, and I certainly feel it means a lot more than simply showing up in the New York Times or the Boston Globe. Whilst these newspapers are indeed a far better read than Naples News, it doesn't mean that Naples News is not a newspaper itself (fortunately, however, one that I don't have to read).

Chris Cornell

On a subject a tad bit off topic, let us now recall Him, Chris Cornell, The Singer. Yes, I might be overselling, but then again, I may not be. The following songs are from Soundgarden's Superunknown album, the best album of the 90's that I know of. Cornell is that kind of singer that Robert Plant wanted to be and never was: emotive and in key. I only hope Cornell keeps on singing for many more years and giving us his rather exceptional blend of good ol' rock 'n' roll and some really gut-wrenching histrionics. Gotta love it!

Well, here they are, "Limo Wreck" and "The Day I Tried To Live":



and

Back From the Holy Land

In response to Marcos's comments on my post "Trip to the Holy Land":

1) The Monthly Review is a pretty decent publication: it's authors write well, back themselves up, and serve a clearly-stated editorial line. The magazine's been around for some thirty years, it's founders were two well-known economists (Sweezy and Huberman), and many of its writings seem vindicated on economics (our current meltdown) and Israel (given PM Olmert's latest statements and what Israel must do to obtain peace).

2) I criticize Brazil and the US just as much, probably more. Israel is just that much worst because it is automatically suppose to be a Saintly nation, its people innocent of any wrong-doing, and all of us Jews are apparently to stand by its side right or wrong. It's annoying, and these old men from São Paulo are exactly the type of fascist assholes that get on my nerves. And the reason I started this blog is to give my nerves a break.

Mini Trip to the Holy Land, continued

My post "On Jews and Being Jewish" also mentioned the conflict between religious and secular sectors of Israeli society. The following post from MuzzleWatch clarifies this a great deal.

Mini-Trip to the Holy Land

As stated in a previous post, I've been termed self-loathing because, amongst other reasons, I:

1. Don't consider myself Jewish, and
2. Don't like Israel. At all.

As for item 1, it is explained, to a certain degree, in the post I mentioned ("On Jews and Being Jewish"). As for item 2, well, the evidence just seems to mount, year after year, as to why Israel is not the victim it always claims to be. One example amongst many -and the many can be found in the link to the If Americans Knew website I've put on my blog- is this one, where the Israelis are planning a renewal of Jaffa by simply expelling its Palestinian residents.

A few years back, if someone told me that I was a self-hating Jew for doubting Israel, I would've been a bit shaken. However, as I keep reading about the state of Israel, I become surer by the day that if not supporting what said state does means I hate myself, then so be it.

Brazil's Forced Democracy, continued

However, to be fair with Brazil, our American friend's democracy is pretty fucking shitty. Actually, to see just how incredibly crappy it is, one should notice what it is exactly that has been making headlines when the country is near the brink of financial and economic disaster. Please, folks, follow the link and be awed at the awesomeness of American stupidity.

Albeit late in the game...

America's top news show helps us understand some aspects of the financial crisis and of those who are at the helm supposedly trying to solve it.

Brazil's Forced Democracy

Today, at around 15:45, I was forced to vote. Not that I wouldn't've, since I think the voting process is worth one's while, but being forced to vote (or forced to justify one's absence from the voting booth) is nothing short of pathetic; it is the acknowledgment by our political class that our democracy is a sham, that people would refrain from voting in droves if they had the opportunity. This country is a fucking joke, there is not a pubic hair of seriousness to our public lives and affairs. Our political institutions have as their sole goal their own continuity, and those that participate in them are, when not absolute scum, well-meaning individuals who face impossible odds when they attempt any positive change. Our political class takes positive and negative freedom and mixes it all up into whatever stew will guarantee them a job for the next four years and therefor some immediate monetary gain and a few more years at the possibility of racketeering or trafficking of influence.

It's not like our American friends to the north are any better, but they at least have democracy at the local levels, electing judges, sheriffs, and what-not. All we do is either elect clowns or those who are flat-out the scum of the Earth. I'm tired of this shit, but quite depressed at the notion that it is, at least from my perspective, impossible to change. But that's why we have meteors, I suppose.

An Interesting Primer

The following article is a great intro to the reasons why we are facing such a crap shower, as commented in my previous post.

The Left, the Right, and the Crap Shower We're In

Perry Anderson asked of the Left, during the end of the last century, that it accept what the eighties and nineties were about: the undeniable consolidation of neoliberalism. He spoke of this consolidation both economically and politically and pointed out more than once that, though history was far from over, certain present facts could not be ignored simply because it would (supposedly) make Uncle Karl upset.

I do wonder what the Right's main thinkers will ask of its political wing ten to twenty years from now. It's a question worth asking because orthodox economics is not without merit, and certainly did bring about some positive changes. The attempt at integrating the world economically that has been taking place since the nineties has undeniable benefits, such as an increase in the standard of living for certain sectors of Third World society, or the increase in globalized knowledge that we all have of each other, of one another's countries, cultures, and problems.

Globalization as it stands, however, the orthodox economics that have been put into play since the seventies, carried a danger that many only now begin to acknowledge. The danger of a major financial crisis was some thirty years in the making, clear as day, as entire economies became financialized, as the middle class in the developed world began to see its living standards decrease, as we saw the gap between rich and poor in the First World widen. The danger of leaving business people to regulate their affairs unchecked was apparent from day one, but, since Freedom was supposedly at risk, those who call the shots decided we should try it anyway.

So we get what we have now. First off, there's the inability to use a crisis (say, Enron) as a learning tool; instead, we use the unbridled faith we have in one of our many modern deities, Friedrich Von Hayek, to justify anything we want, from tickle-down economics and trillions of dollars in foreign adventures to making countries like Brazil veritable delivery services of quick and sexy financial returns, as illustrated by Leda Paulani. And yes, it is total faith in folks like Hayek or Milton Friedman, because proving that market forces do work, and that the ever-sexy Invisible Hand can masturbate anyone to eternal glory, is nigh impossible.

Except when you wish to prove that which you wish to see. The Left did this for years after the Second World War, building socialist economies like that of Britain and India without giving a flying fart for nuisances like inflation or people's wish to enterprise without having to file seven forms just to bang your next door colorful friendship. Folks like Friedman correctly predicted later on in the sixties that the kind of central planning you saw around the world (in some countries more than others) would lead to what came to be known as stagflation. They were on the money, and the parts of the Left that insisted that good intentions would eventually help during economic downturns were left at times with their dicks in their hands, looking dumbfounded.

But power, when first tasted, just tastes too damn good. It became common place, given the failures of central planning (and they were undeniable), to point to the bevy of millionaires popping up in the US and Britain during the eighties and say, "Look!, it works, Unfettered Free Enterprise works!!!" That living standards were falling, that growth in the economy was, in the best of times, artificial, that so much of the money that circulated in the markets was, to be honest, bullshit money; this was all irrelevant, for Grenada and the Falklands had been conquered, the Berlin Wall fell, and us Third World niggers were finally learning how to play the game.

And so here we are, October, 2008. The financial elite's reluctance to have its actions checked (and the willingness of many governments to simply look the other way for twenty-odd years) has taken it's toll: credit-based economies are tumbling and their populations are looking at the barrel of a gun as recessions with the potential for lasting some two years stare them in the eye. What's worse, we see governments like that of the United States shamelessly socializing losses, telling the taxpayer it is in their interest that the lenders be saved, but not the borrowers. It is also amusing to see so many telling themselves this is not socialism for the rich, that saving these banks and insurance companies is exactly what should be done, without considering that it would be economically and ethically interesting to perhaps bail out the taxpayer. And it's not like this crisis is a complete surprise, since there have been economists warning against that which we see happening right now.

This is perhaps the part where it is valid to note that the Right and the Left (or parts of them, anyway) share some similar goals: both exalt freedom; both seem to search for ways to better the world in which we live. The Right espouses that this will come about through economic freedom, and the Left seems to believe social justice will do the job (it is even argued by some, including noted Brazilian economist Luis Carlos Bresser Pereira, that Socialism was not so much a mode of production as it was a system for theorizing the concept of Social Justice). And it is fair to note that, since 1945, both sides of the spectrum have had the opportunity to practice what they preach, sometimes with brilliant results on both ends. What is depressing about what we see right now is that the current discussion keeps concentrating, on the part of the Left, on how we can't leave the economy to greedy whores on Wall Street, and on the part of the Right... well, the Right isn't saying much right now.

I don't doubt that giving a den of unhumanity such as Wall Street complete control over the economy is a bad idea: going unchecked, people are obviously going to do exactly as they please, without fear of consequence; at most, a few scapegoats, guilty or not, go to jail and a few companies go under, but the structure stays the same, and the freedom to fool yourself as well as your customer (the very definition of ninja loans) goes unchallenged. We had this behavior in centrally planned economies, and it was assumed by government technocrats that no one was more suited to run the general populace's affair than government technocrats. Needless to say, these economies were the same dens of senseless greed that we see on Wall Street. In many cases, though, after shunning the centrally planned state, all we did was move from State Communism to Corporate Communism; we changed the word public to private and called it a day.

Perhaps the conversation should now focus on two fronts. First, it might be safe to assume we've seen enough of both sides of the political economy pendulum since the late nineteenth century, so that we may finally focus on a formula that uses both State and Private tools to help us achieve a more desirable society. Secondly -and, I believe, more importantly- it is time to discuss, really discuss, Power. It is high time we realize that the difference between giving people's houses to private firms that are allowed to freely cook their books, and giving it to government officials that inflate bureaucracy so as to be above the law, is exactly the same thing. Actually, if we are to be honest, we can quickly realize countries like the Soviet Union were capitalist, that all they did was take the economy and give it to gentlemen in KGB uniforms instead of gentlemen in Armani wear that write successful self-help books. The KGB privately owned the USSR; its member had business which they ran -supposedly for the State, but, in actuality, for themselves. The difference between these gentlemen and the heads of AIG, Lehman Brothers, and so many other institutions that are going under, was one of terminology and semantics. More importantly, they answered and answer to no one, and, in the American case, it would seem that some of these apparatchiks are walking away with bonuses after having run their companies under.

If we do not begin discussing the power relationships that society's most important institutions have with its citizens, we're doomed to a new financial fiasco such as the present one in another generation or so. If we're going to build, by Left or Right, a world that's even remotely admirable, we have to be sure that we are honest about what can and cannot be done through the institutions we build for ourselves. Corruption, in the long run, State- or Corporate-run, is too much of a burden for any society to handle (just look at Brazil: we keep missing every historical opportunity under the sun because our elite can't stand to lose an inch of its power). And this burden can only grow heavier if the society we envision for ourselves is to have smaller and ever more artificial borders, if we are to truly live in some global way.

Botando as Coisas em Perspectiva

Obrigado ao Vitor, homem sempre prestativo, por tornar mais claro a pessoas mal informadas (Marcos..........) o que que revoltado realmente quer dizer.



Mais uma vez, eu sou um mero reclamão.

Pára Tudo!!!!!

Um tal de Mr. M deixou um comentário sobre meu último post indicando que eu sou muito revoltado. Este "muito" é meio mentira. Muito revoltado, para quem ainda não viu, está a seguir:



ou



Isso sim, Marquitos, é revoltado. Eu sou um mero reclamão.

On Jews and Being Jewish

Supposedly, I'm Jewish. However, something tells me there's no such thing as "Jewish" as much as Hebrew, say. What there is is Jews, or the Jewish religion. And religion, as I have expressed earlier, is shit. I have no qualms in being egalitarian, so to speak, in holding in contempt not only "my" religion, but everybody else's (and I include here the militant atheism of Dawkins and Co.), especially the three religions of the Book, which are particularly hateful and which these days add nothing but ignorance and despair to whatever humanity it is we have left.

However, since the Church made sure that it would be the world's bastion of violence and ignorance for centuries on end; and since Islam has revealed itself to be particularly inept at living in a post-Enlightenment world (hell: it is still, for all practical purposes, stuck in the Middle Ages), Jews have been seen as reasonable, sane, down to earth, different from the other two more "barbaric" religions.

Which is why this makes me smile. Seriously, it makes me smile. It reminds me that not belonging to anything that can be remotely close to this nonsense is a profoundly wise decision, all modesty aside.

It also reminds me that the difference between ultra-orthodox Jews in Israel and ultra-orthodox Muslims in Afghanistan taking or having power, is a matter of timing and historical forces. Concerning the history, we once again have the issue of Judaism having not only faced the Enlightenment but also having learned and matured from it (which is why, up until Hitler, there were so many assimilated Jews in Europe who simply didn't care that they were Jews), which Muslims clearly did not. So, with Israel, we have a violence towards Arabs that many times stems from a series of sources, such as religion itself, ethnicity, and nationalism, whereas the Taliban is not nationalistic in the slightest, though they claim otherwise.

But how long before this small group of ultra-orthodox Jews we see in the article above see their behavior become the norm? It's a walk in the park to find Jews in Israel or the United States who have no issue with Israel being a terrorist state, since the Arabs are non-white/Muslim/choose-your-prejudice (and, for that matter, there seems to be no problem with evangelical Christians on this front, as verified by the US's Republican Party's stance towards Israel). If the Israeli government were to pursue an actual peace plan (with a US green light, of course), it is very likely a civil war would ensue in said state. After all, what would a militaristic soceity, run by warriors and religious hot-heads, do with itself if all of a sudden it were left without its principal enemy?

However (there's always good news somewhere), a growing number of Israelis (as evidenced by the mushrooming local peace movement, led by B'Tselem) and an ever-increasing number of practicing Jews throughout the world are already beginning to question openly what Israel is about, and whether it can ever move past its enmities, real or imagined; whether the state in question will be more than a watchdog for America and a playground for nationalist and religious zealots in its free time. They are finally beginning to realize that you either have a theocracy (Israel is, after all, a Jewish State) or a democracy. There is no meeting point between the two.

It has been suggested that I am self-loathing, principally because I refuse "my" religion (and "my" state, or so it would seem). I cannot comprehend, however, how it is that I and these ultra-orthodox Jews pictured in the Guardian's article share anything in common, save our common humanity, which they seem to utterly despise. But their attitudes are grounded on a doctrine, a doctrine available for anyone to read, for anyone to share or not. I choose not to. I refuse to be identified with people who, at the end of the day, are the real Judaism, the Judaism found in the Torah, the one where women, homosexuals and non-Jews are the scum of the Earth. I don't belong to a Chosen People, unless the chosen are unconditionally you and me, and I can't agree to be amongst those that pick and choose, based on words written by barbarians from thousands of years ago, who they will and will not consider their friends and foes.

Tragédias do Brasil

O Brasil teve duas grandes tragédias em sua história: o Império e a ditadura de '64. O primeiro por seu incrível anacronismo, mesmo à época, já que havia mais ao norte um bom exemplo de República bem-sucedida e, à fronteira, vizinhos que firmavam suas próprias versões deste estilo de governo (mesmo que modelos lamentáveis e pouco eficazes). O Brasil, país eleito por Deus, tinha, no entanto, uma elite que sabia melhor, e ficamos com um ditador, uma regência composta por recém-formados do Mobral e um acadêmico que, ó incômodo!, virou rei.

Daí veio '64. Nossa magnífica classe dominante, aliada às nossas paranóicas e ferozmente incompetentes forças armadas, desfilaram um golpe de estado, e pelas mais diversas razões, as principais sendo o perigo que corria a louvação à Cristo e, claro, a marcha da subversão que, como já disse Mino Carta, estamos a esperar até hoje. Foi um golpe que resultou num Brasil que, à primeira vista, era deslumbrante: não se ouviam queixas de estudantes hippies e pobres (e quando se ouvia, cassetete neles!). E melhor de tudo, a classe média pôde comprar seus Fuscas e geladeiras à prazo e curtir um Brasil livre de comunistas e pretos sujos à rua reclamando da vida. Viva o capitalismo!

As eventuais mortes de estudantes, jornalistas ou mecânicos por parte do aparato de "segurança" (terror, mesmo, era filha de "família boa" casar-se com algum pobre, ou vagabundo) eram, antes de '73, vistas como normais por grande parte da população; afinal, o Brasil crescia a um ritmo fantástico (veio depois a ser o país que mais cresceu no século vinte, segundo Delfim Netto, em entrevista de 2000 ao livro Histórias do Poder), abençoava o país um tal de milagre. As classes média e empresarial só vieram a perceber seu tosco erro em '73 e, principalmente, em '79, quando duas crises do petróleo tornaram mais difíceis comprar um Fusca e uma tevezinha bacana para chamar a vovó para ver a Fantástico domingo à noite. Ficamos, após a ditadura acima mencionada, com um país de economia dúbia, instituições ou lamentáveis ou inexistentes, uma população débil (o coronel Jarbas Passarinho consegui, como ministro da educação, deseducar um país inteiro), um corpo estudantil desmotivado e despolitizado e uma incapacidade patológica de dizer um firme não ao autoritarismo, à corrupção e à tortura, que até hoje é vista com bons olhos. A única coisa que melhorou desde então (digamos, '88) foi a economia. Não é pouca coisa, mas não é mais do que um começo.

O que certamente reflete neste perfil do jovem de hoje que o Datafolha pesquisou e publicou em julho deste ano. Vemos um jovem que, ao contrario do que se espera, é preocupado não com revolução ou em "causar", mas com arranjar um emprego, ter seu próprio dinheiro e casa própria e, claro, estudar. Mas poderia ser diferente? Até '95, estávamos acostumados com o preço de quase qualquer artigo mudar uma ou duas vezes em um só dia. Antes desta data, o Orçamento da União era um delírio, uma ficção. Só depois do Plano Real é que pôde vislumbrar-se, pelo menos do ponto de vista dos jovens, a obtenção de empregos fixos que não fossem estatais, financiamentos que não dessem errado no meio do caminho, a oportunidade de ir à universidade, mesmo que essa fosse a Uninove ou a Uniban.

E pior: este mesmo jovem não só tem perspectivas completamente individualistas, como também prima por um comportamento lamentavelmente conservador. Segundo a mesma pesquisa, vemos um jovem brasileiro que acha que a lei do aborto é boa do jeito que está (mesmo quando o aborto tornou-se, como descreveu José Gomes Temporão, um problema de saúde pública). Vemos um jovem que acha que se deve ter uma pena de prisão para menores de dezoito anos, que se deve proibir a maconha.

É rir para não chorar, especialmente porque este é o mesmo jovem que não acompanha o noticiário político, que insiste em ir a igreja procurar consolo, que não lê nem jornal nem livro, que acha que garotas devem casar-se virgens e que transam pela primeira vez aos quatorze, quinze anos. É profundamente deprimente ver, tanto na FGV, onde presentemente estudo, quanto em pesquisas como a do Datafolha, que os jovens hoje acham que a felicidade está em tradição, família e propriedade, este mesmo lema que custou-nos vidas, torturados, cidades ultraviolentas, mais e mais viciados em drogas, corrupção endêmica, mães aos dezoito, atraso em todos os sentidos.

Não sei dos jovens do resto do Brasil além de pesquisas como a que mencionei. Nem conheço direito os jovens da FGV. Mas se depender destas pesquisas e daqueles que conheci em sala de aula, o Brasil está fodido. Sim, fodido, esta é a palavra científica para se descrever o Brasil do futuro. Se o melhor que teremos como liderança próxima são pessoas que não se interessam pelo fato que pode-se se comprar até um ministro do Supremo Tribunal Federal, pessoas que acham que todo o patrimônio público é deles, pessoas que acham que um bom emprego e um carrão trazem felicidade, nós estamos fodidos. Mas até aí, nada de muito novo, o Brasil é uma bosta desde 1530.

Publico este post sem revisão; temo que, se revisá-lo, deixarei de ser honesto. Sei que não sou exemplo a ser seguido, pois muito caguei nesta vida, muitos erros cometi que eram evitáveis. Mas não pode ser que aquilo que o futuro guarda para o Brasil são líderes que não lêem e não se interessam, exceto por dinheiro, poder e uma cega devoção ao Livro Preto, supostamente composto pelas sábias palavras de um Velho Barbudo que, apesar de perfeito, criou as bichas, os pobres, os pretos e todos aqueles que estes mesmos devotos líderes amam odiar.

Última consideração a respeito do post Revolta

O Chile de Augusto Pinochet, tido por muitos como um grande exemplo de sucesso do plano econômico neoliberal, faliu em 1982. O governo Chileno, tão capitalista, mão-de-ferro e religioso (católico), foi obrigado a nacionalizar praticamente tudo que fora previamente privatizado. Os Chilenos, tirando sarro da Universidade de Chicago e suas diretrizes econômicas aplicadas ao Chile, chamam esse episódio de sua história de socialismo chicago style.

Para mais informações, vale a pena ver o mais recente livro da jornalista canadense Naomi Klein, The Shock Doctrine. Muito ilustrativo, entre outras coisas, de como a memória histórica de alguns é pateticamente seletiva, visto que pouquíssimos se lembram da falência do modelo de Chicago no Chile, e do fato que este país revitalizou sua economia caminhando rumo a um modelo social-democrata.

Revolta

Fui descrito ontem à noite como revoltado. Senti tons de desaprovação. Então, após meses de inatividade....

Como ilustraram Bakunin e Camus, ser revoltado é ser humano. Mas não confundamos revoltado com revolucionário, nem revoltado com simplesmente bravo. Eu não estou bravo, nem sou grande crente em revoluções. Mas revoltar-se contra esse mar de merda que vejo ao meu redor, permeando a vida pública e vida privada: não vejo isso como nada mais que humano.

Itsván Mészáros certa vez postulou que sofríamos (e continuamos a sofrer) uma crise de subjetividade: não vemos para além do capital. Concordo, mas também não vemos para além do Estado, muito menos de Deus. É uma miopia gritante, sufoca.

Revolto-me contra o que cerceia a liberdade, e essas três instituições acima -Deus, Estado e o Capital- fazem exatamente isso. Ser humano é não aceitar a mediocridade de aceitar. Portanto, revoltar-se.

Vejo como prova de que a revolta é válida essa guinada patética que o mundo, a partir do final dos anos 70, deu para a direita. Pensou-se que era melhor ter ordem do que justiça. Concluiu-se ser mais desejável financeirizar a economia mundial, transformando o Estado (que de maneira alguma diminuiu de tamanho, vide os EUA) em instrumento subordinado a quem detém controle do capital. Deu no que deu: tirando o Chile de Augusto Pinochet, nenhuma economia neoliberal conseguiu crescimento que não fosse, quando comparado àquele do período do capitalismo denomimado "dourado" (pós-guerra ao primeiro Choque do Petróleo), pífio, dependente sempre de bolhas. Países que tiveram crescimento notável ou eram/viraram social-democratas (Inglaterra, por incrível que pareça) ou usam trabalho escravo (Índia e China, por exemplo).

Além da economia, pensou-se em trocar, como é típico do pensamento da direita, justiça por ordem. E deu no que deu: aumento da criminalidade (em geral, como no Brasil, ou da delinqüência juvenil, como na Grã-Bretanha), do uso de drogas, da gravidez precoces, dos casos de DSTs...

Como notou Orwell, entre outros, o mundo, desde a final da era Vitoriana tem em suas mãos a possibilidade de acabar com a fome, com a miséria, com a necessidade. Curiosamente, cá estamos, com fomes aguçadas pelo mercado (ver, por exemplo, o trabalho de Amartya Sen a respeito da quão eficaz é o mercado, ou o trabalho de Joseph Stiglitz, a respeito da possibilidade econômica da não-intervenção estatal em assuntos fiscais e monetários); uma epidemia que alastra-se mundo afora, em grande parte por causa de conservadorismo derivado de religião; e crises financeiras seríssimas a cada década.

Revolto-me porque não vemos além daquilo que nos impossibilita de ser livre. Quanto a Deus, o já-mencionado Bakunin disse tudo: é o maior algoz da humanidade (a respeito disso, ver o seu livro Deus e o Estado). O Estado existe para si mesmo; é no mínimo ingênuo pensar que ele suprirá as necessidades de alguém a não ser ele próprio. Quanto ao Capital, este trouxe um mundo melhor do que aquele que havia antes dele, mas não trouxe uma sociedade justa. E sem justiça, não há ordem, e sem justiça não há liberdade.

Se aceitar as coisas como são valesse a pena, o Brasil não seria o caos que é hoje, com uma elite nefasta (elite essa da qual faço parte, diga-se de passagem) que acaba com todas as possibilidades de todos os brasileiros e do próprio país. Aceitar as coisas como são deu-nos o mundo que hoje temos: mais perto de uma guerra nuclear, de catástrofes ambientais, mais perto do fim de tudo.

Ser rico, crer em Deus, ou ser burocrata não é desculpa para nada. O desejo de ser rico transformou o EUA no país mais perigoso do mundo; crer em Deus (e tudo que isso implica) fez de Israel um estado racista, assassino e suicida (ó, ironia!); e elevar a burocracia à patamar de divindade fez da China o maior país escravocrata do planeta. Revoltar-se é apenas abrir os olhos para o que está bem em frente do nariz e parar de olhar para a porra do umbigo.

Nota: quando acabarem minhas aulas, escrevo mais.

More on Facebook

Does Facebook Own You Forever?

Carta Capital & Mino Carta

To my dear English-speaking readers, the following blog's in Portuguese. Once again, for translations, try out Foxlingo.

* * *

Falo, já há algum tempo, para quem quer e não quer ouvir, que a única revista semanal que presta neste país é a Carta Capital. Digo isto por algumas razões. Primeiramente, parece-me ser a única cuja eminência parda, Mino Carta, aparenta preocupar-se com Jornalismo. Em segundo lugar, trabalham na revista jornalistas de verdade (Phydia de Athaide, Leandro Fortes, Ana Paula Sousa, et al.), pessoas que investigam e cumprem aquilo que é, ao meu ver (de leigo), o dever de todo indivíduo que pratica tal profissão: buscar a maior aproximação possível da verdade. Em terceiro lugar, em nenhuma parte da revista encontra-se um português massacrado por pseudo-jornalistas aparentemente semi-analfabetos.

Mais importante, talvez, seja o fato de que, apesar de saberem que não podem visar, como público-alvo, mais do que a classe média, a classe média-alta e a classe alta, aqueles que trabalham na Carta Capital aparentam demonstrar genuíno interesse no Brasil inteiro como assunto, não apenas no Brasil que serve à cobiça daqueles que, por sorte, ganância, ladroagem, trabalho ou uma mistura destes, ganham mais de R$800 por mês.

A revista em questão não é perfeita, de maneira alguma, e não concordo com tudo que ela fala e faz. Ao meu ver, sua posição quanto a política econômica do governo Lula não é correta; acho que a revista errou feio na sua reportagem quanto ao filme Tropa de Elite; e acho um violento equívoco o fato de a Carta Capital nunca entrevistar o corpo do contingente das Polícias Militar e Civil -apenas Capitães, Coronéis e Delegados, e isso só de vez em quando.

Mas continua a ser uma revista semanal honesta: sempre foi pró-Lula, e assim nos conta, desde sempre. E quando discordou do mesmo; de seu governo; ou daqueles proximos do presente presidente, assim notificou ao seus leitores. Mino Carta é uma pessoa de esquerda; todos na revista, aliás o são (ou pelos menos o aparentam ser). O foda aqui no Brasil, já que este é um país francamente de direita (entre, claro, as pessoas que ganham mais de R$800 reais por mês, que são os únicos que realmente têm voz na Grande Imprensa) é que ter uma revista dessas já faz a muitos chiarem, chiado esse que ouvi quando, na banca da Nove Julho, próxima à entrada da FGV, sugeri ao meu amigo Eitan comprar a Carta. Disse-me ele que ela era "tendenciosa". Sim, por que a Veja não é. Nem a IstoÉ, nem a Época, nem a Veja.

O problema é que aqui, em Terra Brasilis, aquilo que não vem ao encontro da opinião de certo sujeito (Eitan, neste caso) é tendencioso(a). Imagino que muitos partidários do PCdoB devem achar a Veja super tendenciosa e a Caros Amigos a nona maravilha do mundo moderno, especialmente aquela edição especial que, se não me engano, intitulava-se "Cuba, Sempre" (foi após esta edição, diga-se de passagem, que deixei de ler a revista).

Muito mais interessante, talvez, seja as pessoas primarem por duas coisas: a procura do bom jornalismo (seja ele de direita, esquerda, centro, da casa da minha avó) e o entendimento de que tudo que há em termos de jornalismo e informação, mesmo agências de notícias (Reuters, Efe, etc.), é tendencioso.

Por último, vale mencionar que a Veja e a IstoÉ viveram seus melhores momentos de jornalismo quando Mino Carta era chefe de suas respectivas redações. Provavelmente saiu por suas posições, mas isso é conjectura minha.

Aqui vai, então, em três partes, uma entrevista que Carta deu ao jornalista esportivo Juca Kfouri no programa "Juca Entrevista", da ESPN. É um programa esportivo e um dos principais focos da entrevista foi, ou era para ser, os jogos Pan-Americanos do Rio de Janeiro, onde houve uma roubalheira por parte dos organizadores (Arthur Nuzman e Cia Ltda.) incrível. Como caveat, menciono que Juca também é de esquerda e muito provavelmente votou para a Heloísa Helena na eleição de 2006 pois, em sua entrevista para a revista Caros Amigos em Junho do mesmo ano, apresentou certa preferência por esta candidata.

Entrevista, Parte 1



Entrevista, Parte 2



Entrevista, Parte 3

Our Favorite Uncle, at it Again

So the US got censured by the UN again; this time, the big no-no was waterboarding. And, as usual, it is highly likely the US government, a large portion of its population, and an even bigger swath of its political class don't give a flying fart. After all, we're talking about a country that has sent it's foreign prisoners to Egypt and Syria (yes, Syria) to be "questioned". Human Rights Watch just stated on 1 February that the US and Britain were being hypocritical when it came to dictators, despots, flawed polls, and sending prisoners and such to be tortured abroad. In the meantime,these two bastions of freedom and liberty hear of allies like Russia and Israel doing similar things and turn a blind eye.

No news here, of course, we've known this forever. But not always all of it. So, in the spirit of public service -and isn't that what blogs are supposed to be about- I've posted here a few more sites for my few?/sole?/inexistent? reader(s) to check out. All, of course, with the best intentions. PG-13 stuff, you know...

First up is Rebel Resource, which always has some interesting reading here and there. More interesting, though, are the links to other sites, like the Norman Finkelstein archives. Then there's LeftWatch, which is precisely what one needs when reading not only Rebel Resource but the links located in it as well. It's a good site, well researched, and most of the stuff is thoughtful and well-written.

More important, though, is If Americans Knew, which has been around for some time, now, and been doing, from what I understand, a fairly good job of amassing a substantial amount of information concerning the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. Worth a look.

* * *

Carnaval's over. May this have been the last one.

And I Thought Orkut Sucked It Large

With Friends Like These… (the politics behind the people behind Facebook)

Brilliant!

One of the best Onion articles I've ever read. Thanks, Marcos, you're a sweetheart.

World Leaders Gather To Roast Mahmoud Ahmadinejad

Super Tuesday

It's now 17:31 here in Brazil. Which means Larry King will soon begin his masturbatory session on CNN as he and his team of "analysts" spend hours and hours predicting who'll win the Democratic primaries. Millions'll watch. Fox News will pretend not to care. MSNBC will pretend they're actually competition. Jon Stewart will make fun of the whole thing. I'll miss it.

Super Tuesday. I bet even folks at MoveOn.org think today's ballot casting is meaningful. I bet even third-party activists think there's a choice to be made. I'll bet even the most cynical have stopped comparing Super Tuesday to the Super Bowl (you know, commercial breaks that cost millions, yada yada yada).

That's cute. It must be feeling good right now, them butterflies, the cheering, maybe some are comparing it to The First Time. Maybe the more informed are making comparisons to moments like Luis Inácio Lula da Silva's election. That's adorable, probably makes people think the US has a functioning democracy. Here, let me pinch your cheeks you cute little thing you...

But then again, you all know it don't mean shit. You all know our buddy Barack and our Sista Hillary work for the same people that crazy nutjob McCain works for. You know, donors and such. Did you donate money to their campaign? No? Hmm, guess you're shit outta luck, then.

But more than that, maybe their message really touched your heart, a message I'll bet my left testicle you can't even repeat, unless you look it up or Ctrl+C Ctrl+V that shit. The two candidates from the Democratic party with actual messages, whether you agreed with the messages or not, are gone or never had a chance. Ending poverty? Pfffft. Make the US a non-belicose state? Pffffft.

No, fuck that. Better to go for PR campaigns. After all, that's what American democracy has been about since the Cold War. The fact that Obama '08 folks actually believe Barack Obama was ALWAYS against the war should have George Orwell smiling right now. And to know that so many wish to turn a blind eye to the fact that Hillary Clinton is a crazy belicose "let's bomb the Persians NOW" bitch who is so corrupt she would fit right in in Brazil and vote for her because she's a woman and "stood by her man"... it all boggles the mind.

It'll make absolutely no difference if Hillary Clinton or Barack Obama make it to the White House (after George Bush's presidency, it's doubtful John McCain can win). Hillary and Barack belong to a tainted party, one that is just as corrupt, just as sold out, as the Republicans. Both candidates have spent millions upon millions of dollars saying nothing for the better part of four years (remember Obama at the Democratic Convention that chose John Kerry?), tricking people with well-made speeches and carefully placed editorials by Joe Klein. People should know better by now, especially those who follow politics, who know American history, and who are fully aware that marketing is a derivative of propaganda.

Lexington or Charlemagne, one of the three editorial pages in the Economist (I forget which one exactly), commented, about a year after the onset of the Second Iraq War, that, had Al Gore made it to the White House, he'd have made the exact same decisions after 9/11 that G.Bush made. I wholeheartedly agree.

Mediocrity Through the Ages

Brazil, my friends, has VH1 Classic. Which means that, more than ever, we're that close to reaching our potential, the one we've been talking about since 1822. Who knows, maybe Sting'll even drop by to remind us yet again about The Rainforest.

So, whilst enjoying a segment VH1 calls "Música Mais Música Menos", I happened upon Will.i.am's "I Got It From My Mama" video (2007) and Gerardo's "Rico Suave" (1991). It's stupendous: sixteen years separates two incredibly mediocre, dull, unbelievably poorly written and terribly produced tracks detailing nothing.

But at least these two treasures, brought to me by Brazil's recent economic advances, point to the benefits of globalization. Ecuador got to have it's moment in the sun with this bright shining star it called Gerardo, and Brazil got yet more notice for it's almost century-old battered cliché of hot mulatas dancing 'bout the beach telling some rich foreigner their body is a precious gift given to them by their dear mothers.

Maybe I'm being reductionist; after all, Brazil is certainly a better country for having internationalized itself. Maybe my criticism would be better directed at something else, say, the people who listen -and memorize- this crap; then again, I've seen Chuck Norris' entire oeuvre.

But, again, I rant. Here are the videos:

Carnaval

So this is my blog. It begins now, 3 February, 2008, and I'm 26. It's 23:26 and I've a veritable boner. My blog!!!!!

First off, to those Brazilians still reading this and wondering why I'm being so fucking pretentious as to write in English... I'm pretentious, I intend this blog to be... yes... for FOREIGNERS!!! I actually think people of other nations, individuals other than my closest of friends, will read this. I also believe in the saci pererê, but only on leap years.

In any case, if you're having trouble with the English thing, you can translate this with Foxlingo, a Mozilla Firefox extension. But if my blog interests you that much, just fucking buy me a drink and let's go have sex already.

* * *
The latest edition of Carta Capital (which, for those not in the know, is Brazil's only decent weekly) featured an article on a recent wave of protests that took over parts of the Pela-Porco favela (slum, or shanty town) in Salvador, the capital of Bahia, due to the assassination, on the part of the Bahia Military Police, of four young black males. The article is certainly revealing as inside much information can be gleaned, especially the fact that there are actually protests, not just episodes of crying in front of television cameras at the four mens' funerals. The situation is so fucked-up, so ridiculous, that several people have manifested themselves in all sorts of very unBrazilian ways (one of the boys' mothers, a handicap mother of 3 -now 2- is in hiding for fear of retaliation, since she has spoken to the press).

But, alas, this isn't what the current post is about. I got really interested in a YouTube post the article mentioned, entitled Carnaval 2007 - Salvador Negro Amor??? It reminded me exactly of why I hate (and I'm using the word hate, not detest or anything like that) Carnaval. It reminded me of why I sometimes (but only sometimes, mind you) hang my head when walking the streets of São Paulo (or any Brazilian city, for that matter).

The video, as one can see, details police acting during one or more Chiclete com Banana (a Brazilian axé band) shows in Salvador. More than that, it details the entire social dynamic of these concerts. What happens is that, to "jump" behind one of these shows during carnaval in Salvador (the band is playing atop a moving truck), you have to buy a shirt (an abadá) that could cost several hundred reais, maybe upwards of one thousand. A rope is then set around the people who have the abadás (the green and blue shirts in the video) and anyone without them cannot come inside and "jump" along with the band.

Typical Brazil, in other words: black people create something -axé, the moving truck business, Carnaval- and only white people doing ether get to enjoy it. Part of what's seen in the video is this: blacks and pardos, the vast majority of Salvador's population (83%, according to the Brazilian Geography and Statistics Institute), attempting to enjoy something they're not allowed. However, as other blacks noticed, people of color can serve as protection for whites inside the ropes and sell 100ml cups of water.

Or better yet, they can go work for the Bahia Military Police and beat the shit out of other black people.

The reason I liked this video is not it's message, which I wasn't too hot for (the guy who edited the video seems to think everything in Brazil comes down to race when, in fact, problems are much deeper-seated. I would reckon a guess he just got into a Federal college and finished reading Marx.). I liked it because it's funny... in a sadistic way. You could show this shit to most of the white people I know (reactionary Jews, quasi-fascist Christians, etc.), and they would not only find it normal (a regular complaint from the video's editor), they'd find it amusing. Brazilians these days, especially the rich ones, dig violence, the love it, they get off on it; many only wish they could make sure the State could monopolize power just to make sure poor people would "stay in their proper place" (hence the ignorant and misplaced nostalgia for the 64-85 dictatorship, one of the principle reasons we've such rampant violence these days).

But my hatred of Carnaval is much deeper. Pray tell: do people even know what they're celebrating? Is it Ash Wednesday, the religious component of the holiday? If it is, it's funny, cuz that's when everyone's back to work. Are we celebrating our joy as a people? Then do tell me, what joy this is? Is it the joy those people at the Pela-Porco favela are feeling? Maybe it's the joy the almost half-a-million people who died of violent crime in the past ten years felt.

"Oh, Rafael, you fucking pussy," is what you're probably saying, am I right? Really, am I right?

Then tell me, is Carnaval about this country, Brasil, the winner of five fucking MEANINGLESS World Cups? What fucking country, I ask you? You go to Belém, Pará, and come back to São Paulo, São Paulo, and it's like you've been to two separate nations. And it has nothing, NOTHING, to do with regional accents or any such thing.

Oh, I know, maybe its revealing thoughts by shit pseudo-journalists like Ali Kamel, from Globo (where else?): Brazilians are not racists. Yes, and then there's Veja Magazine, which I remember telling me about Brazil not being homophobic either.

I was once talking to a friend of mine, a guy who'd recently just returned from living abroad. He told me two things, one of which left me dumbfounded, the other which left me... I don't know... curious. The first one is that people don't have a class consciousness. The second is that I shouldn't pity poor people for being poor.

On account of the first argument, I don't even know where to begin. Maybe he was fucking with me. Maybe he wasn't himself that day. Hell, even a fucking Nazi can see that rich people are completely aware that they're part of an elite, and wish to remain so. What's so terrible about the Brazilian elite is that it not only knows it's a class of extremely filthy-rich white people but it has absolutely no conception of what it even means to be an elite.

As for the second argument, I don't pity the poor of Brazil for being poor; I pity them for having to deal with us, with people that read books that enlighten us as to our lack of racism and our acceptance of fags and dykes because (and I swear on my mother's eyes that this was Veja Magazine's central argument) São Paulo has a Gay Parade.

But I rant, as a certain comedian once said. I'll now continue to ignore this bullshit holiday.

Cheers.