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.