Whatever

This is truly the last time I shall comment on Israel, promise.

* * *

I've truly tired of this country, as I'm sure many others have. As far as I'm concerned, if there is a single nation on earth truly capable of starting World War III out of sheer truculence and a piss-poor attitude, it is the Jewish state. It is amazing how not only Israeli leaders but Israeli citizens (and untold millions of supporters around the world), too, cannot conceive of said country doing harm to anyone. It doesn't matter that we now begin seeing, especially through the work of what are called The New (Israeli) Historians, that the state in question was founded upon planned ethnic cleansing. And it doesn't matter when a UN panel -or any other panel, for that matter- headed by a respected Jewish jurist finds Israeli leaders to have acted like war criminals: fuck it!, Israel can do whatever it wishes, and always hide behind the "we're defending ourselves" bullshit they've been uttering since 1948. And I say it's bullshit because, if it were true, the Jewish state would at least make an effort, which it never has, to not provoke or, worst, not start every war it's ever been involved in.

It is fast becoming an academic question whether or not those who founded and, since '48, ran Israel sought to ethnically cleanse the land, or to make a Palestinian state inviable. For even if we don't see a purely Jewish state (which, let's face it, is not an ethnic question, since Judaism is a religion, not a race or ethnicity), Palestinian statehood and Palestinian dignity are now (and have arguably been for a long time) an impossibility. Even if the US and, to a lesser extent, Western Europe, were to withdraw their financial and military support; and even if Arab (and Iranian) leaders were to somehow magically become even merely competent, Palestine and Palestinians are fucked (and it would be wise to mention the share of blame one can lay at Palestians' doorstep for their current state of affairs, since the leaders they have followed, whether optionally or not, either consisted of Nazi sympathizers, gangsters, religious fanatics, or those who were/are simply too bewildered to a decent job).

Eventually, most Arab states will be bribed into peace with Israel, very much like what happened with Egypt and Jordan. It won't, of course, be a real peace; the peace that Egypt and Jordan have with the Jewish state will only exist as long as these Arab states are ruled with an iron fist. But it will be enough for the Western world to congratulate itself endlessly and for Israelis to fool themselves into believing that they were indeed always looking for peace, and that it was those goddamn fucking sand niggers that continuously kept postponing the dream.

Like I said, whatever; I'm gonna go write about Michael Bolton or something, it'll be much more productive than commenting on a fixed game with inevitable results. So fuck Israel and the US for it's blind, unwavering support, fuck the Arab world for being so incredibly incompetent and inert, and a symbolic candle to Palestinians, who are fucked beyond return.

Aw!, Fuck!, I Missed It!

I missed my blog's one-year anniversary; then again, who cares? But indeed, I've been writing for more than a year now, and the world is not better off for it: I've deviated from this blog's original mission (making fun of my country and related subjects), my writing has grown ever more contrived and recherché, and I've started absolutely no debate whatsoever: the dearth of comments and replies for my posts is terrifying.

But I shall keep trying, dear readers, for my opinion continues to be completely indispensable to me. So, to the few fans I have:

1. Keep on reading, people, I love you all dearly;
2. Write some fucking comments once in a while; and
3. Rate my posts, that's why I've made available a rating system in the first place!!!!!

So World, I'm still here (and you're still there, apparently). Cheerio.

GTA VI: Mario's World

The music below would probably be part of the soundtrack for the sixth version of Grand Theft Auto, where Mario, a crazy Italo-American plumber turned sociopath, decides to take on the Camorra in Naples. It will feature Mario as the main character; Luigi as the crazy brother who does the accounting and kills people by plumbing their brains or some shit; that Princess (I forget her name) as Mario's main babe (actually, she'll be a hooker-cum-girlfriend, pimped out by that mushroom guy, who'll eventually be killed by Mario in, like, the tenth mission of the game); and Bowser as head of the Camorra. Nintendo might throw in Space Fox as the DA, or maybe even the mayor.

Obs.: Nintendo, I do expect payment for this idea; 5% of gross sales should suffice.

Songs I Loathe, pt. 1

And loathe, my friends, is exactly the right word, for the songs that shall be featured in my Diary's new series are compositions I goddamn fucking hate (detest, I'm afraid, is too light a word to describe my feelings towards the music contained herein).

And the first song, which came to mind almost immediately, is Believe, by the ever so musically untalented (and living?) Cher. As with most songs in this soon-to-be-hugely-popular series, my reasons for such ill will must remain, at best, unconvincing: it's all completely subjective, I still love Marina Lima, and -let's be honest- who says I actually know what I'm talking about?

But Believe just kills me: very weak lyrics, that annoying pitch shift effect for her voice, her tone, it's all just awful. Worst, it's one of those songs that, like those of Matchbox 20, are so impeccably well-written that they become duller than Bob Dole on qualudes.



And then there's that other paradigm of mediocrity, Ebony and Ivory, with Stevie Wonder and Paul McCartney. The song reminds me of the Wiemar Republic: it looks really good on paper, it fills our hearts with high hopes, and then comes crashing down on us by simply sucking so very, very much. I mean, just copy/pasting the video's code already has my brain scrambling for shelter.

Clips que Marcam

O mundo certamente espera, ansioso, sem mais unhas para roer!, qualquer opinião minha sobre o que se desenrola em Gaza, Obama e tantos outros assuntos.  Como os israelenses e o Hamas ainda não terminaram de ser cretinos, e como o BHO só tomou posse há uma semana, falarei, então, para delírio geral dos meus três/cinco/não-mais-que-dez leitores(as), sobre música.  Mais precisamente, sobre música da qual eu gosto, já que sou, como bem sabem meus ávidos fãs, o centro de toda Existência.

Outro dia, por razão x, lembrei-me do Suede e seu primeiro hit single, Animal Nitrate.  Devia ter uns doze... é, doze anos, quando saiu o primeiro disco deles, e o clip da já mencionada canção me deixou atônito, meio perplexo.  Era foda: o Brett Anderson dando uns tapas num porco, dois homens se pegando (coisa que não existia na TV brasileira, se é que existe agora), uma música muito pegajosa e, como vim a descobrir depois, uma letra safada.

Bem, ao clip:

Fala sério, né, puta música.

Aliás, este clip é prova de que, se a canção/obra for boa, o clip, se bem feito, pode ser uma extensão muito interessante da música, como é o caso de Animal Nitrate ou, por exemplo, Jeremy, do Pearl Jam e Digging in the Dirt, do Peter Gabriel.

Percebo também que faz tempo que não vejo um clip tão (para mim) pertubador, apesar de ter aquele da Björk com os robôs se pegando.  Mas, verdade seja dita, não tenho mais doze anos de idade, e sou pervertido demais para me impressionar com essas coisas, além de não haver muito mais shock value para clips que não queiram envolver violência real, sexo explícito ou scripts do Charlie Kauffman.  É, também, uma grande pena que, para a vasta maioria dos artistas que tem (ou recebem) grana para fazer videoclips (estes podem vir a custar $500 mil dólares, se não tiver alguém de olho no orçamento), a decisão seja a de fazer clips com gente nos mostrando o quão ricos são (o hip-hop está cheio disso) ou o quão miserável e triste é sua existência (bandas emo ou tipo o 3 Doors Down), quando certamente há criatividade de sobra mundo a fora para que esse meio de expressão continue a ser inovador e impressionante.

Tendo isso em vista, deixo o(a) leitor(a) com mais um vídeo legalzão, que tem haver com a música, e não é seu suporte, mas sim uma extensão dela.

 

Beijos.

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.