O Brasil está de parabéns, se não o Brasil, ao menos suas elites, pois suas instituições, supostamente do Brasil, suportam firmemente o furacão fluminense Roberto Jefferson (PTB), que já demonstra sinais de evidente desespero e destempero.
Não há como Roberto Jefferson escapar da cassação, é réu confesso e, o que é mais importante, perdeu o juízo. Talvez tenha percebido o estrago que fez a si mesmo e ao seu partido, mas parece tarde para consertar.
José Dirceu (PT-SP), que certamente tem culpa no cartório, retirou-se do cenário, concentrou-se bem em suas histórias, passou algumas horas defronte ao espelho ensaiando e se saiu muito bem em seu depoimento ao conselho de ética, até agora, tem apenas indícios contra si.
Jefferson não foi capaz de enfrentar Dirceu à altura, descontrolou-se, meteu novamente os pés pelas mãos e já teve que voltar atrás no que disse, já teve que reestruturar sua história, que talvez não estivesse pronta para ser usada no depoimento de Dirceu.
O erro de Jefferson foi subestimar Dirceu, embora seus talentos para os holofotes sejam irrefutáveis, Jefferson esqueceu que ser militante político em regime de excessão também traz suas experiências. Dentre outras coisas, ensina a manter o bico calado sobre o que não deve ser falado e faz isso de um jeito que cara feia nem assusta.
Jefferson deseja um acordo entre o PTB e o PT para que possa escapar ileso, ao menos para salvaguardar seu partido, mas é difícil o PT realizar tal acordo publicamente, seria, em se tratando de PT, uma emenda pior que o soneto. O PT tem de bolar uma solução muito boa, uma solução irrefutável.
Independente da solução, o PT sai manchado dessa história e sai do primeiro ano de mandato do Lula ainda mais próximo ao PSDB do que começou, ainda mais próximo das elitas que antes, ainda assim, talvez Lula tenha que disputar o segundo turno nas próximas eleições.
O presidente Lula se aproxima ainda mais do povo, ao menos enquanto houver holofotes sobre ele. O PT, com o médico das finanças à frente, aproxima-se mais das elites, é o caminho da sobrevivência para um governo em crise.
A elite não se incomoda que a Caixa Econômica Federal amplie os recursos para o financiamento da casa própria, além da pequena elite também aproveitar desses recursos, é muito melhor povo com endereço fixo, e muito mais fácil de vigiar.
O povo, o povo, é difícil saber o que o povo quer, o povo é muita gente, gente de todo tipo, que acredita em coisas diferentes. Até sabe que tem potencial para influenciar o governo, mas o que sabe mesmo, e não é de hoje, é que são as grandes corporações que têm a cinética para o fazer.
Além de tudo, algumas coisas são mais fáceis para o povo que para as elites, para o povo não é tão importante preservar as instituições, mesmo sem saber que elas só existem para sua própria opressão.
Para o povo os acusados já são culpados, mas pedindo desculpas, podem ser perdoados, afinal se envolver com prostitutas, mesmo as legendas, acaba dando nisso, acaba que todo mundo fica sabendo, acaba que dá a maior confusão, mas se o perdão parece sincero tem que perdoar, que todo mundo erra.
E a elite, as grandes corporações transnacionais, essas é que estão de parabéns, pois podem se orgulhar de ver toda essa panacéia de camarote, acompanhando tudo pelo celular de seus correspondentes no congresso, com quase nenhum risco de qualquer prejuízo maior.
Parabéns Brasil, já é um país grande, os grandes capitais podem confiar nessa terra, que mesmo em caso de tempestade seu dinheiro está seguro, pode-se investir que é lucro na certa, em momento de crise então, é lucro em dobro, pode especular que a nação é do bem.
Até MP do bem, a taça do mundo já é nossa, então, vem pra Caixa você também!
5.8.05
Gun control by Noam Chomsky
O blog da Esfera Pública disponibiliza para seus leitores e colaboradores um pequeno excerto do livro Secrets, lies and democracy, do Noam Chomsky, entrevistado por David Barsamian. A maior parte do livro é retirada das transcrições de entrevistas em meio radiofônico.
Pedimos desculpas aos leitores pelo texto exclusivamente em inglês, mas informamos que este texto serve muito mais de subsídio para artigos de nossos colaboradores e também para autores de blogs amigos, que estarão produzindo muito sobre a questão do desarmamento no Brasil, em decorrência da proximidade do plebiscito.
Abaixo o trecho denominado Gun control, páginas 35 a 38.
Advocates of free access to arms cite the Second Amendment. Do you believe that it permits unrestricted, uncontrolled possession of guns?
It's pretty clear that, taken literally, the Second Amendement doesn't permit people to have guns. But laws are never taken literally, including amendment to the Constitution ot constitutional rights. Laws permits what the tenor os the times interprets them as permitting.
But undelying the controversy over guns are some serious questions. There's a feeling in the country that people are under attack. I think they're misidentifying the source of the attack.
The government is the only power structure that's even partially accountable to the population, so naturally the business sectors want to make that the enemy - not the corporate system, which is totally unaccountable. After decades of intensive business propaganda, people fell that the government is some kind of enemy and that they have to defend themselves from it.
It's not that doesn't have it's justifications. The government is authoritarian and commonly hostile to much of the population. But it's partially - and pottentially vey influenciable - by the general population.
Many people who advocate keepting guns have fear of the government in the back of their minds. But that's a crazy response to a real problem.
Do the media foster the feeling people have that they're under attack?
At the deepest level, the media contribute to the sense that the government is the enemy, and they suppress the sources of real power is the society, which lie in te totalitarian institutions - the corporations, now international in scale - that control the economy and much of our social life. In fact, the corporations sei the conditions within which the government operates, and control it to a large extent.
The picture presented in the media is constant, day after day. People simply have no awareness of the system of power under which they are suffering. As a result - as intended - they turn their attention against the gonvernment.
People have all kinds of motivations for opposing gun control, but there's definitely a sector of the population that considers itself threatened by big forces, ranging from the Federal Reserve to the Council on Foreign Relations to big government to who knows what, and they're calling for guns to protect thenselves.
Radio listener: On the issue of gun control, I believe that the US is becoming much more like a Third World country, and nothing is necessarily going to put a stop on it. I look around and see a lot of Third World countries where, if the citizens had weapons, they wouldn't have the government they've got. So I think that may be people are being a little shortsighted in arguing for gun control and at the same time realizing that the government they-ve got is not exactly a benign one.
Your point illustrates exactly what I think is a major fallacy. The government is far from benign - that's true. On the other hand, it's at least partially accountable, and it can become as benign as we make it.
What's not benign (what's extremely harmful, in fact) is something you didn't mention - business power, which is highly concentrated and, by now, largely transnational. Business power is very far from benign and it's completely unanccountable. It's totalitariam system that has an enormous effect on our lives. It's also the main reason why government isn't benign.
As for guns being the way to respond to this, that's outlandish. First of all, this is not a weak Third World country. If people have pistols, the government have tanks, if people get tanks, the government has atomic weapons. There's no way to deal with these issues by violent force, even if you think that that's morally legitimate.
Guns in the hands of American citizens are not going to make the country more benign. They're going to make it more brutal, ruthless and destructive. So while one can recognize the motivations that lies behing some of the opposition to gun control, I think it's sadly misguided.
Pedimos desculpas aos leitores pelo texto exclusivamente em inglês, mas informamos que este texto serve muito mais de subsídio para artigos de nossos colaboradores e também para autores de blogs amigos, que estarão produzindo muito sobre a questão do desarmamento no Brasil, em decorrência da proximidade do plebiscito.
Abaixo o trecho denominado Gun control, páginas 35 a 38.
Advocates of free access to arms cite the Second Amendment. Do you believe that it permits unrestricted, uncontrolled possession of guns?
It's pretty clear that, taken literally, the Second Amendement doesn't permit people to have guns. But laws are never taken literally, including amendment to the Constitution ot constitutional rights. Laws permits what the tenor os the times interprets them as permitting.
But undelying the controversy over guns are some serious questions. There's a feeling in the country that people are under attack. I think they're misidentifying the source of the attack.
The government is the only power structure that's even partially accountable to the population, so naturally the business sectors want to make that the enemy - not the corporate system, which is totally unaccountable. After decades of intensive business propaganda, people fell that the government is some kind of enemy and that they have to defend themselves from it.
It's not that doesn't have it's justifications. The government is authoritarian and commonly hostile to much of the population. But it's partially - and pottentially vey influenciable - by the general population.
Many people who advocate keepting guns have fear of the government in the back of their minds. But that's a crazy response to a real problem.
Do the media foster the feeling people have that they're under attack?
At the deepest level, the media contribute to the sense that the government is the enemy, and they suppress the sources of real power is the society, which lie in te totalitarian institutions - the corporations, now international in scale - that control the economy and much of our social life. In fact, the corporations sei the conditions within which the government operates, and control it to a large extent.
The picture presented in the media is constant, day after day. People simply have no awareness of the system of power under which they are suffering. As a result - as intended - they turn their attention against the gonvernment.
People have all kinds of motivations for opposing gun control, but there's definitely a sector of the population that considers itself threatened by big forces, ranging from the Federal Reserve to the Council on Foreign Relations to big government to who knows what, and they're calling for guns to protect thenselves.
Radio listener: On the issue of gun control, I believe that the US is becoming much more like a Third World country, and nothing is necessarily going to put a stop on it. I look around and see a lot of Third World countries where, if the citizens had weapons, they wouldn't have the government they've got. So I think that may be people are being a little shortsighted in arguing for gun control and at the same time realizing that the government they-ve got is not exactly a benign one.
Your point illustrates exactly what I think is a major fallacy. The government is far from benign - that's true. On the other hand, it's at least partially accountable, and it can become as benign as we make it.
What's not benign (what's extremely harmful, in fact) is something you didn't mention - business power, which is highly concentrated and, by now, largely transnational. Business power is very far from benign and it's completely unanccountable. It's totalitariam system that has an enormous effect on our lives. It's also the main reason why government isn't benign.
As for guns being the way to respond to this, that's outlandish. First of all, this is not a weak Third World country. If people have pistols, the government have tanks, if people get tanks, the government has atomic weapons. There's no way to deal with these issues by violent force, even if you think that that's morally legitimate.
Guns in the hands of American citizens are not going to make the country more benign. They're going to make it more brutal, ruthless and destructive. So while one can recognize the motivations that lies behing some of the opposition to gun control, I think it's sadly misguided.
Assinar:
Postagens (Atom)