Republica Cocalera dos Vizinhos Multiculturais: nao se pode mudar a geografia...

Geografia é destino, como dizia o General De Gaulle.
Pois é, ele sabia do que falava, já que a França enfrentou o "desprazer" de ser derrotada três vezes pela Alemanha, nem todas de maneira completa pois em duas ocasiões foi salva por esses arrogantes imperialistas americanos.
E se salvou de ser derrotada uma quarta vez quando homens esclarecidos acharam de desnacionalizar o carvão e o aço, privando a pobre Alemanha de suas ferramentas guerreiras.
O Brasil não tem nenhuma a Alemanha por perto, e aliás temos a França, com sua maior fronteira terrestre, aqui no alto. Por lá são muitos os contrabandistas, traficantes, garimpeiros, prostitutas, maconheiros (ops, maconheiros não, isso tem muito na USP) e outros meliantes que cruzam continuamente as froneiras terrestres, fluviais, aéreas, marítimas, as fronteiras do pensamento, etc...
Aqui por perto temos outros elementos, que também cruzam a fronteira, mas parece que são nossos aliados, pelos menos aliados ideológicos de quem está no poder. Não são meus, mas tampouco posso escolher os vizinhos.
Geografia é destino. Pois é. O General De Gaulle tinha razão: é preciso fazer política de sua geografia, dizia ele. Ele deveria ter conhecido nossos "alemães"....

Imprecisões dificultam acordo anti-drogas Bolívia-EUA-Brasil

AFP – 20/11/2011

Imprecisões na redação referentes ao papel protagônico do Estado boliviano no combate às drogas dificultam a assinatura dos memorandos de entendimento entre Bolívia, Estados Unidos e Brasil para controlar os cultivos excedentes de coca, disse neste domingo o Governo boliviano.

“A redação do acordo tem que melhorar, para que de maneira alguma se possa entender que isso afeta as políticas públicas de luta contra as drogas lideradas pelo Estado boliviano, sob controle do Estado boliviano, um controle total e absoluto”, declarou o ministro de Governo (Interior) Wilfredo Chávez à rede Erbol.

“Não deve haver palavra alguma, conceito algum que possa de alguma maneira ser mal entendido, seja em termos jurídicos, ou inclusive em termos midiáticos. Cuidando disso, estamos trabalhando neste documento”, acrescentou.

A assinatura do acordo foi adiada duas vezes na semana passada e ainda não tem uma nova data confirmada.

O projeto piloto consiste no controle da erradicação de cultivos excedentes de coca, que inclui também a modernização das instituições estatais ligadas ao combate ao narcotráfico.

A iniciativa permitirá contar com informação “em tempo real sobre os hectares de coca erradicados”, explicou o vice-ministro de Defesa Social, Felipe Cáceres.

Segundo as Nações Unidas, a Bolívia conta com 31.000 hectares de plantações de coca, das quais apenas 12.000 são reconhecidas como legais para usos tradicionais, como infusão, mastigação e rituais religiosos andinos.

O acordo será assinado depois que a Bolívia normalizou suas relações com os Estados Unidos, após três anos de distanciamento marcado pela expulsão em 2008 da agência antidrogas DEA e do embaixador americano, acusados de apoiar um suposto complô contra o governo Evo Morales.

Bolívia e Brasil assinaram no início deste ano um acordo bilateral para controlar o tráfico de drogas com aviões não tripulados brasileiros.

Disponível em:  http://noticias.terra.com.br/mundo/noticias/0,,OI5479468-EI8140,00-Imprecisoes+dificultam+acordo+antidrogas+BoliviaEUABrasil.html Acesso em: 20-11-11

Despotas esclarecidos: ja tivemos, ao que parece (algumas ate bonitas...)

Catherine the Great's Lessons for Despots

By ROBERT K. MASSIE

The Wall Street Journal, November 12, 2011

Russia's erudite empress tried to redeem absolute rule; 

her failures highlight dangers still present today

One by one, the despots are falling. Some remain: in Syria, Yemen, Iran, North Korea, Zimbabwe, Saudi Arabia, Bahrain and elsewhere. The word "despot" applies to rule by a single person, wielding absolute power, and we use it as a term of condemnation.

Everett Collection

Catherine the Great, depicted above (right) by Julia Ormond in the TV movie 'Young Catherine,' promoted liberal ideas ahead of her time.

But it is useful to remember that its connotation was not always negative. For most of the past millennium, most nations on Earth were governed by rulers who could be described as despots. Some were popular and accepted; others hated; a few overthrown. Some were even called "benevolent."

Perhaps the most remarkable member of this last (and admittedly small) class was Catherine the Great, who became Empress of Russia in 1762 and ruled for more than three decades. Like her contemporary, Thomas Jefferson, she was an avid student of the Enlightenment, the European intellectual movement whose ideas about the social contract and human rights have so strongly shaped our own notions of the legitimate role of government.

Catherine tried—sometimes she succeeded, other times she failed—to bring key elements of this liberalizing influence to her own vast empire. Today, her efforts, and even her failures, remain instructive.

Born an obscure German princess, Catherine was sent to Russia at the age of 14 because the Empress Elizabeth, the daughter of Peter the Great, needed a young woman to reproduce with her nephew and heir (the infant would become the back-up heir). At 16, Catherine married, but for the next nine years her husband slept beside her without touching her.

Finally, Elizabeth offered Catherine a choice between two young courtiers to act as a surrogate father for the necessary child. A baby boy was born, but the empress, overjoyed, rushed into the birthing room, snatched the infant from the mother and carried him off. During the first eight months of her son's life, Catherine saw him briefly three times.

Bereft of husband and child, a lonely Catherine began to read the histories, philosophy and literature of Greece and Rome and of the Enlightenment. Montesquieu's "The Spirit of Laws," which analyzed the strengths and weaknesses of despotic rule, had a powerful impact on her. She was particularly interested in his thesis that the conduct of a specific despot could partially redeem that form of rule. Thereafter, she attributed to herself a "republican soul" of the kind advocated by Montesquieu.

Voltaire, the venerated patriarch of the Enlightenment, had concluded that a despotic government might well be the best possible form of government—if it were reasonable. But to be reasonable, he said, it must be enlightened; if enlightened, it could be both efficient and benevolent. Soon after ascending to the throne, Catherine began a correspondence with Voltaire that eventually extended to hundreds of letters over more than 20 years.

In 1766, the new empress told Voltaire that she was writing an "Instruction," intended to serve as a guide for a complete rewriting of the outdated Russian legal code. She began by stating that "Russia is a European state"; this was intended to exorcise the nation's traditional sense of geographic and cultural isolation. She went on to write that "the equality of citizens consists in the fact that all are subject to the same laws."

On the great issue of crime and punishment, Catherine declared that "it is better to prevent than punish crimes." She wished to restrict capital punishment only to cases involving political murder, sedition, treason or civil war. She rejected the use of torture, traditionally used in Russia to extract confessions, obtain evidence and determine guilt. As she wrote, "the accused party on the rack, while in the agonies of torture, is not master enough of himself to be able to declare the truth."

Catherine followed the publication of her "Instruction" by summoning a Legislative Commission, elected from all free social classes and ethnic groups, to voice complaints and propose new laws. The representatives gathered in Moscow and met for 18 months, but they failed to meet her goals. No new code of laws was produced. Worse, because of the vociferous opposition of the landowning nobility, Catherine's effort to improve and eventually end the institution of serfdom came to naught.

Still, Catherine considered her "Instruction" the greatest contribution that she made to Russia, and it is worth noting how early she was in promoting such liberal ideas. She preceded Thomas Jefferson's drafting of the Declaration of Independence by nine years, and her legislative assembly came 22 years before Louis XVI of France summoned the Estates General.

Near the end of her reign Catherine was asked how she understood the "blind obedience with which her orders were obeyed." Catherine smiled and answered, "It is not as easy as you think…. I examine the circumstances, I take advice, I consult the enlightened part of the people, and so in this way I find out what sort of effect my laws will have. And when I am already convinced in advance of good approval, then I issue my orders and have the pleasure of observing what you call blind obedience."

Catherine died in 1796, when George Washington was finishing his second term in office. Since then, the temptations of absolute power have remained great; despots have continued to appear, afflicting people everywhere. We have learned, at enormous cost, the difficulty of combining despotism with benevolence. Few rulers have even tried. Catherine tried.

—Mr. Massie's new book is "Catherine the Great: Portrait of a Woman." His previous books include "Nicholas and Alexandra" and "Peter the Great," for which he won the Pulitzer Prize.

The party is almost over, baby! It's decadence all over again...

OP-ED COLUMNIST

Decline and Fall

By ROGER COHEN

The New York Times, November 21, 2011

• RECOMMEND
• TWITTER
• LINKEDIN
• COMMENTS (1)
• E-MAIL
• PRINT
• REPRINTS
• SHARE

BOSTON — Everyone’s so glum and gloomy. I suppose this is what decline looks like: the faces in the laundromat. It puts me in mind of Rome circa 475 A.D., Visigoths on the prowl.

Damon Winter/The New York Times

Roger Cohen

Go to Columnist Page »

Enlarge This Image

Cristobal Schmal

Readers’ Comments

Share your thoughts.

• Post a Comment »
• Read All Comments (1) »

Not so long ago Google chefs were making millions. Now everyone sits around with badges saying “99 percent.” That would be the 99 percent not getting the stock options Google chefs once got and banking executives still do.

Envy was never the American way. It is Thanksgiving week. Be thankful. You, too, can be a Google chef, or maybe a Groupon chef! You just have to get lucky.

Speaking of chefs, Mario Batali, the celebrity chef who caters to the 1 percent and is involved in a lawsuit over alleged underpayment of staff, has compared bankers to “Stalin or Hitler.” I guess he’s too busy uncorking super-Tuscans to fine-tune his similes. Even the rich are angry about something.

As is the Occupy movement, with reason. I just wish we could get a fix on what proposals lie beyond protest.

Over in Europe, dreams are also unraveling. In France, according to a Pew Research Center survey, only 27 percent of the population now believes that “our people are not perfect, but our culture is superior.”

I haven’t read such depressing news in a long time. When humility overtakes French culture, it’s over, folks.

French culture is superior. Just consider the cut of a Chanel suit, the sweep of the Champs Elysées or the line of Bernard-Henri Lévy’s brow. It’s obvious — to everyone except the doom-struck French, apparently.

Here in the United States, according to the same survey, 60 percent of Americans over 50 believe “our culture is superior.”

I’m not sure what’s more terrifying: the new French modesty or an old U.S. delusion. These are not happy times in the Atlantic community. Germans are particularly angry. They don’t think they’re being thanked enough for not quite saving the euro.

Sure as there are acorns beneath the oak tree, the West is shot. As Jim Morrison put it, “Your ballroom days are over, baby.” The U.S.A. is negative-equity central. Some 100 million Americans live below or close to the poverty line.

Greece wallows in the words it gave us: crisis, chaos and catastrophe.

Elsewhere it’s the Renaissance. Palaces rise. A bottle of Château Lafite-Rothschild goes for $4,000 in Hong Kong. Chinese and Brazilian bankers ponder whether Europe is creditworthy. It is payback time for the majority of humankind. They’re feeling pretty good about their former overlords feeling pretty bad. To be honest, I don’t blame them.

But never fear, resurgence is around the corner, the world will not be upside-down for long. The American century will in fact be two centuries!

I’ve heard that message from every Republican candidate, including one who can’t recall where Libya is, another who can’t think his way to the three government agencies he wants to disband, and a third who can’t remember why his dog got tied to the roof of his car en route to a family break in Canada.

They’re actually making me nostalgic for Sarah Palin. She forgot things with panache. She knew roughly where Russia was. She made no bones about killing animals — and did so with dispatch.

Still, folks, there’s hope out there. Japan, whose economy went dead for a decade, is enjoying a spurt. All it took was a tsunami to notch up a quarter of growth. Perhaps what Europe and the United States need is a major natural disaster — it would make a change from the man-made ones — or a good little war.

On reflection, wars are a bad idea, although Republicans seem to have plenty of ideas for new ones. President Obama is replacing conventional war with undercover operations — drone attacks, explosions in Iran, cyber-invasions. The president is effective, ice-cool and solemn as covert commanders-in-chief should be.

He just hasn’t made Americans or others in the languishing West feel good. That’s a serious omission.

Obama’s communication with the American people on the economy reminds me of one those off-key e-mail exchanges where each party gets more irritable, misunderstandings multiply, and you end up longing for someone to pick up the phone and clear things up with a declaratory sentence of the unambiguous “It’s morning again in America” variety.

I don’t see any such new dawn before November 2012, which makes what’s going to happen to the incumbent then uncertain. Glum people tend to go for change even if it may be bad for them.

But the election is a year away. Let’s shake off some of the gloom. America’s powers of reinvention are not exhausted. A friend of mine’s teenage son is a passionate pianist. He recently broke his right arm. So what did he do? Looked up Ravel’s concerto for the left hand and went to work on it. That’s the spirit needed.

I have an idea for Mario Batali’s penance. Cook free turkeys for some of the 100 million. Deeds matter. Americans know it — and let’s give thanks for that good sense at least.

You can follow Roger Cohen on Twitter at twitter.com/nytimescohen.

A version of this op-ed appeared in print on November 22, 2011, in The International Herald Tribune with the headline: Decline and Fall.

Uma eleicao se ganha no centro, ponto - Michael Medved (WSJ)

Pequenas lições sobre o óbvio...
Paulo Roberto de Almeida 

Conservatives, Romney, and Electability

Most political battles are won by seizing the center. 

Anyone who believes otherwise ignores the electoral experience of the last 50 years. 

By MICHAEL MEDVED

The Wall Street Journal, November 23, 2011

Conservative resistance to Mitt Romney's nomination increasingly emphasizes electability as much as ideology, concentrating on his perceived weaknesses as a candidate along with an inconsistent approach to the issues. In headlining a typical blog post, Erick Erickson of RedState.com laments: "Mitt Romney as the Nominee: Conservatism Dies and Barack Obama Wins."

Such projections of doom portray Mr. Romney as the dreary second coming of John McCain—a hapless moderate foisted on the disillusioned rank and file by the GOP's country-club establishment, with no real chance to rally the conservative base or draw clear distinctions with Barack Obama.

This analysis, endlessly recycled on the right, relies on groundless assumptions about recent political history. Three myths in particular demand rebuttal and rejection as a prerequisite to GOP success in 2012 and beyond:

1) Many analysts cited by the New York Times, Washington Times and other prominent media sources continue to blame the Republican defeat in 2008 on the millions of conservative true believers who allegedly stayed home rather than vote for the notorious "RINO" (Republican In Name Only) John McCain. In fact, the exit polls showed that the 34% of all voters who described themselves as "conservative" in 2008 precisely matched the portion of the electorate that saw itself as conservative for George W. Bush's re-election in 2004. Because of the much larger overall turnout in 2008, this meant that far more self-identified conservatives (44,627,000) showed up at the polls for the McCain-Obama battle than in the prior duel between Mr. Bush and John Kerry (41,571,000).

Enlarge Image

Associated Press

Mitt Romney stumping for votes in Manchester, N.H., Nov. 18.

Mr. McCain lost because he performed more feebly than Mr. Bush among moderates (winning only 39%, down from 45%) and particularly among Hispanics (down to 31% from 44%), according to the exit polls—and not because right-wingers refused to vote or capriciously abandoned the Republican cause. Election Day 2008 saw the biggest turnout of self-described conservatives in American history, and Mr. McCain drew an even larger portion of those voters (78%) than did Ronald Reagan (73%) in his landslide over Jimmy Carter in 1980.

2) According to another prevailing myth, frequently promoted on talk radio and in right-wing blogs, Republican elites disregarded the obvious public preference for more unequivocally conservative candidates and forced the nomination of the unpopular , Washington-tainted insider, John Mr. McCain, who proceeded to run a disastrous campaign that dragged down the GOP at every level.

None of this bears the slightest connection to reality. In the run-up to the nomination, the party establishment preferred anyone but Mr. McCain (with Bush loyalists still smarting from his "maverick" challenge to their crown prince in 2000). The establishment split its support among Mitt Romney, Fred Thompson and Rudy Giuliani.

By January 2008, Mr. McCain had been all but cut off by major GOP contributors. With his campaign broke, he finished a miserable fourth in Iowa, before his stunning come-from-behind victory in New Hampshire and subsequent sweep to victory in 30 of the remaining primaries and caucuses.

Moreover, in the general election Mr. McCain ran ahead of the Republican ticket in every region of the country. He drew 7,750,000 more votes than did GOP candidates for the House of Representatives, winning 45.7% compared to 42.5% for his GOP running mates. Mr. McCain captured 49 congressional districts where the Republican candidates who ran alongside him lost. If GOP nominees had performed as well as Mr. McCain in those districts, the Republicans would have won a House majority of 227. and John Boehner would have become speaker two years earlier.

Contested statewide races for governor and U.S. Senate seats told a similar story, with Mr. McCain running ahead of the Republican ticket in 61% (28 of 46). In most of the few cases where statewide candidates outperformed Mr. McCain, the GOP ran veteran office holders (Lamar Alexander in Tennessee, Lindsey Graham in South Carolina, Susan Collins in Maine, Jon Huntsman in Utah, Jim Douglas in Vermont) with even more pragmatic, centrist reputations than Mr. McCain. Across the country, his performance justified the main practical rationale for his nomination as he won literally millions of votes that other more stridently conservative candidates failed to get.

3) Rush Limbaugh's favorite slogan, "Conservatism wins every time," is more a statement of wishful thinking than an accurate summary of electoral experience. It's true that Ronald Reagan's inspiring, comprehensive conservatism brought two sweeping victories (in 1980 and '84). But the same supremely gifted candidate lost two prior runs for the presidency (in 1968 and 1976) to two charismatically challenged, moderate rivals, Richard Nixon and Gerald Ford.

Barry Goldwater electrified Republicans with his delineation of "The Conscience of a Conservative," but he lost 44 states to the unspeakable Lyndon Johnson in 1964. More recently, tea party-affiliated candidates won several high-profile primary victories in 2010 and went on to ignominious defeats in easily winnable Senate races in Delaware, Nevada, Colorado and Alaska.

The big Senate gains for Republicans in 2010 came mostly from establishment figures like John Hoeven in North Dakota or Dan Coats in Indiana, along with unapologetic moderates like Mark Kirk in Illinois. The two most celebrated tea party victors in Senate races, Rand Paul of Kentucky and Mike Lee of Utah, actually won lower vote percentages in their states than Mr. McCain did two years earlier.

In short, the electoral experience of the last 50 years does nothing to undermine the common-sense notion that most political battles are won by seizing and holding the ideological center. In the last two presidential elections, more than 44% of voters described themselves as "moderate," and no conservative candidate could possibly prevail without coming close to winning half of them (as George W. Bush did in his re-election).

The notion that ideologically pure conservative candidates can win by disregarding centrists and magically producing previously undiscovered legions of true-believer voters remains a fantasy. It is not a strategy. At the moment, it is easy to imagine Mitt Romney appealing to many citizens who would never consider Rick Perry or Herman Cain. It is much harder (if not impossible) to describe the sort of voter—Republican, Democrat or independent—who would refuse to support Mr. Romney (over Barack Obama!) but would somehow eagerly back Messrs. Perry, Cain or Gingrich, let alone Michele Bachmann, Rick Santorum or Ron Paul.

Conservatives, as well as their moderate and progressive neighbors, may have plenty of reasons to oppose Mitt Romney in favor of some rival candidate. Electability can't reasonably count as one of them.

Mr. Medved hosts a daily, nationally syndicated radio show and is the author of "The 5 Big Lies About American Business" (Crown Forum, 2009).

A USP petista e das seitas esclerosadas de esquerda: uma total falta de carater

Acho que não precisaria tantas voltas em torno de intelectuais famosos, como os citados por este professor de filosofia da USP -- Richard Sennett, Imanuel Kant -- para caracterizar, breve e rudemente, o que acontece atualmente na USP, apenas um retrato -- sem nenhuma importância nacional, apenas simbólica -- do que acontece pelo país afora: uma total falta de caráter, um esclerosamento mental,  uma decadência moral, a total desonestidade (já não digo intelectual) dessas seitas de esquerda, a começar pela seita maior, que levam o Brasil ao retrocesso, à decadência, ao desmantelamento de suas instituições públicas.
A herança maldita dessa turba será pesada, e recairá sobre toda a sociedade, pelo futuro previsível...
Paulo Roberto de Almeida 

A USP e a corrosão do caráter

O Estado de S.Paulo, 23 de novembro de 2011 | 3h 06
Roberto Romano, filósofo, professor de Ética e Filosofia na Unicamp, é autor, entre outros livros, de 'O Caldeirão de Medeia' (Perspectiva)

Acadêmicos brasileiros pouco afeitos à cultura imaginam que noções éticas, morais, científicas surgem apenas em textos considerados relevantes nas seitas universitárias. A preguiça e a pressa na publicação, unidas, logo brotam juízos "definitivos" sobre algum campo do pensamento. Assim ocorre com o tema antigo sobre a presença ou ausência de caráter nas pessoas. Os supostos pesquisadores consideram que o conceito de uma corrupção do caráter aparece com o sociólogo norte-americano Richard Sennett. Esse teórico, é certo, muito ajuda a entender a vida moderna. Seu livro sobre o caráter corrompido integra uma série de textos que narram, com olhar clínico, as mudanças e o estilhaçamento de valores na sociedade urbana ocidental. Com a flexibilização do trabalho e a insegurança resultante, temos a massa dos que perderam a confiança nos governos e nos mercados. Outra obra de Sennett indica a crise da sociedade e do Estado. Trata-se do monumental O Declínio do Homem Público. Ali, ele demonstra o quanto as formas do Estado foram enfraquecidas, após o século 18, em proveito das "intimidades tirânicas", os movimentos que prometem às minorias a defesa de seus direitos sem passar pelos mecanismos do poder público.

Baseando-se na "identidade" assumida pelos indivíduos, tais movimentos assumem formas repressivas das quais é quase impossível escapar. Antes de ser um cidadão, o sujeito pertenceria à sua "comunidade", cujas causas importam mais do que as coletivas. A primeira vítima da corrosão do caráter é a vida pública. Movimentos como os descritos por Sennett conduzem milhões às ruas para exercer pressão sobre a sociedade e o Estado. Mas pouco ou nada fazem diante de descalabros ocorridos na economia, no Judiciário, no Executivo, nos Parlamentos. A identidade maior deixa de ser a cidadania e se transfere para instâncias que defendem particularidades. Sennett respeita os referidos modelos intimistas, mas também mostra o quanto sua pauta é unilateral e autoritária, tiranizando seus adeptos. A corrosão do caráter é potencializada quando os grupos e indivíduos assumem o perfil da militância. O militante padrão, por mimetismo, sacrifica normas éticas, sociais e políticas em proveito de seu movimento, visto por ele como a fonte última dos valores. Todos os demais âmbitos seriam movidos por interesses escusos. A maior parte do material histórico e sociológico usado por Sennett vem dos EUA e da Europa.

No Brasil, temos um campo mais complexo. Aqui, longe de permanecerem distantes e hostis aos poderes públicos, lutando contra eles na concorrência para dominar indivíduos e grupos, movimentos sociais mantêm excelentes tratos com os governos e Parlamentos. Eles sabem aplicar ventosas nos cofres estatais (as ONGs...) de modo a expandir suas forças, mas guardam a retórica contrária ao Estado. A busca de verbas põe a militância ao dispor de partidos políticos hegemônicos. O militante exerce seu fervor de tal modo que, em pouco tempo, pratica o que suas doutrinas condenavam ou condenam. O militante, cujo caráter foi corroído, julga que os interesses sociais alheios à sua pauta são "burgueses", "abstratos", "conservadores". Ele se imagina autorizado a manter em lugares estratégicos oligarcas exímios na arte de roubar os cofres públicos. Na superfície, movimentos como a UNE (e suas subsidiárias) arvoram palavras de esquerda. Mas dão suporte às mais retrógradas forças políticas. Líderes estudantis que ontem lutavam contra a corrupção, ao subirem ao poder de Estado, guardam excelentes relações com oligarcas truculentos.

Entre as manifestações contra Fernando Collor e o realismo de hoje não existiria, para a esquerda oficial, nenhum elo. Os valores antes repetidos qual ladainhas são ditos "bravatas" pelos que aderiram à razão de Estado corrompida. A militância é processo corrosivo a ser notado em todas as profissões. Em todos os setores da vida social e política ela dissolve valores efetivos em prol dos dirigentes demagógicos e de suas alianças em proveito próprio.

A que assistimos na USP nos últimos dias? Lutas contra o arbítrio autoritário dos oligarcas? Denúncias de corrupção política (que lesa milhões de brasileiros em termos de educação, saúde, cultura, ciência e tecnologia)? Batalhas contra a falta de democracia nos grandes partidos, nos quais os dirigentes são donos das alianças, das candidaturas, dos cofres, sem ouvir as bases? Movimentos contra o privilégio de foro, algo que faz de nosso Estado um absolutismo contrário à República? A pauta dos militantes, professores e alunos é alienada em todos os sentidos, da marijuana ao populismo rasteiro. Militantes fazem sua revolução em escala micrológica contra o reitor, mas os dirigentes nacionais do movimento estudantil negociam apoio aos donos do poder, os verdadeiros soberanos.

Aviso aos bajuladores do petismo: a noção de caráter é velha como o saber humano e foi estudada, sobretudo, por um pensador "burguês", Immanuel Kant. Para ele, o caráter é "marca distintiva do ser humano como racional, dotado de liberdade". O caráter "indica o que o ser humano está preparado para fazer a si mesmo". Dentre as técnicas para a corrosão do caráter, as drogas são as piores. É irresponsabilidade ética afirmar que elas não prejudicam os usuários ou "ajudam a melhorar a imaginação nas artes e nas ciências". A leitura de pesquisas como a de Alba Zaluar, sobre a indústria das drogas, traria prudência aos seus apologetas nos câmpus. Militantes sempre ignoram e combatem a liberdade e a dignidade alheias, basta ver as multidões que apoiaram tiranias modernas, do fascismo ao stalinismo. Hoje, na USP, a militância aposenta a busca de "mudar o mundo". Sobram os coquetéis Molotov para a defesa do nada, da irrelevância absoluta, da morte.