sábado, 2 de novembro de 2013

Nas pegadas de Norman Rockwell, na New England (NYT)

Onde estou justamente, já tendo viajado em diversos lugares dos que são descritos nesta matéria da seção Travel, do NYT deste sábado.
Paulo Roberto de Almeida

Norman Rockwell’s New England



Caleb Kenna for The New York Times
The view from Rockwell's bedroom at his home in Arlington, Vt. The house is now an inn.


  • FACEBOOK
  • TWITTER
  • GOOGLE+
  • SAVE
  • E-MAIL
  • SHARE
  • PRINT
  • REPRINTS

I had driven for three and a half hours from New York so that I could go for a walk. And here I was at last, strolling along River Road in Arlington, Vt. The quiet, unpaved street winds along the banks of the Batten Kill, which is said to be the best trout stream in Vermont. In the distance, the green hills were ablaze with red and orange and offered what seemed like a quintessential New England view.

Connect With Us on Twitter

nytimestravel on Twitter
Follow@nytimestravel for tips, features and photography from all over the globe.
"Freedom From Want" illustration, owned by SEPS. Licensed by Curtis Licensing. All Rights Reserved.
Rockwell painted "Freedom From Want" during his time in Vermont.
Caleb Kenna for The New York Times
A view of Arlington and the surrounding hills.
Caleb Kenna for The New York Times
Rockwell lived in Vermont for 15 years.
The New York Times
Norman Rockwell Family Agency. All rights reserved.
Rockwell relaxes in his Arlington home, circa 1940s.
Caleb Kenna for The New York Times
Rockwell's bedroom, now part of the Inn on the Covered Bridge Green in Arlington.

Readers’ Comments

Share your thoughts.
Norman Rockwell, who bought a house on this road in 1938, was not what you would call a lover of autumn foliage. His instincts as an artist were firmly figural, and he declined to paint a landscape in the 15 years in which he lived in Vermont. A native New Yorker who was born on the Upper West Side of Manhattan and began his career in the suburb of New Rochelle, N.Y., he did not farm or garden. Other Vermonters kept stables, but Rockwell, by his own admission, harbored a trembling fear of horses.
When he moved to Arlington, he was in his mid-40s, a celebrated magazine illustrator who was looking to deepen his art. He had painted his share of amusing covers, of freckled schoolboys and their mutts, and he hoped to tap into some truer, more expressive vein of American life. What drew him to New England was not so much the picket-fence tranquillity as the larger idea of it, the reassuring we-the-people symbolism. New England was the birthplace of American democracy, and Rockwell, as it turned out, would update the communitarian ideals articulated by our country’s founders.
It was here in Vermont, during World War II, that Rockwell painted his much-heralded “Four Freedoms.” Although based on lofty civic principles — freedom to speak and to worship, freedom from fear and from want — the series does not feel didactic. The four paintings have nothing to do with patriots on horseback and the fiery battle for independence. Rather, they portray the civic and familial rituals that connect random people in a town. Using his Vermont neighbors as models, Rockwell posed them in emblematic scenes: attending a town-hall meeting, saying prayers, socializing around a Thanksgiving table, and peeking in on sleeping children.
Other artists have given us other New Englands. It’s remarkable how many competing portraits of America emerged from this corner of the country in the first half of the 20th century. Grandma Moses, for one, was a friend of Rockwell’s who lived on a farm just across the Vermont-New York border. Grandma, as the whole country once called her, was nothing if not a late bloomer. She took up painting at the age of 76. Working at her bedroom desk, she churned out cheerful views of farm life, nostalgic scenes of snow-covered farmhouses, split-rail fences and horses trotting along dirt roads. She offers a view of New England as a green Arcadia where no one ever comes down with a cold.  
Robert Frost was not quite so peppy. He moved to this part of Vermont in the ’20s. His stone house in South Shaftsbury, just a few miles from Rockwell’s, is open to the public. The snowy woods, the roads that diverged, the “nothing gold can stay” sense of loss and dissipation: nature provided him with his great subject. He seized on it to create a portrait of Americans as resourceful but emotionally reserved and fond of putting up fences.
Today, Rockwell is associated less with Vermont than with Stockbridge, Mass., the town in the Berkshires where he settled in his later years. Stockbridge was the last place he lived, and it is the home of the Norman Rockwell Museum, which houses the bulk of his artwork and personal papers. In the course of the past decade, I spent many days there. I was writing a biography of Rockwell and contentedly sifting through his letters, datebooks and mounds of bills. Compared with most other artists, he left a very long paper trail.
I hadn’t spent much time in Vermont, but it offered biographical rewards of its own. Namely, here one can sleep in the Rockwell bedroom.
By a nice coincidence, Rockwell’s home in Arlington (the second house he owned there) is now a bed-and-breakfast offering clean, adequate accommodations. The Inn on the Covered Bridge Green, as it is named, is a few miles from Main Street, in a large, white-painted Colonial house that dates to the 18th century. As country inns go, it is fairly spartan — there is no front desk and no one ever answered the phone when I called. You reserve your room on the inn’s Web site.
What the place lacks in traditional amenities it more than makes up for in creaky ambience and romance. On the weekend I visited, another guest had already claimed the best room: Rockwell’s former studio, a freestanding building in the yard. So my husband and I reserved a room in the house. Although no effort has been made to restore the architecture or decorative elements to their precise appearance in the years when Rockwell lived there, the guest rooms — with their floral wallpaper and hardwood floors, their four-poster beds and quilts — evoke the vanished past. It helped that my husband and I were the only ones in the house that weekend and eager to feel haunted. In the upstairs hallway, the doors to the other rooms remained closed. The middle-age couple who own the place live in another house on the property.
Biography, as the British writer Richard Holmes observed, “is an act of deliberate psychological trespass, an invasion or encroachment of the present upon the past.” It can also be an act of literal trespass. Or so it seemed when I woke in the middle of the night and got out of bed. I was in Rockwell’s former bedroom, gazing through the same window that he had gazed from. Outside, the village green, with its white steepled church and red-painted covered bridge, gleamed in the moonlight.
What did this view tell me? Nothing vastly useful. Nothing I could put in a book or trumpet as a revelation. It is a commonplace of biography that the everyday events in artists’ lives shape their work. But in Rockwell’s case it was the opposite. Life was the stuff he left out of his art. To see his actual surroundings is to be reminded of their very exclusion from his paintings. He did not paint the covered bridge; he did not paint the village green. No, in his work he gave over to an imaginative vision whose sources remain largely hidden. It encompassed many factors, from his powerful love of Rembrandt and Dutch realism to an extreme sense of his own inadequacy. In his skinny, unathletic boyhood, he had felt perpetually vanquished, “a bean pole without the beans,” as he put it.
Heading downstairs to the living room, I sat down and opened a novel. The room was lovely, aglow with yellow lamplight, hushed except for the intermittent whoosh of a car. It was easy enough to imagine Rockwell sitting here, an anxious, rail-thin man in his blue chambray shirt, lighting his pipe and relighting it, brooding on the day’s work. In general, he woke up early and liked the morning hours, rushing out to his studio by 8 and drinking a bottle of Coke for a caffeine jolt. He often noted that the sense of possibility he felt on most mornings was overtaken by regret by the evening. So many days ended the same way. He would sit in the living room, fussing with his pipe, lamenting that he did not “get anywhere with the picture,” as he said.
In truth, his years in Vermont scarcely resembled the vision of community and gladness he had created in his work. In his letters from this period, he complained of terrible isolation, especially after the summer people cleared out and returned to their homes in the city. Writing to his friend Clyde Forsythe in 1944, shortly after his 50th birthday, Rockwell opined: “It’s been lonesome up here. Next winter tho I swear we’re going to New York. I miss having someone to help with criticisms and encouragement.”
His wife, Mary, the mother of their three sons, had troubles of her own. An elegant, bookish woman from Southern California, she had studied at Stanford and aspired to write short stories and poetry. She had a difficult time in Vermont, in part because her husband spent so much time away. Even when he was home, he was not necessarily available, there but not there, disappearing into the studio for what seemed like days at a time, the door shut. Over the years she fell increasingly into depression and alcoholism, and was sent off to hospitals for treatment.
In some ways, Arlington seems to have changed little in the six decades since Rockwell and his family lived here. According to the town clerk, there are now 2,317 residents, about 500 (registered) dogs, and not one traffic light. There’s not much to do at night. Early risers, on the other hand, have options. The Wayside Country Store, an old-fashioned all-purpose emporium, starts serving breakfast at 4 a.m. A sign in the window proclaims, “If we don’t have it, you don’t need it.” This is not to imply you need everything the store stocks, which, I noted, includes ammunition and maple-flavored lip balm.
There is at least one great restaurant in town, Jonathon’s Table, which offers classic country fare while banishing all blandness. Our heavily tattooed waitress suggested an appetizer that was practically a meal in itself, Mama’s mushrooms, which came doused in garlic and olive oil and accompanied by an oval loaf of hot bread. The décor is unpretentious but jazzed up by strings of white Christmas lights. There are no tablecloths, and the blocky oak tables are wide and deep.
To visit Arlington is to feel the need to venture beyond it. The towns around it have different personalities. If you drive 20 minutes to the north, to Manchester Center, suddenly you’re in the midst of shop-around-the-clock consumerism, of noniron dress shirts and slim-ankle pants, of cashmere sweaters knit in Scotland. Manchester abounds with factory outlet stores — Brooks Brothers, Ann Taylor and all the rest, most of which occupy prim clapboard houses that riff on the historic architecture of New England. At the Orvis store, I bought a white linen blouse, a bit guiltily, wondering whether it was morally defensible to spend a shining fall afternoon in Vermont patronizing stores you can find elsewhere.
Put another way, outlet shopping appears to be the leading recreational activity here in the heart of the rugged Green Mountains, overshadowing such classic diversions as fly-fishing. Is this a loss? Surely there is something to be said for staring at the surface of a river for hours on end and waiting for a sign of trout, for the first splosh and glint. I vowed to myself to rent a canoe sometime before the end of the millennium.
On the other hand, Main Street in Manchester is home to a superb independent bookstore, the Northshire Bookstore, which occupies a light-blue Victorian house and encourages sojourns of the armchair variety. A cafe on the premises serves dark-roast coffee and homemade carrot cake, and you can sit undisturbed until closing time. “This was Starbucks before Starbucks,” Charles Bottomley, one of the booksellers, told me.
If you want to see art in southern Vermont, go to Bennington, the college town, about 20 minutes south of Arlington. The Bennington Museum is a one-of-a-kind institution that spurns the fashion for globalism in favor of regional artists, both living and long-dead. The place is impressively ecumenical. While the permanent collection pays reverent tribute to Grandma Moses — the premises include the actual one-room schoolhouse of her childhood — it also champions the color-field painting of the ’60s. In one enchanting gallery, an early Helen Frankenthaler composition is juxtaposed with the curvy abstractions of Paul Feeley, her teacher at Bennington College.
There were no Rockwells on view at the museum, at least none by Norman. But his artistic progeny are well represented, and it is interesting to note the degree to which their work turns his utopian paradise on its head. In the lobby of the museum, I stared with fascination at a small-scale tableau by 83-year-old Jarvis Rockwell. The untitled piece can put you in mind of a wooden dollhouse in which the relationships among the dolls has gone awry. Two couples, one older, one younger, sit around a dining-room table stark naked. They’re staring at an orange orb that may or may not offer spiritual solace.
Jarvis Rockwell’s daughter, Daisy Rockwell, was having her own show at the museum. “Topless Jihadi and Other Curious Birds,” as it is titled, consists of small, lushly colored paintings that traffic in political subjects, including terrorism. She uses a palette of candied pinks and turquoises to extract a dissonant prettiness from mug shots of female prisoners and victims of all sorts.
Truth be told, there was one nature-related activity that Rockwell enjoyed during his Vermont years. He liked to go for walks in the hills that rose steeply behind his house. He would climb through the apple orchards and then disappear into the woods, often trailed by his beloved dog, Butch, a springer spaniel.
I was eager to retrace the path. On a Sunday morning, I woke early and headed out into the yard. A thick morning mist hovered on the ground and made the fields appear a little blurred, as if visible only in soft focus.
The yard was not what I had expected. Where were the fabled apple orchards? Instead I found a pasture and a pen for animals. Two tall llamas, one brown and one white, stood chomping on a bale of hay and glanced up in unison when I approached. I paused for a few moments to make sure they weren’t about to do that llama thing of spitting. Then I started to climb over the fence to proceed up the hill when, suddenly, I was stopped by a literal shock. An uncomfortable jolt shot through my left arm. The fence, I realized belatedly, was electrified. Odd that there had been no Do Not Touch sign. Doubtless the fence was there to keep the llamas in, as opposed to keeping the inn guests out. Nonetheless, it was all a little surprising, not least because the incident seemed so uncannily like something from a Frost poem. He had written much about fences and barriers, about structures that divide.
I thought of his poem “Mending Wall,” in which the speaker recounts his impatience with his next-door neighbor, who each spring mends the stone wall separating their properties. The neighbor insists, “Good fences make good neighbors,” which, frankly, is not the most inspiring proverb. Certainly there are more important things to endorse in this world than distance and standoffishness.
But the wall-building neighbor represents another New England, not the caring and concerned Rockwellian society where people gain strength from their neighbors and look each other in the eye when they talk. No, this was the Frost version, in which townspeople went out of their way to put up barriers, where neighbors electrify fences. I suppose the Frost version is closer to everyday life in America than the idealized Rockwell version. But then “art is no less real for being artifice,” as the critic Clive James once observed, and Rockwell clearly dwelled in the kingdom of his imagination.
In October of 1953, Rockwell and his wife abruptly left Vermont. They moved to western Massachusetts, to Stockbridge. It, too, seemed on the surface like a perfect New England town, with tranquil pastures and grazing cows. What few people realized is that Rockwell moved to Stockbridge to live near the Austen Riggs Center psychiatric hospital. His wife already was an inpatient there, and he was an outpatient. In his final months in Vermont, he had begun seeing the legendary psychoanalyst Erik Erikson, a German-born intellectual who coined the phrase “identity crisis.”
In the ’50s, Rockwell continued to paint pictures of a mythic New England, where contentment and community ties prevailed. But the national unity bred by World War II was already unraveling. The growing inclination among Americans was to define their battles in psychological terms rather than in political ones.
Over the years, their searching gave rise to yet another image of New England, one that had little in common with that of Rockwell, Frost or Grandma Moses. Rather, in James Taylor’s telling, New England was a place where people had nervous breakdowns and openly bemoaned their sorrows. He sang of it in 1970 when he described “the turnpike from Stockbridge to Boston,” “covered with snow,” with 10 miles behind him and 10,000 more to go.
IF YOU GO
All these places are in Vermont.
Robert Frost Stone House Museum, 121 Historic Route 7A, South Shaftsbury; (802) 447 6200frostfriends.org. Frost resided here in the 1920s and wrote “Stopping by Woods on a Snowy Evening” at the dining room table. The museum is closed until May 1, but the grounds are open for walking, at no charge, and offer the chance to see such spartan Frostian sights as fields, birch trees and a stone wall.
Inn on the Covered Bridge Green, 3587 River Road, Arlington; (802) 375-9784;coveredbridgegreen.com; Norman Rockwell lived in this house from 1943 to the fall of 1953. Inn rooms are $185 to $225, depending on date. The artist’s studio, which easily sleeps four, is $280.  Rates include a hot breakfast.
Jonathon’s Table, 29 Sugar Shack Lane, Arlington; (802) 375-1021;jonathonstable.com; dinner only.The entree selection is broad and unpretentious, ranging from Vermont maple pork chops and eggplant Parmesan to roast prime rib au jus. Expect to pay about $30 per person for dinner, without drinks.
Sugar Shack, Sugar Shack Lane, Arlington; (802) 375-6747sugarshackvt.com. A deluxe country gift shop with a large assortment of Vermont goodies and memorabilia, from fresh-picked apples to gallon-size jugs of maple syrup to Rockwell-theme postcards and mugs.
The Wayside Country Store, 3307 Vermont Route 313 West, Arlington; (802) 375-2792. This quaint general store has been in business for more than a century and sells everything from sweatshirts and ammunition to egg sandwiches and homebaked cookies. Its motto is: “If we don’t have it, you don’t need it.”
Northshire Bookstore, 4869 Main Street, Manchester Center; (802) 362-2200;northshire.com. This rambling, well-stocked bookstore offers both new and used books and peerless opportunities for browsing. Chairs and stools throughout, and a comfortable couch beckons from the science-fiction section.
The Bennington Museum, 75 Main Street, Bennington; (802) 447-1571;benningtonmuseum.org. Interesting, one-of-a-kind mix of advanced contemporary art, Grandma Moses farm scenes and 18th-century American furniture. Current exhibitions include “Topless Jihadi and Other Curious Birds: Works by Daisy Rockwell,” through Dec. 30.
Deborah Solomon is the author of “American Mirror: The Life and Art of Norman Rockwell” (Farrar, Straus & Giroux).

Esquerda Caviar: a praga que frequenta nossas faculdades, e o governo -resenha do livro de Rodrigo Constantino

Reproduzo, do blog de Rodrigo Constantino, esta matéria sobre seu mais recente livro, que infelizmente ainda não li.
Antes de sair do Brasil, ainda participei do lançamento em Brasília, de seu livro precedente: Privatize Já!, que recomendo obviamente.
Paulo Roberto de Almeida


02/11/2013
 às 9:35 \ Cultura

O bico do tentilhão: resenha de “Esquerda Caviar”

Uma nova resenha de Esquerda Caviar feita por André Assi Barreto no site “O bico do tentilhão”:
Antes de analisar o mais recente livro de Constantino, vale saudar o trabalho da editora Record (maior grupo editorial do país). Ao que parece, o público conservador (que é mais vasto do que imaginam muitos) tem agora uma editora disposta a lhe servir de bons livros: o também recente sucesso de vendas ‘O mínimo que você precisa saber para não ser um idiota’ de Olavo de Carvalho, além de títulos essenciais para os interessados pelo debate político: ‘Fascismo de Esquerda’ de Jonah Goldberg e ‘O País dos Petralhas I e II’ de Reinaldo Azevedo. Também deve ser exaltada a figura de Carlos Andreazza nessa guinada à direita dos últimos títulos da Record.
O mais recente e sem dúvida melhor livro de Rodrigo, Esquerda Caviar, segue um estilo que MUITO me agrada: a precisão documental que muitas vezes só encontro em autores americanos ao elencar fatos de diversas ordens. Rodrigo faz um raio-X praticamente completo do esquerdista caviar: origens, postura, exemplos, justificativa, quem são, onde estão e tudo mais que há direito. Aquele espécime que adora o socialismo, desde que para os outros…
O estilo dessa obra de Constantino segue o de suas outras: claro e objetivo. É leitura extremamente informativa, para ser esgotado com rapidez, já que a prosa flui com naturalidade.
Vale comentar dois aspectos acerca da obra de Constantino, adendos ou coisas que podem passar desapercebidas ao leitor mais desatento:
A primeira é certa incapacidade (ou seria desonestidade?) de alguns de observarem o real problema exposto. Não espere que um esquerdista admita que comete uma contradição logo de cara, tampouco que ele se importe em cometê-la (como já tive a oportunidade de comentar, devido ao horizonte dialético da mentalidade esquerdista, uma contradição não é vista como um pecado intelectual irrepreensível, mas até mesmo como combustível para que se siga em frente, propagando e agindo sob a tutela do erro).
Muitos esquerdistas, por motivos diversos, não veem problema em defender o socialismo e servir-se dos recursos abastados que o capitalismo lhe proveu ou que apenas ele pode prover (“ser de esquerda não é fazer voto de pobreza” disse Sakamoto certa vez). Contudo, resta a pergunta: como o sujeito, dado seu referencial teórico (o socialismo), pode condenar o acúmulo de riqueza, pois segundo ele, “a ‘mais-valia’ é roubo” e condenar o método pelo qual qualquer um pode chegar à riqueza (o capitalismo de livre mercado) e deleitar-se com vinhos caros, viagens chiques e produtos eletrônicos oriundos de empresas “exploradoras” que “destroem o meio ambiente”?
Para quem conhece alguns desse tipo, como eu, Esquerda caviar é uma metralhadora, elenca praticamente TODOS os que incorrem nessa contradição sem piedade: dos ídolos tradicionais da esquerda, como Fidel e Che (com seus Adidas e Rolex) aos novos meninos de apartamento que consideram ser de esquerda como o novo cool, como Wagner Moura e Leonardo di Caprio.
Nunca espere que um esquerdista reconheça sua contradição; é da natureza de seu raciocínio que não o faça, é da natureza de seu raciocínio que ao chegar numa conclusão contraditória, não reveja as premissas e abandone o argumento caso confirme-se o caráter contraditório da ideia. Contudo, para mentalidades sãs, a obra de Constantino segue sendo um manual de consulta dessa impostura de diversas celebridades, heróis e políticos esquerdistas.
A segunda seria se essa condição, do esquerdista caviar, representa apenas um cinismo consciente, como indicamos acima, ou uma consequência imediata e inevitável da postura socialista, sendo o exemplo maior disso o relato da elite formada pelos porcos, logo a após a revolução ocorrida na Animal Farm, como relata George Orwell. Não apenas “todos são iguais, mas alguns são mais iguais que outros”, mas dentro do esquema socialista, é preciso que uns sejam “mais iguais” que outros, servindo-se das benesses capitalistas, enquanto deseja “o básico para todos” para os demais mortais.
A despeito desses dois detalhes, Esquerda Caviar segue sendo tanto um compêndio documental dos “filhos de Marx numa eterna transa promíscua com a Coca Cola”, quanto um manual para infernizar aquele seu amigo (ainda é seu amigo?) melancia, relativista cultural, natureba xiita ou simpatizante do islamismo militante (todas variantes do esquerdismo caviar, pois nenhum outro sistema político-econômico fez e pode fazer mais pelo ambiente e pela cultura). Não perca tempo, compre e leia (se morar em alguma cidade da rota de divulgação da obra, vá pegar um autógrafo)!
André Assi Barreto comigo no lançamento

O totalitarismo mediatico dos companheiros amestrados - Demetrio Magnoli

Alguns são totalitários sem sequer desconfiar, e servem aos companheiros totalitários mesmo sem o querer, e sem ter consciência disso. Apenas aprenderam, nas medíocres faculdades de jornalismo que frequentaram, que essas são as posições corretas, as "progressistas", que por acaso também são as do Comitê Central do pensamento único dos companheiros totalitários que hoje dominam o país.
Eles se mantém no poder graça aos aos milhões de eleitores ignaros que os sustentam e graças a esses divulgadores ainda mais ignaros, mas amestrados, como denunciado neste artigo do Magnoli.
Não o farão contudo com a minha passividade ou omissão.
Como este blog sempre defende a inteligência e a honestidade intelectual, está sempre aberto a esse tipo de denúncia contra os fraudadores do pensamento e os mentirosos do totalitarismo político.
Paulo Roberto de Almeida
O Pensador Coletivo
DEMÉTRIO MAGNOLI
Folha de S.Paulo, 2/11/2013
O Pensador Coletivo é uma máquina regida pela lógica da eficiência, não pela ética do intercâmbio de ideias
Você sabe o que é MAV? Inventada no 4º Congresso do PT, em 2011, a sigla significa Militância em Ambientes Virtuais. São núcleos de militantes treinados para operar na internet, em publicações e redes sociais, segundo orientações partidárias. A ordem é fabricar correntes volumosas de opinião articuladas em torno dos assuntos do momento. Um centro político define pautas, escolhe alvos e escreve uma coleção de frases básicas. Os militantes as difundem, com variações pequenas, multiplicando suas vozes pela produção em massa de pseudônimos. No fim do arco-íris, um Pensador Coletivo fala a mesma coisa em todos os lugares, fazendo-se passar por multidões de indivíduos anônimos. Você pode não saber o que é MAV, mas ele conversa com você todos os dias.
O Pensador Coletivo se preocupa imensamente com a crítica ao governo. Os sistemas políticos pluralistas estão sustentados pelo elogio da dissonância: a crítica é benéfica para o governo porque descortina problemas que não seriam enxergados num regime monolítico. O Pensador Coletivo não concorda com esse princípio democrático: seu imperativo é rebater a crítica imediatamente, evitando que o vírus da dúvida se espalhe pelo tecido social. Uma tática preferencial é acusar o crítico de estar a serviço de interesses de malévolos terceiros: um partido adversário, "a mídia", "a burguesia", os EUA ou tudo isso junto. É que, por sua própria natureza, o Pensador Coletivo não crê na hipótese de existência da opinião individual.
O Pensador Coletivo abomina argumentos específicos. Seu centro político não tem tempo para refletir sobre textos críticos e formular réplicas substanciais. Os militantes difusores não têm a sofisticação intelectual indispensável para refrasear sentenças complexas. Você está diante do Pensador Coletivo quando se depara com fórmulas genéricas exibidas como refutações de argumentos específicos. O uso dos termos "elitista", "preconceituoso" e "privatizante", assim como suas variantes, é um forte indício de que seu interlocutor não é um indivíduo, mas o Pensador Coletivo.
O Pensador Coletivo interpreta o debate público como uma guerra. "A guerra de guerrilha na internet é a informação e a contrainformação", explica o deputado André Vargas, um chefe do MAV. No seu mundo ideal, os dissidentes seriam enxotados da praça pública. Como, no mundo real, eles circulam por aí, a alternativa é pregar-lhes o rótulo de "inimigos do povo". Você provavelmente conversa com o Pensador Coletivo quando, no lugar de uma resposta argumentada, encontra qualificativos desairosos dirigidos contra o autor de uma crítica cujo conteúdo é ignorado. "Direitista", "reacionário" e "racista" são as ofensas do manual, mas existem outras. Um expediente comum é adicionar ao impropério a acusação de que o crítico "dissemina o ódio".
O Pensador Coletivo é uma máquina política regida pela lógica da eficiência, não pela ética do intercâmbio de ideias. Por isso, ele nunca se deixa intimidar pela exigência de consistência argumentativa. Suzana Singer seguiu a cartilha do Pensador Coletivo ao rotular o colunista Reinaldo Azevedo como um "rottweiler feroz" para, na sequência, solicitar candidamente um "bom nível de conversa". Nesse passo, trocou a função de ombudsman da Folha pela de Censora de Opinião. Contudo, ela não pertence ao MAV. Os procedimentos do Pensador Coletivo estão disponíveis nas latas de lixo de nossa vida pública: mimetizá-los é, apenas, uma questão de gosto.
Existem similares ao MAV em outros partidos? O conceito do Pensador Coletivo ajusta-se melhor às correntes políticas que se acreditam possuidoras da chave da porta do Futuro. Mas, na era da internet, e na hora de uma campanha eleitoral, o invento será copiado. Pense nisso pelo lado bom: identificar robôs de opinião é um joguinho que tem a sua graça.

Paraisos fiscais internos: entre a sadia competicao e a delinquencia: ocaso de Delaware (NYT)

The New York Times

Delaware, Den of Thieves?


OUTSIDE of crimes of passion, criminal activity is typically motivated by greed.
As a special agent for the Treasury Department, I investigated financial crimes like money laundering and terrorism financing. I trained foreign police forces to “follow the money” and track the flow of capital across borders.
During these training sessions, I’d often hear this: “My agency has a financial crimes investigation. The money trail leads to the American state of Delaware. We can’t get any information and don’t know what to do. We are going to have to close our investigation. Can you help?"
The question embarrassed me. There was nothing I could do.
In the years I was assigned to Treasury’s Financial Crimes Enforcement Network, or Fincen, I observed many formal requests for assistance having to do with companies associated with Delaware, Nevada or Wyoming. These states have a tawdry image: they have become nearly synonymous with underground financing, tax evasion and other bad deeds facilitated by anonymous shell companies — or by companies lacking information on their “beneficial owners,” the person or entity that actually controls the company, not the (often meaningless) name under which the company is registered.
Our State and Treasury Departments routinely identify countries that are havens for financial crimes. But, whether because of shortsightedness or hypocrisy, we overlook the financial crimes that are abetted in our own country by lax state laws. While the problem is concentrated in Delaware, there has been a “race to the bottom” by other states that have enacted corporate secrecy laws to try to attract incorporation fees.
The Financial Action Task Force, an international body that sets standards for the fight against money laundering, terrorist financing and other threats to the international financial system, has repeatedly criticized America for failing to comply with a guideline requiring the disclosure of beneficial ownership information. The Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development, with which the task force is affiliated, has championed international standards for financial transparency, but cannot compel compliance.
Watchdog groups like the Organized Crime and Corruption Reporting Project, Global Financial Integrity and Global Witness say that anonymous companies registered in the United States have become the vehicle of choice for drug dealers, organized criminals and corrupt politicians to evade taxes and launder illicit funds. A study by researchers at Brigham Young University, the University of Texas and Griffith University in Australia concluded that America was the second easiest country, after Kenya, in which to incorporate a shell company.
Domestic law enforcement agencies are as stymied as foreign ones. In one case I worked on, American investigators had to give up their examination of a Nevada-based corporation that had received more than 3,700 suspicious wire transfers totaling $81 million over two years. The case did not result in prosecution because the investigators could not definitively identify the owners.
Anonymous corporations are not only favored tools of criminals, but they also facilitate corruption, particularly in the developing world. A recent World Bank study found that the United States was the favored destination for corrupt foreign politicians opening phantom companies to conceal their ill-gotten gains.
Last month, Representatives Maxine Waters of California and Carolyn B. Maloney of New York, the top Democrats on the House Financial Services Committee, introduced legislation that would require United States corporations to disclose to the Treasury Department their beneficial owners. On Thursday, Prime Minister David Cameron of Britain went even further, announcing that a planned national registry of companies’ true owners would be open to the public, not just to law enforcement authorities.
The proposal enjoys support from law enforcement experts like Dennis M. Lormel, who led the F.B.I.’s efforts against terrorism financing after 9/11, and the former Manhattan district attorney Robert M. Morgenthau (and his successor, Cyrus R. Vance Jr.).
While officials in Delaware, Wyoming and Nevada talk about their corporate “traditions,” I am unimpressed. Business incorporation fees have accounted for as much as a quarter of Delaware’s general revenues. It’s no surprise that officials in Dover and Wilmington want to protect their state’s status as a corporate registry, but if that means facilitating criminal activity, their stance is a form of willful blindness. America must require uniform corporate-registration practices if it is to persuade other nations to cooperate in the fight against financial crimes.
John A. Cassara, a former special agent for the Treasury Department, is the author, most recently, of a novel, “Demons of Gadara.”

As origens da inflacao monetaria nos EUA - Joseph Salerno

Mises daily, on November 2, 2013

In this selection from chapter 19 ofReassessing the Presidency (newly available as an ebook from the Mises Store), Joseph Salerno examines one example of how the Federal Reserve and U.S. presidents work together to expand the size and scope of government.

... It was not ultimately budget deficits that allowed Kennedy to initiate the corporatist planning and militarization of the U.S. economy that bore first fruit in the emergence of the American welfare-warfare state during Johnson’s Great Society and culminated in Nixon’s fascist New Economic Policy. The policy that facilitated Johnson’s simultaneous financing of extravagant expenditures on welfare programs and the military adventure in Vietnam and made conditions ripe for Nixon's imposition of wage and price controls was not newfangled functional finance but old-fashioned monetary inflation. As the historian of macroeconomic policy, Kenneth Weiher, has pointed out, it was not the much-vaunted “fiscal revolution” but the overlooked “monetary revolution” that took place during the Kennedy administration which turned out to be the predominant influence on the economic events of the 1960s and 1970s. As Weiher stated: “There was a revolution all right, but the most important change occurred at the Federal Reserve; however, 10 years passed before more than a handful of people caught on to what was happening.”
In the three years of the Kennedy administration the growth of the money supply as measured by M2 averaged about 8 percent per year. If we take the eleven prior years going back to 1950, the rate of growth of M2 averaged 3.6 percent per year; if we go back four more years, to the first postwar year of 1946, the average annual rate of M2 growth over the fifteen-year period drops to 3.3 percent.
There were basically two reasons why the role of monetary policy tended to be so grossly underplayed in the economic histories of this period. The first was that the new economists themselves, as unreconstructed Keynesians, uniformly denigrated the potency of monetary policy while touting the effectiveness of fiscal policy. Thus the Kennedy tax-cut bill, which did not even take effect until 1964, receives the lion’s share of the credit for stimulating the recovery from the 1960-1961 recession. Second, because most economists since the 1930s, including and especially those of Keynesian orientation, identified inflation with increases in the price level, and interpreted the 1.2-percent average annual rate of increase of the CPI during the period 1961-1963 as evidence of the absence of inflation ...
Despite the negligible increase in the CPI, however, the effects of the rapid, and initially unanticipated, monetary inflation were visible in credit markets as real interest rates trended steadily downward throughout the decade. Unfortunately, both Keynesian and central bank orthodoxies of the 1960s focused on the nominal interest rate as an important indicator of the degree of ease or restraint of monetary policy, making no allowance for the effect of inflationary expectations on the nominal interest rate. Consequently, neither the new economists nor the monetary authorities believed that monetary policy was “unduly” expansionary because short-term nominal interest rates rose from 1961 to 1963. Indeed, the new economists were quite pleased with monetary policy during this period, an attitude typified in Seymour Harris’s observation that “the [Federal Reserve] board provided the country with a reasonably easy money policy ...”
Given that monetary policy was indeed grossly inflationary during the Kennedy years, what accounts for the sudden and radical shift in Federal Reserve policy from the moderate inflationism under the Eisenhower administration? The answer is Kennedy and his new economists, who conducted a relentless and incessant campaign for easy money from the very beginning of his administration. This campaign took the form of repeated public utterances on the part of the president and his economic advisers, as well as direct presidential pressure on William McChesney Martin, who was chairman of the Fed under Eisenhower and continued in that position until 1970.
Kennedy and key members of his administration also doggedly prodded the Fed, both publicly and privately, to ease monetary policy, even threatening to terminate its independent status if it did not acquiesce. As early as his campaign for the presidency, Kennedy expressed his disappointment with the Fed’s tendency to resort to restrictive monetary policy to rein in inflation and his intention to break with such a policy. In April 1962, Kennedy petitioned Congress for a revision of the terms of the Fed chairmanship that would enable each president to nominate a new chairman at the beginning of his term. Heller, Treasury Secretary Dillon, and Treasury Undersecretary Roosa also weighed in with calls for the Fed to ease monetary policy. Despite some initial foot-dragging and repeated caveats that the Fed would only finance real economic growth and not budget deficits, Fed Chairman Martin ultimately capitulated to the insistent demands of Kennedy and the new economists for a cheap-money policy. In fact, in February 1961, the Fed abandoned its long-standing “bills-only doctrine,” which dictated that open market operations be conducted exclusively in the market for short-term securities. In doing so, the Fed was accommodating the administration’s request to reduce long-term interest rates by buying long-term securities while simultaneously selling short-term securities in order to nudge up short-term interest rates. This attempt to artificially twist the interest-rate structure — nicknamed Operation Twist — was devised by the new economists to accomplish two goals: to stimulate domestic business investment and new housing purchases and to discourage the outflow of domestic and encourage the inflow of foreign short-term capital as a means of mitigating the U.S. balance-of-payments deficit. Needless to say, this attempt to have one’s cake and eat it too — to pursue a domestic cheap money policy and to avoid its adverse consequences for the balance of payments — was a failure ...
Our conclusion then is that Kennedy and the new economists succeeded in wringing from the Fed precisely the inflationary monetary policy they desired and that this policy represented a radical break with the monetary policy pursued in the 1950s. This conclusion, which is certainly reflected in the money-supply growth rates cited above, also accords with the perceptions of the new economists themselves. Seymour Harris, long-time Kennedy economic adviser and chief academic consultant to the Kennedy Treasury, made this pellucidly clear in his book on the economic policies of the Kennedy years. Harris concluded that:
In short, monetary policy under Kennedy was much more expansionist than under Eisenhower. ...
Federal Reserve policy in 1961-1963 was not like that of 1952-1960. At the early stages of recovery in the 1950s, the Federal Reserve, overly sensitive to inflationary dangers, aborted recoveries. Whether the explanation was the growing conviction that inflation was no longer a threat, or whether it was an awareness that the Kennedy administration would not tolerate stifling monetary policies, the Federal Reserve made no serious attempts to deflate the economy after 1960. In fact, in 1963 Mr. Martin boasted of the large contributions made to expansion ...
Thus, inflationary monetary policy was the sine qua non for the regime of permanent budget deficits that was initiated in the early 1960s and continued uninterrupted almost to the end of the twentieth century. That private investment was able to continually expand concurrently with sharply increasing government spending on military and other programs was attributable in large measure to the fact that, during the Kennedy years, the Fed was induced to “cooperate” by routinely monetizing the cumulating budget deficits necessary to finance these programs.
Note: The views expressed in Daily Articles on Mises.org are not necessarily those of the Mises Institute.
Joseph Salerno is academic vice president of the Mises Institute, professor of economics at Pace University, and editor of the Quarterly Journal of Austrian Economics. He has been interviewed in the Austrian Economics Newsletter and on Mises.org. Send him mail. See Joseph T. Salerno's article archives.
You can subscribe to future articles by Joseph T. Salerno via this RSS feed.

Postagem em destaque

Livro Marxismo e Socialismo finalmente disponível - Paulo Roberto de Almeida

Meu mais recente livro – que não tem nada a ver com o governo atual ou com sua diplomacia esquizofrênica, já vou logo avisando – ficou final...