domingo, 2 de junho de 2019

A China depois do massacre de Tiananmen - Gerry Shih (WP)

Três trechos selecionados desta matéria do Washington Post: 

After the blood had been washed from the streets, the Communist Party began the great reshaping of the country. It created an implicit compact with the people: You can have economic growth, but you can’t have political freedom. (...)
The Communist Party’s central office in 2013 distributed a watershed document warning that seven dangerous Western ideas, including democracy, media freedoms and the free-market system, was forbidden in classrooms. (...)
Anecdotally, some well-educated or rich Chinese say they have had enough. Data also suggest they are voting with their feet. In 2018, twice as many millionaires — about 15,000 — emigrated from China than from any other country, according to the consultancy New World Wealth.

Por enquanto é assim, mas a liberdade sempre prevalece ao final. Nenhuma ditadura, ou tirania. dura eternamente...

How today’s China was shaped by the events in Tiananmen Square 30 years ago

China’s vice president, Wang Qishan, was in no mood for questions when a group of American economists went to see him in a pavilion at Communist Party headquarters in Beijing recently. 
Instead, Wang, wearing a tracksuit and slippers, delivered a philosophical, hour-long lecture to scholars from the Peterson Institute for International Economics in which he asserted the supremacy of the Chinese way over Western traditions.
After reminding his visitors that the lives of Socrates and Confucius overlapped, he talked about how Europe ended up as small, splintered states while China became a vast and powerful empire. There was no doubt his critique of the West’s perceived weaknesses also included the present-day United States.
This is the China of today: supremely confident, richer than it could have imagined three decades ago, and more convinced than ever of the rightness of its repressive model of authoritarian political control.
In many ways, this is a direct result of a seismic event that took place 30 years ago Tuesday. On June 4, 1989, unknown numbers of Chinese — hundreds or perhaps thousands — were killed by their own military in response to a huge gathering in Beijing’s Tiananmen Square to call for change.
As many as 1 million people — students from Beijing’s most prestigious universities, later joined by Chinese from all walks of life — had made their way to the heart of the capital. That sparked smaller supporting demonstrations around the country. They were calling for greater transparency, less corruption and, ideally, the opportunity to elect their own government.
The Communist Party of China, which had been in power for 40 years by that stage, viewed the demonstrations as an existential challenge. Its leaders ordered the soldiers of the People’s Liberation Army to clear Tiananmen Square, using whatever means necessary. The soldiers beat people, shot people, ran people over with tanks.
“The powerful figures in the country were meant to serve the people, but they turned out to be the enemy of people,” said He Weifang, a Peking University law professor and public intellectual who was involved in the 1989 movement and continues to call for greater freedoms.
After the blood had been washed from the streets, the Communist Party began the great reshaping of the country. It created an implicit compact with the people: You can have economic growth, but you can’t have political freedom.
This bifurcation is more apparent than ever as President Xi Jinping enters his seventh year at the helm of China.
“My generation had so much hope and enthusiasm,” said Liu Suli, who was a 29-year-old university lecturer when he joined the protests in 1989. “We wanted elections, freedom of speech, freedom of association, the ability to demonstrate, education for all.”
Today, however, many academics are banned from talking to foreign media. Officials from government departments and state-owned enterprises are allowed to travel abroad only if they go in pairs. Think tanks and historical journals have been closed. 
Ideological education has been re-energized in scenes reminiscent of the era of the communist leader Mao Zedong 50 years ago. Students at the top universities are finding Marxist lessons woven into their curriculum. Human rights lawyers have been detained by the scores.
TOP: In Beijing’s Tiananmen Square on June 2, 1989, a statue called the Goddess of Democracy stands in a sea of demonstrators demanding greater freedoms. ABOVE: A view of the square on May 18, 2019, three decades later. (Catherine Henriette (top) and Greg Baker (above)/AFP/Getty Images)
Religion is repressed, none more than Islam. The authorities have razed mosques and locked millions of Uighurs, a largely Muslim ethnic minority, in indoctrination centers in an attempt to instill loyalty to the Chinese state.
Social pressures are building because Xi’s China does not offer a release valve for dissent. “If you’re beating a child, you should allow it to cry,” said He, the intellectual, citing an old Chinese saying. “They should let us cry.”
Meanwhile, China has flourished into the world’s second-largest economy, a global power with 400 million middle-class consumers and a military budget exceeded only by the United States’. It is going toe to toe with Washington on trade and is able to project its influence worldwide by disbursing $1 trillion in loans through its “Belt and Road” infrastructure project. 
It is building high-speed trains to rival Japan’s and next-generation telecommunication products that alarm American intelligence agencies.
China’s reality is one few would have foreseen in 1989. Except maybe Deng Xiaoping, who, as chairman of the Central Military Commission, was ultimately responsible for the massacre.
A decade before the Tiananmen protests, Deng had set out a vision for a more open, free-market economy that also ushered in a wave of foreign, liberal ideas. After he crushed the 1989 protests, Deng quickly tried to forge a more positive legacy for himself and his country.
In 1992, Deng, then 88, set out on a famous journey to accelerate the development of special economic zones in Shenzhen and Guangzhou that were powering China’s transformation into a manufacturing powerhouse.
“It was a shock. Deng came out of nowhere on his Southern Tour,” said Xu Youyu, a former researcher at the Chinese Academy of Social Sciences. “Everyone was rushing in to get rich. Deng was determined to push through his economic reform vision no matter the cost.”
“But it was apparent: There would be no political reform, only economic reform,” Xu added.
On one level, the numbers have backed up Deng’s vision: Income per capita has soared from $311 in 1989 to $8,826, according to latest World Bank figures.
But the party could not just present its economic accomplishments as justification for its rule. It has also sought to erase its darkest moments, creating the kind of “memory hole” that George Orwell only imagined in his classic dystopian novel “1984.”
“China has been surprisingly successful in erasing the memory of June 4,” said Louisa Lim, the author of The People’s Republic of Amnesia.
“They have so many different tools at their disposal, like censoring the Internet, removing any kind of material that mentions June 4 from the bookshops, and making sure that the narrative, when there has to be one, parrots the party line,” Lim said. “Wherever possible, they’ve just removed it.”
High school students, if they are told anything at all on the subject, learn only that there was an “incident” between the spring and summer of 1989. And few Chinese under age 30 recognize the “Tank Man” photo, the quintessential image of the protests in which a man carrying two shopping bags, as if he’d been out shopping for vegetables, stood in the street and stopped a column of tanks.
A young woman is caught between civilians and Chinese soldiers, who were trying to remove her from an assembly near the Great Hall of the People on June 3, 1989. (Jeff Widener/AP)
In the National Museum of China on the edge of Tiananmen Square, there is no mention of the protests or of the government’s response, only a photo of a Communist Party meeting that was held soon after. 
Today, a history textbook assigned at Peking University — whose students led the 1989 Tiananmen occupation — states that “throughout the student protests and hunger strikes, the party and government exercised great restraint” to deal with “those plotting riots.”
Several students said in interviews that they were cautioned by parents and teachers about discussing the event.
“Even if you know about it, you can’t say anything about it,” said one woman who is about to graduate from one of China’s best universities. The students and other Chinese spoke with The Washington Post on the condition of anonymity to avoid official reprisal.
There has never been a public reckoning about that day. There has never been an official death toll. Most parents received no explanation about how, let alone why, their children died. Some parents never even found their children’s bodies. 
“It’s 30 years now, but we have never been told the truth: How many people died, who they were, and why?” said Zhang Xianling, whose 19-year-old son, Wang Nan, was found dead a few hundred yards from Tiananmen Square on the morning of June 4. He had bullet wounds in his head. 
Authorities have been on particularly high alert this year ahead of the 30th anniversary. 
Automated censoring software is blocking any mention of the event on China’s parallel Internet. Activists and dissident former government officials who typically live under house arrest have been sent away on enforced vacations during the sensitive period.
“Even if people remember, they have no way of actively expressing that memory,” said Lim, the author.
Though China’s leaders smothered dissent and acts of remembrance, they have presented their economic accomplishments as justification for heavy-handed rule. While China boomed in the 2000s, the West was crippled by the 2008 financial crisis. The difference was proof, party officials said, of their authoritarian efficiency and the shortcomings of the chaotic liberal democratic model.
Chinese President Xi Jinping, bottom center, attends a Communist Party Congress on Oct. 18, 2017. He has been China’s leader since 2012. (Kevin Frayer/Getty Images)
As China gained its swagger, Xi Jinping, the son of a politically moderate Communist Party elder statesman, was rising to the top of the party apparatus.
“When Xi became leader in 2012 and president in 2013, many people hoped that he would be like his father, a very open leader,” said He, the public intellectual. “People thought Xi would be amenable to reform. But there’s an Arabic saying to describe what happened instead: ‘A man can be more like his era than like his father.’ ”
Under Xi, the sense of Chinese preeminence quickly morphed into outright hostility to Western values. The Communist Party’s central office in 2013 distributed a watershed document warning that seven dangerous Western ideas, including democracy, media freedoms and the free-market system, was forbidden in classrooms.
If Tiananmen was a milestone in the Communist Party’s retreat from a political opening, the 2013 communique was the definitive repudiation, said Gao Yu, the dissident journalist who was jailed in 2015 for obtaining and leaking the document.
“Document No. 9 almost cuts off all Western politics and economics, it completely cuts off China’s connection with world civilization,” Gao, whose seven-year prison sentence has been reduced to house arrest, said by email. 
Months after the communique was distributed, Xi personally drove his point home. In what became known as his “August 19” speech in 2013, Xi warned Communist Party cadres that their rule could end if they loosened controls on thought.
But China’s intellectuals increasingly wonder about the cost and sustainability of the ideological firewall.
Every year, more than 360,000 Chinese students attend American universities. That number includes Xi’s daughter, who graduated from Harvard in 2014. Many leading professors and administrators at China’s top universities have studied overseas.
Chinese who spend time abroad “bring back not only the specific skills, but also the whole package, a changed framework of social values,” said a senior professor at Peking University, the Harvard of China. “It’s getting difficult for the Chinese leadership to maintain ideological discipline.”
Anecdotally, some well-educated or rich Chinese say they have had enough. Data also suggest they are voting with their feet. In 2018, twice as many millionaires — about 15,000 — emigrated from China than from any other country, according to the consultancy New World Wealth.
Those who remember 1989, when China seemed a more hopeful country, doubt the repression can hold.
As Liu, former protester and now bookstore owner, puts it: “You can build a dam higher and higher but the water just rises higher, too.”
Tourists visit Tiananmen Square on May 18, 2019. (Greg Baker/AFP/Getty Images)
Read more:

George Orwell’s Six Rules For Great Writing - Harry J. Stead (Medium)

Existe algum George Orwell brasileiro? 
Se não existe precisaria inventar, ou aparecer alguém. 
Os tempos são sem dúvida orwellianos, o que é revelado pela linguagem. 
Em certos ministérios, e não apenas no MEC, os funcionários da Verdade (do momento), estão empenhados em apagar o passado para melhor controlar o presente e determinar o futuro. 
Em outros ministérios, como o da Damaris, os tempos são surrealistas-dadaistas-antropofágicos, se não é coisa pior: estupidez, pura e simples...
Os tempos não apenas orwellianos em certos ministérios, mas stalinistas, aqueles do Fotoshop manual: primeiro se apagava a foto do sujeito, depois mandava apagar o sujeito.
Em todo caso, vale melhorar a linguagem.
Paulo Roberto de Almeida

George Orwell’s Six Rules For Great Writing

How to write clearly and effectively




“But if thought corrupts language, language can also corrupt thought.”
George Orwell
Winston Smith is a fictional character and the protagonist of George Orwell’s 1949 novel ‘Nineteen Eighty-Four’. He works at the Records section in the Ministry of Truth where he updates Big Brother’s orders and Party records so that they match new developments. He helps correct the flow of history to ensure that Big Brother is never seen to be mistaken. Big Brother can on no occasion be wrong and Winston is just one of thousands who work to correct the past in order to keep the people ignorant of their history.
“The most effective way to destroy people is to deny and obliterate their own understanding of their history.”
― George Orwell
In Chapter five, Winston has lunch with a man named Syme, an intelligent Party member who works on a revised dictionary of Newspeak, a controlled language, of restricted grammar and vocabulary, meant to limit freedom of thought. Syme says to Winston that the purpose of Newspeak is to narrow the range of thought possible in order to make thoughtcrime, a crime against the state, impossible.
There should exist no words that are capable of communicating independent, rebellious thoughts. Because if you are able to numb the language, you in turn numb the mind. Thought corrupts language, so language must also be able to corrupt thought.
“If people cannot write well, they cannot think well, and if they cannot think well, others will do their thinking for them.”
It is impossible to conceive of rebellion if there are no meaningful words to illustrate such a cause. And so, Big Brother sought to continually diminish the available vocabulary until comprehensive thoughts are reduced to meek terms of simplistic meaning.
Politics and the English Language’ was published just a couple of months before the publication of ‘Nineteen Eighty-Four’. This essay provides great insight into Orwell’s fears surrounding the declining state of language in the English speaking world, fears he expressed so boldly in ‘Nineteen Eighty-Four’.
I first came across George Orwell’s essay ‘Politics and the English Language’ many years ago and I have tried to use it as a guide for my writing, referring back to it every so often when I fear I am losing my way.
The essay opens with, “Most people who bother with the matter at all would admit that the English language is in a bad way, but it is generally assumed that we cannot by conscious action do anything about it.” Orwell, in his usual calm and measured way, shares his thoughts on how the modern writer could help to improve the general state of language. He lists six rules for writing that he believes will aid the fight against restrictive language:
“(i) Never use a metaphor, simile, or other figure of speech which you are used to seeing in print.
(ii) Never use a long word where a short one will do.
(iii) If it is possible to cut a word out, always cut it out.
(iv) Never use the passive where you can use the active.
(v) Never use a foreign phrase, a scientific word, or a jargon word if you can think of an everyday English equivalent.
(vi) Break any of these rules sooner than say anything outright barbarous.”
Notice the words ‘never’ and ‘always’, suggesting these rules are absolute and must never be broken. But, Orwell himself did not obey them. ‘Politics and the English Language’ is riddled with the passive voice and many unnecessary words. The listed rules are an impossible standard, but Orwell knew this himself.
The point of the essay was not to introduce a list of strict commandments, but to encourage the writer to think about how and why they are using words. The writer should be constantly questioning whether the words they write are clear and worthwhile. For the purpose of language is for expression, rather than concealment from one’s truth.
“A scrupulous writer, in every sentence that he writes, will ask himself at least four questions, thus:
1. What am I trying to say?
2. What words will express it?
3. What image or idiom will make it clearer?
4. Is this image fresh enough to have an effect?
And he will probably ask himself two more:
1. Could I put it more shortly?
2. Have I said anything that is avoidably ugly?”
Every word Orwell wrote, particularly in the late 1930s and 40s, was used as a weapon against the wicked force of his age, namely totalitarianism. This was his life’s purpose — to defend language from those who wish to ‘make lies sound truthful and murder respectable’.


Language in Britain, Orwell wrote, was sloppy because the people’s thoughts were sloppy. The First World War left Britain in a state of shell shock, amnesia, and hopelessness. The British thought their nation to be decadent and rotten, an empty shadow of its former self. What was once a proud and upright culture was now hunched over a bayonet. It was supposed that the English language must follow also.
But, Orwell did not believe this to be so. Language, Orwell wrote, is not a natural growth that is bound by the conditions of the time. Instead, it is an instrument that we are able to use for our own purposes.
“A man may drink because he feels himself to be a failure, and then fail all the more so because he drinks.”
The bad habits caused by our foolish thoughts can be removed, producing purer thoughts and, in turn, purer language. Orwell argued that the decline of the English language is reversible only if we are aware of our corrupt ways. Orwell’s six rules demand the writer to be aware of their crooked sentences because they highlight the habits that prevent clear thought.
He continues his argument by laying out a couple of examples. Here is a comparison between good English and bad English:
“I returned and saw under the sun, that the race is not to the swift, nor the battle to the strong, neither yet bread to the wise, nor yet riches to men of understanding, nor yet favour to men of skill; but time and chance happeneth to them all.”
This passage uses compressed, short, Anglo-Saxon words that everyone can understand. It is a slightly dated example, but the meaning and the intention remains clear. The images the passage portrays are vivid, they allow the mind clear pictures of the author’s thoughts and purpose.
“Objective considerations of contemporary phenomena compel the conclusion that success or failure in competitive activities exhibits no tendency to be commensurate with innate capacity, but that a considerable element of the unpredictable must invariably be taken into account.”
Orwell himself admits this example to be an exaggeration. Yet, there is truth in hyperbole and it is often necessary when trying to express an idea so that others may understand. Each word here is hazy and thoughtless; there is a lack of exactness, no word is concrete, everything is abstract. The sentence avoids emotion and appears to be a confusion of scientific, technical, ready-made words that have been thrown together to create the allure of knowledge.
The quality between the two is clear. The first example lets the meaning of the picture choose the word, whereas the second example picks words from their sight and how easily they can be put together.
“In prose, the worst thing you can do with words is to surrender them.”
Language can cause people to cry, cheer, blush, it can sing songs, tell stories, speak the truth and teach lessons. Language can hum rhyming poetry, drift with rhythm and dance with lights and sounds. It is a beautiful gift — a gift many of us are unaware of.
Language is powerful for it allows man to express their own story and truth to the world, but with such a gift comes a duty that we must be mindful of. This recognition is crucial if we are to avoid the horror of ‘Nineteen-Eighty Four’.
Orwell was encouraging writers to be clear, communicative, simple, strong and purposeful. Obscure, complicated, scientific, hollow and senseless writing betrays the greatest power that God has given to us.
“The great enemy of clear language is insincerity. When there is a gap between one’s real and one’s declared aims, one turns as it were instinctively to long words and exhausted idioms, like a cuttlefish spurting out ink.”
― George Orwell, Politics and the English Language
Thank you for reading.
Harry J. Stead


New Yorker registra artigos passados sobre crimes financeiros em Wall Street

Frequentemente, a editoria da New Yorker – uma das melhores revistas do mundo, ao lado da Economist – recolhe artigos passados sobre temas importantes de interesse geral, como é o caso deste registro sobre os grandes crimes financeiros em Wall Street.
Não sou um defensor de Wall Street, e banqueiros, como pessoas normais, são ambiciosos e propensos a se desviar das normas e até da legalidade para ganhar mais, inclusive usando expedientes criminosos. Mas acredito que as grandes crises financeiras são sempre criadas por medidas ou políticas manifestamente insustentáveis em relação aos dados primários das economias de mercado. 
Digo isto porque banqueiros, por mais poderosos que sejam, não detêm o poder regulatório e dependem de políticos, tecnocratas ou responsáveis setoriais da área bancária ou financeira para operar no mercado, uma vez que o Estado sempre se impõe sobre o poder econômico, mesmo quando é fraco. Governos fracos, de países medíocres – isto é, PIBs ridículos – são mais poderosos do que as maiores empresas multinacionais, os grandes bancos, pois podem impor regras sob as quais essas empresas gigantes devem atuar.
Vamos ver o que existe na New York sobre escândalos e crises passadas.
Paulo Roberto de Almeida

New Yorker, Sunday, June 2, 2019

O encolhimento do governo Bolsonaro nos números: pesquisa Idea BigData (OESP)

Eleitor de 2º turno descola mais rápido de Bolsonaro, diz pesquisa

Presidente perde mais apoio entre mulheres de 25 a 40 anos, das classes B e C e que votaram no então candidato do PSL apenas contra Fernando Haddad, aponta levantamento

Ricardo Galhardo e Paulo Beraldo - O Estado de S. Paulo 
Porcentual de eleitores que aprovam o governo Bolsonaro caiu de 49% para 31% desde janeiro
Porcentual de eleitores que aprovam o governo Bolsonaro caiu de 49% para 31% desde janeiro Foto: Dida Sampaio/Estadão
Desde que o presidente Jair Bolsonaro tomou posse, há cinco meses, pesquisas mediram aumento em sua taxa de desaprovação. O mais recente levantamento doinstituto Ideia Big Data mostra que o desembarque do bolsonarismo tem sido mais significativo em parte expressiva do eleitorado que votou no então candidato do PSL apenas no segundo turno da eleição presidencial de 2018. Essa parcela de eleitores, em tese, aderiu a Bolsonaro com o objetivo de evitar a volta do PT ao governo federal. 
A desaprovação da atual administração tem como eixo central a persistência da crise econômica e do desemprego em níveis elevados.  
Segundo a pesquisa da Ideia Big Data, a maior parte dos eleitores que optaram por Bolsonaro e hoje rejeita o governo é formada por mulheres com idade entre 25 e 40 anos, integrantes das classes B e C, não evangélicas e que vivem em cidades com mais de 200 mil habitantes nas regiões Norte e Nordeste. 
Eles votaram no presidente apenas no segundo turno e representam cerca de 10 pontos porcentuais dos 18 que Bolsonaro perdeu desde a posse, conforme a série mensal de pesquisas do Ideia Big Data. 
Um dos argumentos apresentados para o recuo no apoio a Bolsonaro é o desconhecimento das propostas do então candidato durante a campanha eleitoral, segundo o economista e pesquisador Maurício Moura, fundador do instituto.De acordo com Moura, a este argumento se somam outros fatores: os ruídos provocados por integrantes do governo nas redes sociais e a ausência de medidas para gerar empregos e combater a crise econômica.  
Moradora da Lomba do Pinheiro, bairro periférico de Porto Alegre, a empreendedora Elaine Lima, de 36 anos, votou no 17 (o número do PSL) de Bolsonaro em busca de mais segurança. Mas se diz agora decepcionada. “O que me atraiu, principalmente, foi o discurso do Bolsonaro de combate à violência. Ele parecia ser porreta naquilo que falava. Aqui na região a criminalidade tomou conta, é um bangue-bangue diário. Eu tenho medo de andar nas ruas e acreditei nele durante as eleições. Mas o Bolsonaro assumiu como presidente e a gente não vê nada. Eu já perdi as esperanças. Não vejo um bom futuro para nós”, afirmou. 

Levantamento

Pesquisa realizou 1.660 entrevistas, em todo o País, entre os dias 3 e 6 de maio
Imagem Gráfico
Nota: *Somatória de quem passou de aprova totalmente/aprova para nem aprovo/nem desaprovo e quem nem aprovava/nem desaprovava para desaprova/desaprova totalmenteObs.: pesquisa feita por telefone celular; margem de erro: 3.2 pontos porcentuais para mais ou para menos
Fonte: IDEIA BIG DATA
Para Moura, essa camada da população, que ele chama de “classe média-média”, é “mais sensível às questões econômicas”. “Muito do apoio que Bolsonaro teve no segundo turno foi mais por rejeição ao PT do que por identificação com a plataforma dele. Bolsonaro não expôs de maneira plena suas plataformas durante a campanha e muitos estão conhecendo só agora as propostas do presidente para diversas áreas.” 
O pesquisador reiterou que muitos eleitores votaram em Bolsonaro sem conhecer bem as ideias do presidente. “Isso dá um apoio muito frágil.” Um exemplo disso é o decreto que facilita o acesso a armas de fogo. Nos últimos dias, Bolsonaro passou a reforçar a ideia de que, no Planalto, não vai abandonar as promessas de campanha. 
Moura afirmou que a aprovação ao governo sofreu uma queda abrupta nos dois primeiros meses de mandato e, agora, se estabilizou. Mas a dificuldade em cumprir promessas de crescimento econômico a médio prazo e as investigações envolvendo o senador Flávio Bolsonaro (PSL-RJ) podem causar um descolamento ainda maior, atingindo o núcleo duro do bolsonarismo.
A Ideia Big Data vem consultando eleitores sobre o desempenho do governo desde o início do ano, sempre entre os dias 3 e 6 de cada mês. O acompanhamento mostra forte queda na aprovação do presidente. A soma dos eleitores que aprovam ou aprovam totalmente o governo era de 49% em janeiro. Hoje, é de 31%.  
Já a soma dos que desaprovam ou desaprovam totalmente o governo subiu de 21% para 36% entre janeiro e maio. A Ideia Big Data ouviu 1.660 pessoas. A margem de erro é de 3,2 pontos, para mais ou para menos. 
‘Antissistema’. Para o publicitário Renato Meirelles, presidente do instituto Locomotiva, especializado na classe C, o eleitorado que votou em Bolsonaro no segundo turno não era apenas antipetista, mas antissistema. “É um voto que foi para Bolsonaro a partir da facada”, afirmou ele, numa referência ao atentado sofrido por Bolsonaro durante campanha de rua em Juiz de Fora (MG), em setembro passado.  
Segundo ele, presidente e governo entram na zona de risco ao optar por um discurso no qual mantêm os ataques a adversários e fazem acenos à sua base fiel. “A população está cansada desse processo de divisão e o governo perde todas as oportunidades de sair dele. No governo, Bolsonaro mantém o discurso de candidato a deputado, em que o apoio de apenas uma parcela da sociedade já é suficiente.” 
A insatisfação de Elaine aumentou com a decisão tomada pelo governo, em março, de não renovar a permanência do efetivo da Força Nacional no Rio Grande do Sul. Ela deixou de acompanhar o noticiário político. “A política me deixa muito triste e irritada. Não vejo mais televisão e, quando escuto no rádio as notícias de política, não consigo mais acompanhar. Olha o que o aconteceu com a Educação? É só besteirol.” 

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...