Talvez você não saiba

Algumas pessoas se dão ao luxo e ao sabor de dispararem o jargão: Vai pra Cuba!, como se esse país fosse o pior do mundo e Fidel Castro o pior dos tiranos.

Tais pessoas dispensam parte da história sem almenos se importarem com quem explorava ilha caribenha antes da Revolução.
Apoio norteamericano, ditadores, golpistas, gangters, traficantes e toda sorte de mafiosos internacionais foram varridos de Cuba em 59, é uma longa história.

Essa é uma parte que talvez pouca dessas pessoas saibam:   


"Todas as circunstâncias cercando minha vida e infância, tudo o que vi, tornaria lógico supor que eu desenvolveria hábitos, ideias e sentimentos naturais às classes sociais com certos privilégios e motivações egoístas que nos tornam indiferentes aos problemas dos outros... Sou filho de um senhor de terras - havia uma razão para eu ser reacionário. Eu fui educado em colégios que eram frequentados pelos filhos dos ricos - outra razão para ser reacionário. Eu estudei numa universidade na qual, em meia a milhares de alunos, apenas trinta eram anti-imperialistas e eu era um deles."
Relato de Fidel Castro no livro NOTURNO DE HAVANA P. 130 

Campo Dr. Sócrates - Escola Nacional Florestan Fernandes - Guararema/SP  Foto: Brasil de Fato

"Pegadinha" no Estadão: só é imbecil completo quem se acha um gênio

No Tijolaço

Um imbecil só o é por completo quando se crê genial.

A imprensa brasileira caminha a passos céleres para essa completa idiotia, a de crer que as todas as pessoas acreditam nas bobagens que diz e que, pensa ela, devem ser vistas como verdades absolutas.

Gustavo Conde,  linguista, professor e colaborador deste blog, fez um "teste" rápido esta semana com o Estadão.

Deixou incorporar-se do espírito da Eliane Cantanhêde – poupando as redundâncias enxundiosas da "musa" tucana – e fez uma carta ao jornal repetindo todos os argumentos tolos e toscos que sobram nas notícias e comentários "de verdade" que ele publica.

O crescimento de 0,1% do PIB aliado à popularidade crescente do presidente Temer – não captada pelas pesquisas – e à retomada de todos os setores da economia alegram o brasileiro. Os salários estão em alta, o emprego está a todo vapor e os investimentos seguem a tendência de confiança. Em meio a tudo isso, temos ainda a excelente notícia de que a Lava Jato está cumprindo seu papel de acabar com a corrupção de maneira transparente e republicana. O eleitor também entendeu esse momento alvissareiro, como as pesquisas mostram: Alckmin, Huck, Bolsonaro e Temer lideram a preferência dos eleitores mais qualificados – pois eles representam o novo na política – ao mesmo tempo em que as candidaturas que representam o atraso vão caindo cada vez mais. Parabenizo o Estadão pela excelente cobertura, imparcial e técnica, estendendo a saudação a todos os seus colaboradores que nos brindam diariamente com textos instigantes e bem escritos.

Entre as centenas de cartas que recebe, o jornal, claro, selecionou a de Gustavo, com o rapaz que escolhe o que vai ser publicado de olhos rútilos, com o achado. Até que enfim alguém aparece para concordar conosco e saudar este período brilhante que o Brasil atravessa!

Não conseguem ver nos seus próprios textos – como veriam no de Gustavo? – que crescimento de 0,1% é piada, que a Lava Jato descamba para o arbítrio, que a corrupção segue solta neste Governo de "maleiros", que o emprego não existe e as taxas de desocupação só têm ligeira retração, como indica o IBGE, porque aumentou o número de "bicos, biscates e virações". Ignoram o fato de que Lula anda folgado nas intenções de voto e que seus adversários empacam, incapazes de sensibilizar o povão.

Verdades óbvias, invisíveis a quem mergulhou tanto nos ódios e no partidarismo que não percebe mais nada senão os bordões "mercadistas".

Nem perceberam o corolário de ironia atroz dos parabéns pela cobertura  "imparcial e técnica" e aos "textos instigantes e bem escritos"de um jornal que se tornou reprodutor dos press-releases que lhe vêm nos procuradores da Lava Jato, dos delegados da Polícia Federal ou da cantilena mil vezes repetida do mercado. Pouco há ali, senão raras exceções como Marcelo Rubens Paiva, José Roberto de Toledo e Jamil Chade (há outros, mas não muito), que não seja a repetição do "partido único"  da imprensa brasileira.

Mas, reconheça-se, creem na genialidade de sua própria estupidez e confiam na máxima de Joseph Pulitzer, de que "com o tempo, uma imprensa cínica, mercenária, demagógica e corrupta formará um público tão vil como ela mesma".

Um público que seria capaz de escrever, a sério, o que Gustavo fez como gozação.

Berço de ouro, mentalidade autoritária: a "Árvore Genealógica" da Lava Jato

No sindservbarueri.com.br 


Rafael Braga foi o único brasileiro preso nas manifestações de junho de 2013. Negro, pobre e morador de favela, o ex-catador de material reciclável foi condenado a 11 anos e três meses de prisão pelo suposto porte de maconha, cocaína e material explosivo. Quatro anos depois, não resta comprovado que, naquele dia, Rafael levava consigo algo além de produtos de limpeza. Ele continua preso, à espera de um novo julgamento.    

Breno Borges, filho da desembargadora Tânia Borges, teve melhor sorte. Flagrado no dia 8 de abril com 129 quilos de maconha e 270 munições, além de uma arma sem autorização, o jovem branco foi julgado e solto em menos de uma semana. A mãe dele, presidenta do Tribunal Regional Eleitoral do Mato Grosso do Sul, é investigada por favorecimento na libertação do filho.

Os vínculos familiares são determinantes para se entender as dinâmicas dos campos político e judiciário no Brasil. Professor do Departamento de Ciência Política e Sociologia da Universidade Federal do Paraná (UFPR), Ricardo Costa de Oliveira afirma que a origem social dos indivíduos está relacionada a uma série de privilégios, hábitos e visões de mundo.

A última pesquisa dele foi publicada esta semana na revista Núcleo de Estudos Paranaenses (NEP). O artigo "Prosopografia familiar da operação Lava Jato e do ministério Temer" foi assinado em conjunto com outros três pesquisadores: José Marciano Monteiro, Mônica Helena Harrich Silva Goulart e Ana Christina Vanali.

De pai para filho

O texto apresenta uma biografia coletiva do juiz de primeira instância Sérgio Moro, dos 14 membros da força-tarefa nomeados pela Procuradoria-Geral da República e de oito delegados da Polícia Federal que atuam no caso, além de ministros indicados pelo presidente golpista Michel Temer (PMDB).


O aspecto mais relevante do artigo diz respeito aos vínculos da operação Lava Jato com a elite econômica do Paraná. "Este seleto grupo de indivíduos forma parte do 1% mais rico no Brasil, e muitos até mesmo do 0,1% mais rico em termos de rendas", descrevem os pesquisadores.

Políticos defensores da ditadura civil-militar e indivíduos que atuaram no sistema de justiça durante o regime também aparecem na "árvore genealógica" da Lava Jato. O procurador Carlos Fernando dos Santos Lima, por exemplo, é "filho do ex-deputado estadual da ARENA Osvaldo dos Santos Lima, promotor, vice-prefeito em Apucarana e presidente da Assembleia Legislativa do Paraná, em 1973, no auge da ditadura, quando as pessoas não podiam votar e nem debater livremente", segundo o texto. O pai de Carlos Fernando, assim como os irmãos, Luiz José e Paulo Ovídio, também atuaram como procuradores no Paraná.

O professor Ricardo Costa de Oliveira conversou com a reportagem do Brasil de Fato e debateu os resultados da pesquisa. Confira dos melhores momentos da entrevista:

Brasil de Fato – O que há em comum na biografia de todos os personagens da operação Lava Jato analisados no artigo?

Ricardo Costa de Oliveira – Todos eles pertencem à alta burocracia estatal. Há alguns, da magistratura ou do Ministério Público, que ganham acima do teto [salarial do funcionalismo público, equivalente a R$ 33,7 mil por mês]. Com suas esposas e companheiras, eles estão situados no 0,1% mais ricos do país.

Quase todos são casados com operadores políticos, ou do Direito. Você só entende os nomes entendendo a família. É uma unidade familiar que opera juridicamente, opera politicamente.

O juiz de primeira instância Sérgio Moro é um desses exemplos?

O juiz Moro é filho de um professor universitário, mas também é parente de um desembargador já falecido, o Hildebrando Moro. A mulher do Moro, a Rosângela [Wolff], é advogada e primo do Rafael Greca de Macedo [prefeito de Curitiba]. Ela pertence a essa importante família política e jurídica do Paraná, que é o grande clã Macedo, e também é parente de dois desembargadores.

O artigo ressalta as coincidências entre a Lava Jato e o caso Banestado [que investigou o envio ilegal de 28 bilhões de dólares ao exterior]. Como isso ajuda a entender o papel da força-tarefa e do Judiciário nas investigações sobre os contratos da Petrobras?


Boa parte deles também estiveram no [caso] Banestado. Foi uma operação que desviou muito dinheiro e apresentou uma grande impunidade, ao contrário de outros momentos. Até porque era outra conjuntura, outros atores políticos que foram investigados.

O [procurador] Celso Tres era um dos maiores especialistas nessas questões. Por que ele não foi convidado para entrar na Lava Jato? Porque ele não tinha a homogeneidade político-ideológica que essa equipe tem. É uma equipe que foi preparada para essa tarefa, não apenas jurídica, mas também política – que na nossa leitura, é a perseguição, lawfare ["guerra jurídica"] à esquerda, ao Partido dos Trabalhadores, ao ex-presidente Luiz Inácio Lula da Silva.

Em relação aos vínculos com a ditadura civil-militar [1964-1985], quais foram as constatações mais relevantes da pesquisa?

Os operadores da Lava Jato, bem como os jovens ministros do governo Temer, são de famílias políticas. E os pais trabalharam, defenderam, reproduziram e atuaram na ditadura militar. Os filhos herdam a mesma mentalidade autoritária, o elitismo, o ódio de classe contra o PT.

Como pertencem ao 1% mais rico, eles sempre tiveram uma vida muito luxuosa e beneficiada [pelas condições econômicas]. Estudaram em escolas de elite, vivem em ambientes luxuosos, estudaram Direito, depois fizeram concursos, com muito sucesso. Quando você tem pais no sistema, você tem facilidades.

Por que incluir na mesma pesquisa os operadores da Lava Jato e os ministros nomeados por Michel Temer?

Há uma conexão, no sentido de que é a mesma ação política da classe dominante.  Eles operam em rede. Há uma coordenação.

Por isso que é uma prosopografia [biografia coletiva]. Eles são originários da mesma classe social, do mesmo círculo social, e eles transitam nos mesmos ambientes empresariais, elitizados.

O juiz Sérgio Moro, por exemplo: onde é que ele atua quando está em público? Em grandes publicações da mídia dominante burguesa, quando ele está muitas vezes abraçado, cumprimentando efusivamente os membros do golpe [de 2016]. Você vai ver um juiz ou um membro da Lava Jato num acampamento sem-terra? Ou num órgão alternativo da mídia, num sindicato de trabalhadores de categorias braçais e manuais? Jamais.

—–

Tudo em família

Coordenador da força-tarefa da Lava Jato, Deltan Dallagnol é filho de outro procurador de Justiça, Agenor Dallagnol. O procurador Andrey Borges de Mendonça, que também atua na operação, é irmão do procurador Yuri Borges de Mendonça. Outro membro da força-tarefa, Diogo Castor de Mattos, é filho de um ex-procurador de Justiça, Delivar Tadeu de Mattos. O tio de Diogo, Belmiro Jobim Castor, foi secretário de Estado várias vezes no Paraná nos anos 1970 e 1980.

O escritório de advocacia Delivar de Mattos & Castor é dos mais conhecidos do Paraná. Nele também atuam os irmãos Rodrigo Castor de Mattos e Analice Castor de Mattos.

Os vínculos familiares de Gebran Neto

Amigo e admirador confesso de Sérgio Moro, João Pedro Gebran Neto é um dos desembargadores da 8ª Turma do Tribunal Regional Federal da 4ª Região (TRF-4). Ele será o relator do processo conhecido como "caso triplex", em segunda instância, cujo réu é o ex-presidente Lula (PT).

Segundo o professor Ricardo Costa de Oliveira, o desembargador que atua no Rio Grande do Sul é filho de Antonio Sebastião da Cunha Gebran e neto de João Pedro Gebran, ex-diretores-gerais da Assembleia Legislativa do Paraná nos anos 1950 e 1970.

O casamento de João Pedro Gebran, em 1924, foi o acontecimento que abriu as portas da família junto à classe dominante paranaense. Foi quando eles passaram a ter relações com a antiga rede social e política de sua esposa, Francisca Cunha, filha do coronel Francisco Cunha, prefeito da Lapa na República Velha.

O avô do coronel Cunha era o comendador Manuel Antonio da Cunha, primeiro prefeito da Lapa, em 1833, casado com a filha do 1º capitão-mor da Lapa, o português Francisco Teixeira Coelho. Todas, famílias com origens históricas no latifúndio escravista, aparentadas entre si – tais como a família Braga, do ex-governador Ney Braga, e a família Lacerda, do ex-reitor e ministro da Educação do início da ditadura, Flávio Suplicy de Lacerda.

Este material faz parte da cobertura especial da operação Lava Jato. Clique aqui para ter acesso a outros materiais produzidos sobre o tema.


Edição: Ednubia Ghisi



Fonte

Cinco Presidentes

"Mais uma vez as forças e os interesses contra o povo coordenaram-se e se desencadeiam sobre mim. Não me acusam, insultam; não me combatem, caluniam; e não me dão o direito de defesa. Precisam sufocar a minha voz e impedir a minha ação, para que eu não continue a defender, como sempre defendi, o povo e principalmente os humildes.
Sigo o destino que me é imposto. Depois de decênios de domínio e espoliação dos grupos econômicos e financeiros internacionais, fiz-me chefe de uma revolução e venci. Iniciei o trabalho de libertação e instaurei o regime de liberdade social. Tive de renunciar. Voltei ao governo nos braços do povo. A campanha subterrânea dos grupos internacionais aliou-se à dos grupos nacionais revoltados contra o regime de garantia do trabalho. A lei de lucros extraordinários foi detida no Congresso. Contra a Justiça da revisão do salário mínimo se desencadearam os ódios. Quis criar a liberdade nacional na potencialização das nossas riquezas através da Petrobras, mal começa esta a funcionar a onda de agitação se avoluma. A Eletrobrás foi obstaculada até o desespero. Não querem que o povo seja independente. Assumi o governo dentro da espiral inflacionária que destruía os valores do trabalho. Os lucros das empresas estrangeiras alcançavam até 500% ao ano. Nas declarações de valores do que importávamos existiam fraudes constatadas de mais de 100 milhões de dólares por ano. Veio a crise do café, valorizou-se nosso principal produto. Tentamos defender seu preço e a resposta foi uma violenta pressão sobre a nossa economia a ponto de sermos obrigados a ceder. Tenho lutado mês a mês, dia a dia, hora a hora, resistindo a uma pressão constante, incessante, tudo suportando em silêncio, tudo esquecendo e renunciando a mim mesmo, para defender o povo que agora se queda desamparado. Nada mais vos posso dar a não ser o meu sangue. Se as aves de rapina querem o sangue de alguém, querem continuar sugando o povo brasileiro, eu ofereço em holocausto a minha vida. Escolho este meio de estar sempre convosco. Quando vos humilharem, sentireis minha alma sofrendo ao vosso lado. Quando a fome bater à vossa porta, sentireis em vosso peito a energia para a luta por vós e vossos filhos. Quando vos vilipendiarem, sentireis no meu pensamento a força para a reação. Meu sacrifício vos manterá unidos e meu nome será a vossa bandeira de luta. Cada gota de meu sangue será uma chama imortal na vossa consciência e manterá a vibração sagrada para a resistência. Ao ódio respondo com perdão. E aos que pensam que me derrotam respondo com a minha vitória. Era escravo do povo e hoje me liberto para a vida eterna. Mas esse povo, de quem fui escravo, não mais será escravo de ninguém. Meu sacrifício ficará para sempre em sua alma e meu sangue terá o preço do seu resgate. Lutei contra a espoliação do Brasil. Lutei contra a espoliação do povo. Tenho lutado de peito aberto. O ódio, as infâmias, a calúnia não abateram meu ânimo. Eu vos dei a minha vida. Agora ofereço a minha morte. Nada receio. Serenamente dou o primeiro passo no caminho da eternidade e saio da vida para entrar na história."
                                         
                  Presidente Getúlio Vargas, 24 de agosto de 1954


Estende-se a;
Dilma Vana Rousseff
Luiz Inácio Lula da Silva
João Belchior Marques Goulart
Juscelino Kubitschek de Oliveira
Getúlio Dornelles Vargas

Somos contemporâneos de pessoas ou ainda espectros que lutaram contra, caluniaram, derrubaram, mortificaram cinco presidentes que vivem.

Depoimento da juíza observadora sobre eleições na Venezuela

BOLIVIA-CHE Morales vai descobrir um mural que comemora o 50º aniversário da morte do Che e da Tania

Imagem: ABI

Vallegrande, Bolívia, 8 de outubro (ABI).

O presidente Evo Morales descobrirá no domingo um mural chamado "Che amigo de pueblos" pintado em uma parede do hospital Señor de Malta na cidade de Vallegrande, comemorando os 50 anos da morte de Ernesto Guevara e da guerrilheira Tamara Benke, conhecida como "Tania". 

"A iconografia que representa Che, a campanha e, principalmente, uma homenagem às mulheres guerrilheiras, não pode haver revolução sem a posição feminista, revolucionária no sentido em que representa Tania. Se Che completa 50 anos, Tania também ", disse o pintor do trabalho, o boliviano Freddy Escobar, ao ABI.

Ele explicou que o mural, de aproximadamente 2,5 por 4 metros, também mostra que Che se multiplicou em vários "Evos" para popularizar a ideologia revolucionária. 

O pintor de Cochabamba observou que a arte e a cultura são a ponta de lança de qualquer revolução, porque "não há uma verdadeira revolução sem os seus artistas, nem a arte deles". 

"Usamos uma técnica mista, tanto material, quanto no tema formal, usamos água e óleo, pincel e aerógrafo, técnica de graffiti e mural", acrescentou.

Fonte: ABI

A história do Blog que irritou Sergio Moro e a Lava Jato

Publicado no Blog da Cidadania

Imagem: Blog da Cidadania

Essa é a história improvável do comerciante que criou uma página na internet para desabafar e acabou interferindo na macropolítica brasileira com opiniões e notícias que muitos não queriam que fossem dadas, chegando a irritar o poderoso juiz Sergio Moro e a "força-tarefa" inteira da Operação Lava Jato simplesmente por  fazer JORNALISMO. Assista a esse mini documentário.

Cédulas

Em toda Querência Gaúcha hoje 20 de Setembro é comemorado o Dia do Gaúcho.
Boa terra, terra boa, região de posição forte e revolucionários desde a política, passando pela farta comida até ao futebol.
Quem lembra dessa cédula? Será que Temer com todas as suas deformas trabalhistas fará um dia flâmula igual?

É, a coisa não está fácil, mesmo com tanta informação fora do eixo desumano do PIG, ainda muita gente se dá por bem informada por gorfar nessa mesma rede tudo o que se alimentou nos jornais, tevês e revistas.
Ninguém elegeu eles, ninguém deu a eles o seu voto, mas mesmo assim eles tiram e colocam pessoas no poder, sobem e baixam papeis, começam e terminam guerras. Logo menos lançarão nos piores mercados a sua própria nota.

Esse mesmo pessoalzinho morreria de vergonha, ao tirarem o presidente Lula do jogo em 2018, e numa hipotética cédula de papel sem o nome desse que mesmo com tsunamis, tempestades e furacões midiojurídicos, lidera no 1° e 2° turno a corrida presidencial.
Imagine só, uma cédula de papel sem o nome do Lula e na hora da contagem surpresa, mais de 50 milhões de brasileiros e brasileiras desenhando mais um quadradinho assinalado 13 Lula.

Só dessa gente pensar nisso a urna eletrônica é "rei".

Quando Arte e Lei se encontram

Contrariando toda a "Lei da gravidade" do prefake de São Paulo João Doria...

Eleições 2018: Lula lidera em todos os cenários, diz pesquisa CNT/MDA

Publicado no sul21.com.br

Lula lidera em todos os cenários, vencendo também as simulações de 2º turno | Foto: Ricardo Stuckert/Divulgação

Da RBA

Mesmo após o depoimento de Antonio Palocci, que negocia delação premiada, ao juiz Sergio Moro, o ex-presidente Lula (PT) continua liderando todos os cenários para a eleição presidencial de 2018. A 134ª Pesquisa CNT/MDA, realizada entre os dias 13 a 16 de setembro, mostra que as intenções de voto espontâneas para o petista passaram de 16,6% em fevereiro para 20,2% em setembro.

O mesmo levantamento mostra Jair Bolsonaro se consolidando no segundo lugar, indo de 6,5% para 10,9%. João Doria aparece com 2,4%; Marina Silva com 1,5% e Geraldo Alckmin e Ciro Gomes com 1,2% cada. Em relação à pesquisa de fevereiro, Aécio Neves caiu de 2,2% para 0,3%.

Já na intenção de voto estimulada, quando são apresentados os nomes dos candidatos, Lula tem 32,4% no cenário em que o postulante tucano é o senador mineiro Aécio Neves – que teve 3,2% da preferência dos entrevistados – seguido por Bolsonaro, com 19,8%. Marina Silva tem 12,1% e Ciro Gomes, 5,3%. Com João Doria indicado como candidato do PSDB, o prefeito de São Paulo tem 9,4%, atrás de Marina, com 12%; Bolsonaro, tem 18,4% e Lula, 32,7%.

Com Geraldo Alckmin na corrida como candidato do PSDB, o tucano tem 8,7%, e Lula lidera com 32%, seguido por Bolsonaro, com 19,4%, e Marina Silva, com 11,4%. Ciro Gomes tem 4,6% nesse cenário.

Nas simulações de segundo turno, Lula bate todos os seus rivais, superando Aécio por 41,8% a 14,8%; Alckmin por 40,6% a 23,2%; Doria por 41,6% a 25,2%; Bolsonaro por 40,5% a 28,5% e Marina Silva por 39,8% a 25,8%.

A avaliação do governo Temer chega a 3,4% de ótimo/bom, diante de 10,3% do levantamento de fevereiro. Entre os entrevistados, 75,6% acham sua gestão ruim/péssima. Foram feitas 2.002 entrevistas em 137 municípios em 25 estados nas cinco regiões do país.

Editoria: Política, z_Areazero

Palavras-chave: Eleições 2018, Lula, pesquisa

Repressão na Venezuela, pegadinha

Legal mesmo é postar cenas lamentáveis como essa em St. Louis nos Estados Unidos com a legenda 'Repressão do sanguinário governo Maduro' e acompanhar os RTs e compartilhamentos eufóricos e raivosos, sem mesmo terem assistido, dos coxinhas.

Así reprime EEUU a su propio pueblo por justas reivindicaciones, pero condena a Venezuela por represión.pic.twitter.com/hY6kGNRugH

— Ali Anzola Escorche (@ali_anzola) 17 de setembro de 2017

Gavetão da Dodge

Teríamos a chance de ter um(a) engavetador(a) maior do que o Engavetador Geral da República do Phegasse, Geraldo Brindeiro?

Pelo andar da carruagem e por quem pôs a carruagem...

Chegando em RC

Que surpresa
Que agradável sinalização

Não estrague o seu dia!

BOM DIA BRASIL?

Remando em águas profundas

Saí ao mar
Para os dois lados ondas quebravam...

SP POR SI SÓ

São

Pau

lo

Exclusive: Dilma Rousseff on Her Ouster, Brazil's Political Crisis & Fighting Dictatorship

As Brazil is engulfed by a political crisis, we are joined in studio for an extended exclusive interview by Brazil’s former President Dilma Rousseff, who was impeached last year in what many describe as a legislative coup. Her removal ended nearly 14 years of rule by the left-leaning Workers’ Party, which had been credited with lifting millions of Brazilians out of poverty. Rousseff is a former political prisoner who took part in the underground resistance to the U.S.-backed Brazilian dictatorship in the 1960s. She was jailed from 1970 to 1972, during which time she was repeatedly tortured. Rousseff would later become a key figure in the Workers’ Party under President Luiz Inácio Lula da Silva. She was elected president in 2010 and re-elected in 2014. Her successor, Brazilian President Michel Temer, is now facing mounting calls to resign or be impeached, following explosive testimony released by the Supreme Court accusing him of accepting millions of dollars in bribes since 2010. This week, he authorized the deployment of the Army to the capital Brasília as tens of thousands of protesters marched to Congress to demand his resignation.

Transcript
This is a rush transcript. Copy may not be in its final form.


AMY GOODMAN: As we continue to look at the political crisis in Brazil, we turn now to Brazil’s ousted president, Dilma Rousseff, who was impeached last year in what many describe as a coup. Her removal ended nearly 14 years of rule by the left-leaning Workers’ Party, which had been credited with lifting millions of Brazilians out of poverty.

Rousseff is a former political prisoner who took part in the underground resistance to the U.S.-backed Brazilian dictatorship in the '60s. She was jailed from 1970 to 1972, during which time she was repeatedly tortured. Dilma Rousseff would later become a key figure in the Workers' Party under President Luiz Inácio Lula da Silva. She was elected president in 2010, re-elected in 2014.

I spoke with President Rousseff when she came to New York in April. I began by asking her how and why she was ousted from power last year.

DILMA ROUSSEFF: [translated] I believe that the motives that led me to be removed from my position as president—and in what was really a coup d’état, because there was no real high crime and misdemeanor in my case—I could attribute this to three motives. One, which is more important than all the others, has to do with great misogyny. And for the first time, a woman was elected president. This misogynist treatment has to do with how men and women are seen and described in politics. Women are harsh and insensitive; men are strong and sensitive. Women, when working intensely, are considered obsessive-compulsive, whereas the man is considered a hard worker. So, all of these uses of instruments to attack a woman were mobilized against me, in addition to the many low-quality words.

But what led to the impeachment were two major things. One, they sought to keep—they, the coup mongers from the PMDB and PSDB, two political parties in Brazil—they were trying to keep the corruption investigations from reaching them, so they said, "We’re going to get rid of her in order to keep the investigations from continuing and for this thing to continue."

In addition, we had won four elections in a row with a government program that was clearly against many of the trends that were in vogue in the United States and Europe, which were exacerbating inequality. We were fighting inequality. And we had secured some very important results. We took Brazil off of the U.N.’s map of poverty, and we lifted up some 86 million from extreme poverty. We were not selling our lands without any limitations to foreigners. And above all else, we had a whole structure of social protection in Brazil. So, for the coup mongers, it was a question of implementing the only way—the only thing they could do to stop our program, which was to support social rights. They wanted to set back our gains for workers. They were not able to do this through elections, so they did it through the impeachment.

AMY GOODMAN: The man who led the charge against you, who led your impeachment, Eduardo Cunha, now faces 15 years in prison for corruption. Your thoughts?

DILMA ROUSSEFF: [translated] What I regret is the fact that what led him to be put on trial and to be convicted for 15 years—well, I’m not in a position to give an opinion about the situation of the inquiry, the right to defense and so forth, but what I do know is that all of the evidence that led to his conviction was available to the judiciary and the prosecutorial authorities before my impeachment. The strange thing is that they let that process run before my impeachment, and they didn’t take any measures, because no one was unaware of it. There was a whole set of evidence before April 17th, 2016, that incriminated Mr. Eduardo Cunha. So that’s my first assessment.

My second assessment is that he came forward. He wasn’t just one person. He represents a very bad process in Brazil, a very dangerous process, which is the following. Brazil always had to construct a democratic center for governance, and that need to have a democratic center stemmed from the 1988 constitution, when we emerged from the dictatorship and embarked upon democracy and having this democratic center while it was progressive.

Now, what happened with the arrival of Eduardo Cunha on the scene? He was ultraconservative with respect to social rights, but especially with respect to individual and collective rights. He’s a homophobic man. He opposed the women’s policy having a gender bias, for example, which is absurd. So, what happened is that he led to the hegemony of the far right over the democratic center, which led to this coup.

Those who are also part of the group are as responsible for the coup as he is, so the fact that he is in prison doesn’t mean that those kinds of political practices that he represented were extinguished. Quite to the contrary, today they’re all in the government, those who supported the coup and who constitute a very strong political group along with him.

AMY GOODMAN: In addition to Cunha, Brazil’s Supreme Court ordered corruption probes into 98 politicians, including a third of the current President Temer’s Cabinet. Would you say part of the reason you were impeached is that they feared being investigated themselves? They were trying to stop this?

DILMA ROUSSEFF: [translated] I’m not the only one who thinks that. Before my impeachment, the press put out a recording, and that recording was a conversation between two senators—well, one senator and one former senator, both of the same party, of PMDB, the Brazilian Democratic Movement Party. What did this recording say? One of the senators, who was a major leader of the coup, Senator Romero Jucá, said to the other one, who was recording the conversation, "Look, the president needs to be removed, so that we can stop the bloodletting." Now, what does that mean? Well, he continued to explain it. "Because she will not interrupt the investigations into the Car Wash scandal. She will not interrupt any investigation into corruption. And so we need to remove her by forming a national pact that would impede those investigations from reaching us." This reason is the reason that led the politicians to carry out the coup, the politicians that always lost the elections to us, the Brazilian Social Democratic Party, the party of the last senator and the current senator, who were foreign ministers of the republic. And let me tell you, I don’t believe that the reason that led to the coup was just that. That’s part of the reason.

The other part of the reason had to do with trying to bring Brazil economically, socially and politically into neoliberal policies, because we had blocked part of the neoliberal policies, which would transform the public budget into a budget empty of any social content. And this part, this was the most important part. It was strategic to draw part of the market, the media, the big Brazilian media, to support impeachment, because they were losing the hope of their programs becoming viable by democratic means. So they had to suspend democracy. But you can’t suspend democracy like you might have suspended a military coup before. But they introduced exceptional measures into democracy. And one of these, which would be an exception in the United States and Brazil, would be impeachment without what is called a crime of responsibility. And that is equivalent to what in the U.S. Constitution is called high crimes and misdemeanors.

The allegation for removing me was that I had issued three decrees, which represent 0.15 percent of primary expenditure, not even of the total budget is 0.15 percent, and that I had set aside a subsidy for farmers, small, medium and large, which is something that’s been done in Brazil since 1994. It’s just that—well, they changed the understanding and had a backward-looking understanding. In other words, I was accused of something that I didn’t even participate in.

AMY GOODMAN: Temer was your vice president, the man who would replace you when you were ousted.

DILMA ROUSSEFF: [translated] I don’t like to mention his name, it was—is the vice president of the republic, who, unfortunately, is not someone you can trust. And I can’t trust him, and Brazil can’t trust him.

AMY GOODMAN: The Wall Street Journal just reported that a former construction executive in Brazil said that the Brazilian president, Temer, was involved in a deal to funnel a $40 million bribe to his political party—an allegation that threatens to erode his ability to govern. Your thoughts on this latest news?


DILMA ROUSSEFF: [translated] Look, I think that if this happened, it’s extremely serious, because $40 million, that would be 130 or 140 million reais, the Brazilian currency. This is appalling. Now it will have to be proven. This is an accusation. And even though the president is my political adversary, I still think he should enjoy the right to defense. But I can let you know that this is very serious, if it’s proven. I don’t think someone should be free, much less be president, if that’s the case. But, as I say, it has to be proven, if one is democratic-minded for one’s adversary, as well.

AMY GOODMAN: President Rousseff, you have a very important history that expresses the history of Brazil. Can you talk about your years in the underground, how you got involved with politics, and then being imprisoned?

DILMA ROUSSEFF: [translated] Look, I was 20, going on 21, years old. When I was 15, 16 years old, the military coup occurred. The military coup in Brazil had two moments: that moment in 1964 and then again in 1968. It was in 1968 that they really shut everything down. From ’64 to ’68, there was still a democratic space with people debating, discussing. It was a time of great cultural activity in Brazil—music, theater. And the opposition movement began in the streets. There was the march of 100,000, which was so important in Brazil. In 1968, they shut things down.

Shutting things down in Brazil meant the following. No one can express disagreement. If a student were to express disagreement, they would be put in prison, and they might be in prison for a long time. In addition to that, the whole process of repression began, the harshest repression. I am a person who was affected. My generation was very much affected by this shutdown. And we went into the resistance. The resistance could only be, as you said, underground, because if you were resisting or arguing against them reducing workers’ rights, or supporting students, then you’d be put in prison. So there was no way. You either had to go into the underground—and so people went underground and moved about there.

In that process, gradually, as of 1968, they established centers, centers that were responsible for investigation, for investigating people and taking people to prison. Now, as of 1970, they began to kill people. Depending on their assessment of a given activist, they might kill him or her. Many of the people I worked with were killed in those situations. I was taken to prison January 16th of 1970. So I survived. I wasn’t on that list of people who are going to die, because it was as of September that they began to kill.


So it was a very tough process for me. Why? Because you were taken prisoner. Immediately you were tortured, so that you could turn in your companions. And there, it was a fight against time. Torture is a fight against time. No one is a hero in torture. People are capable of resisting. Each of us is capable of resisting in his or her own way. How did I do so? Well, you try to find resources within yourself to gain time against the interrogator. And you have to keep certain things in your mind always. You know more than they do about yourself. Second, you can never believe—well, if you think you can put up with it for a day, that’s a good strategy. Or you have to put up with it for one minute, two minutes, three minutes, 10 minutes. For 10 minutes is an eternity in the face of pain. So, it’s a very tough process.

I will tell you something about women. It’s very interesting. Women and men face torture. They grow weak in the face of torture, because it’s not a simple thing. But I will tell you about women. We have an ability to deal with pain which is different from men. I think it’s because we bear children, for various reasons. But what I perceived was great strength among women to maintain their integrity in the face of torture, which is very important. Torture can’t destroy you. And what you have to do with respect to your companions and your colleagues to keep them from being destroyed, those who are weaker are the ones who you have to support the most, so that they can recover afterwards. You can’t think about your colleagues and your companions that because someone might have turned someone in or said something under torture, that they become your enemy. No, you have to support them and protect them. And that’s what women do very well.

So, it’s a very tough process. No one should have to suffer torture because a military regime. But I think that those of us who experienced what we experienced, well, I learned several things. I learned how to resist. I also learned that you can’t ever think that you’re going to be defeated in prison, unless you want them to defeat you. Defeat is not just an objective reality. Defeat is a reaction in the face of difficulty. So I suffered two coups, two blows: torture and this parliamentary coup. And they’re not going to defeat me. And I owe this to all of my colleagues who did not survive.


AMY GOODMAN: When you were imprisoned, how did they torture you?

DILMA ROUSSEFF: [translated] It was absurd that they had a protocol. The protocol for torture was like this. I was taken prisoner by a military and semi-military group that was under military control, that was called Operation Bandeirantes. It was a center that was controlled by the Brazilian armed forces you would be taken to. Immediately there would be a strong din and murmuring, people shouting. It’s a way to thrown you off. And then—well, the first thing they would do, in my time—well, later it was different because they’d put a hood on peoples. But when I was a prisoner in Rio de Janeiro, they did the following. They would throw water at you. And they would also connect wires to your toes, when they still hadn’t taken off your clothes, and they would also place on your hand and ear these electric cables. The worst thing in torture is electrical shock. And then, they would do what was called the "parrot’s perch," which was a method where they would place a stick or a bar under your knees and then place your hands on the same bar, and there they are. And they would combine this technique with electrical shock. The problem is that your ligaments begin to hurt a lot. Up to—and then, at a certain point in time, the blood stops running, and the pain diminishes somewhat. It’s unimaginable. People would withstand it because we were 20 years old. I don’t think somebody my age today would be able to withstand it. At the time, I was 20 years old. And if you’re 20 years old, you can withstand anything. Basically, the torture was like that.

Now, there’s a basic component of torture in all torture, in all times of history and everywhere. The person who is torturing, the group that is torturing you, wants you to perceive, first of all, that you are not part of the category of human beings and also that no one likes you and that no one has a relationship of understanding with you—that is to say, a relationship whereby I recognize you, you recognize me, and we have a certain empathy because we’re the same gender or because we have common experiences, for several reasons, or even just that because we’re all human beings. So, they want to short-circuit that perception. And they have two ways of doing so: aggression, but there’s also another, which was to block you, that is to say, by placing a hood over you, and you don’t see the person who’s talking with you, so you have an issue of sensory deprivation. And that is also very common. They want to cut off all contact with the outside world.

AMY GOODMAN: You knew what happened, when you became an underground guerrilla. What gave you the courage to take on the state in this way? You knew that people were being killed and that that’s what you risked, losing your life.

DILMA ROUSSEFF: [translated] What makes people struggle in those conditions anywhere in the world is the conviction that you are fighting for a better world. You have to believe it. No one is able to struggle if they don’t think that they’re fighting for a better world. And we were convinced that we were fighting for a better world. More than believing in it, we were absolutely certain of it.

I believe that the force that led to movements at that time, in many parts of the world, not just Brazil, in the 1960s and 1970s—and there’s the question of democracy. I think the most serious thing that can be done to a country during military dictatorship is for its youth to not have any hope in democracy, because if there’s one thing that you learn in that struggle, you learn democracy is the only regime, mechanism, space for action. For what? For you to be able to transform your country. Always in Brazil, when democracy was reduced, it was through these coups, through exceptional measures, through the saviors of the homeland. Democracy mitigated, and so social transformation is reduced or eliminated, or there are setbacks. I learned in life that if you have a commitment to your country, you have to expand democracy. That’s why the name of this program is so important, Democracy Now! It’s very important, this idea in Brazil, democracy now, because we only win with democracy, and we lose when democracy is attacked. And so we have this expression in Brazil: Democracy is the right side of history. And I believe in this, because democracy is the right side of history.

And democracy emerged with two concepts. There are two concepts that emerged in the time of the Greeks, which is our tradition: the concept of democracy and the concept of politics. Even where there is a selective democracy—that is to say, when it is possible to have a democracy in the public plaza, in the public space—politics means you have to take a position in society upholding the interests of all your community or in your activity. Without that, it’s impossible to have a democratic process. I don’t believe that there is any country in the world with democracy without politics. Technocrats don’t engage in politics in the broad sense of the term.

AMY GOODMAN: Ousted Brazilian President Dilma Rousseff. Since we talked in April, the political crisis in Brazil has only intensified. Her successor, Brazilian President Michel Temer, is now facing mounting call to resign or be impeached, following explosive testimony released by the Supreme Court in Brazil accusing him of accepting millions of dollars in bribes since 2010. On Wednesday, Temer authorized the deployment of the Army to the capital Brasília, as tens of thousands of protesters marched to Congress to demand his resignation. Facing public outcry, Temer has since ordered the troops off the streets. When we come back, I’ll ask Dilma Rousseff, the first female president of Brazil, about democracy, corruption and President Donald Trump. Stay with us.

[break]

AMY GOODMAN: "To Our Children" by Elis Regina, here on Democracy Now!, democracynow.org, The War and Peace Report. I’m Amy Goodman, as we return now to my recent conversation with former Brazilian President Dilma Rousseff, recorded in April.

AMY GOODMAN: Madam President, I wanted to ask your thoughts today. You’re in the United States this week, when the U.S. dropped the largest bomb in the history of the world—the Pentagon calls it the "Mother of All Bombs"—a Massive Ordnance Air Bomb, on Afghanistan, the largest bomb in the history of the world since the atomic bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki. This followed last week’s bombing of Syria and the continued U.S.-backed bombing in Yemen. Your thoughts?

DILMA ROUSSEFF: [translated] Now, I’m not the president of the republic, but I would tell you what we would have said as president: Without a shadow of a doubt, we are against that kind of action. Why? First, I don’t think it resolves the problem of ISIS. Why do I think that this kind of repression isn’t the appropriate approach? What I’ve read in the United States newspapers is that oftentimes, when bombing Syria or Afghanistan—well, I know there is no dialogue with ISIS. With ISIS, it’s a different kind of relationship. But what has happened is that, when bombing, civilians and allies are killed. So I ask myself: What’s the point of such an action, if it’s going to kill civilians and allies? What might someone think who’s living in Syria or anywhere, and all of a sudden a bomb is dropped?

I think it’s extremely dangerous, because those groups don’t gauge consequences. It’s a very radical policy. So I am extremely concerned about the reaction afterwards. That is to say, I don’t believe that there’s any circumstance in which we can come up with some easy answer. When the war was taken to Iraq, when the war was taken to Afghanistan, when there was a bombing done in Syria, it’s very difficult. And this unleashes the whole process of such violence that the consequences are uncontrollable. How long has it been that they’ve been fighting in Syria, and they’re not able to stop ISIS? How long has al-Nusra and al-Qaeda continued doing what they’re doing? So I think we need to ask about this.

And I’m very concerned when civilians and allies are the ones who are killed. That’s what it says in today’s newspaper. So, I don’t think that such bombardments produce results, and I’m not in favor of dropping bombs when they kill civilians and allies, because it’s just putting more fuel on the fire.

AMY GOODMAN: The bomb was developed during the Bush years. He didn’t use it, George W. Bush, in Iraq. President Obama didn’t use it. Within two months of the Trump presidency, they have engaged in this historic act, the largest bomb in the history of the world, outside an atomic bomb. Your assessment of the Trump administration, of President Donald Trump?

DILMA ROUSSEFF: [translated] I don’t evaluate the performance of presidents of other countries, because I’m a former president, so I don’t talk about that. Obviously, I have an assessment, but I don’t think it’s appropriate for me to talk about it. I can talk about positive accomplishments, but otherwise I won’t say anything.

AMY GOODMAN: What do you feel has been done right?

DILMA ROUSSEFF: [translated] I don’t have anything to say. Well, I’m not going to talk about that. My assessment of the Trump administration is something I’m not going to talk about. It’s not up to me to do that. That’s your job.

AMY GOODMAN: I wanted to end by sharing a clip of Noam Chomsky with you, the world-renowned dissident, linguist, who recently appeared on Democracy Now! and talked about Brazil.


NOAM CHOMSKY: There was just enormous corruption. It’s just—it’s painful to see the Workers’ Party in Brazil, which did carry out significant measures, just—they just couldn’t keep their hands out of the till. They joined the extremely corrupt elite, which is robbing all the time, and took part in it, as well, and discredited themselves. And there’s a reaction. I don’t think the game is over by any means. There were real successes achieved, and I think a lot of those will be sustained. But there is a regression. They’ll have to pick up again with, one hopes, more honest forces that won’t be—that will, first of all, recognize the need to develop the economy in a way which has a solid foundation, not just based on raw material exports, and, secondly, honest enough to carry out decent programs without robbing the public at the same time.

AMY GOODMAN: So, that was Noam Chomsky, who said, "There was just enormous corruption." He said, "painful to see the Workers’ Party in Brazil, which did carry out significant measures, [but] they just couldn’t keep their hands out of the till."

DILMA ROUSSEFF: [translated] The first thing I want to say is the following. I want to put some things in perspective. The greatest corruption in recent years occurred with the subprime crisis. Now, I don’t know that as a result of the subprime crisis, I don’t believe that all of the companies that were involved in corruption were destroyed. Maybe their CEOs or others who committed corruption had to answer for it, but they didn’t destroy the institution. Rather, they took the person who committed the crime. The company is not a thinking and speaking entity. The company is all of its compounds together. Now, unless the entire—it’s corrupt in its entirety, then you don’t destroy the organization.

So, why do I say this? Well, first to say that Brazil has the greatest corruption in recent years. Brazil’s corruption is significant. It matters to Brazil. It has to be fought. Later, I can tell you about what my government did, but I don’t think that it has to, that the party has to be destroyed. I don’t believe that banks were destroyed or agencies were destroyed or that persons who were not involved were prosecuted. Same thing applies to a political party, because the political party, as an institution—well, some say it’s different from a company, but I don’t believe that one should criminalize the Workers’ Party. One should criminalize and prosecute the individual members of the party who committed crimes. But one should not combat the entire Workers’ Party in Brazil, which is the largest party in Brazil, without a doubt. No.

And I’m sorry to get so excited, but I want to explain the following. I think it’s fundamental in Brazil to fight corruption. I think it’s fundamental, because corruption in Brazil is a way in which economic power interferes with political power. And one of the processes in this corruption is characterized by the fact that in Brazil, before—even though it’s spelled out in the law—those who come to corrupt public officials have never been prosecuted. In 2013, for example, there was a law on fighting criminal organizations that we sent to Congress, and two measures had been taken.

So the one who made the mistake should pay for it. The law exists. It should be properly applied. The Workers’ Party will answer for its mistakes—it has to—but not by putting an end to the party. Punish the individuals who committed the crime, but not the party. This whole story of punishing the whole party dates back to 1946, when all opposition parties in Brazil that had—well, the more radical opposition—the Communist Party, Brazilian Socialist Party—were made illegal. I don’t agree with that whole process.

I don’t agree with destroying companies. I’ve never seen a single bank or company destroyed. I saw CEOs have to answer. Now, what I find extremely unusual is that they take Petrobras, the state oil company, and make it—paint it as being corrupt per se. There are many people in Petrobras who are corrupted and who are accused of corruption. So I think it’s very clear, the one who corrupted—the one who was corrupted should be prosecuted, with a right to defense, without spectacular media treatment. Because what’s happening in Brazil is that the media places people on trial before the case even goes into the courts. Now, I don’t think that in any democracy in the world, as far as I know, the media can take the place of the judiciary. I don’t believe the media guarantee the right to defense. It plays a fundamental role in democracy. Now, the role of meting out justice has to be performed by those who have an institutional mandate to do so.

AMY GOODMAN: Finally, President Rousseff, in the 1960s, you were involved with the underground resistance to oppose dictatorship. Are you seeing a right-wing shift in Latin America and the United States? And what form do you think that resistance should take today?

DILMA ROUSSEFF: [translated] Today, it’s difficult. I believe that our resistance today—and this is a major gain for us in Latin America—today, we can resist without having to go into the underground, without—rather, using the most important weapon of democracy, which is the word, discussion, debate. We can do that today. Before, we couldn’t. Before, we were somehow shackled by the dictatorship.

Today, our resistance and the resistance in the United States is the same. That is to say, I think we are all going through the following process. There is an increase in financialization. Instead of the financial industry serving productive industry and productive services and all activities, the financial sector became the master. On becoming the master, it channels to itself the largest part of income. And this produces inequality, stagnation, precarious employment and cooptation by some of the press, which means that shareholders, CEOs, all of management are the models who are above and beyond the workers, the consumers and so forth. In other words, it creates a world which is not going to bring well-being and affluence for the population as a whole. We’re all going through that neoliberalism, financialization, greater inequality and more and more exceptional-type measures—here in the United States, as well. The PATRIOT Act, in a way, was an exceptional act, because when you put persons on trial without guarantees, then, well, that’s an exceptional type of act. This happens in Brazil with several measures. For example, a court has said that I can suspend the constitution, because the Car Wash scandal is an exceptional event, and therefore we can suspend the law. But that’s not possible.

We have, in a way, a mitigated democracy that we have to expand. We are experiencing a time of greater inequality and financialization. In a way, taking stock of the history of our experiences, of our movements, we have a lot—all of those of us who defend democracy have a lot to share with one another.

AMY GOODMAN: Ousted Brazilian President Dilma Rousseff. If you’d like a copy of today’s show, you can go to our website at democracynow.org. Tune in Monday, Memorial Day, when we’ll spend the hour with world-renowned linguist and dissident Noam Chomsky.

Source: democracynow.org