The danger of a single story

O STF de costas para a humanidade

A consagração, pelo STF, da impunidade dos agentes do Estado bandido faz ainda mais urgente a criação de uma comissão da verdade

"ACHO QUE a tortura, em certos casos, torna-se necessária para obter confissões" (frase do general Ernesto Geisel, em depoimento a Maria Celina D'Araújo e Celso Castro). Assistir à sessão em que o Supremo Tribunal Federal (STF) derrubou a revisão da Lei da Anistia foi entrar em viagem no tempo que levasse ao ano de 1979 e ali ficássemos imobilizados. Os ministros estavam angustiados, quase às lágrimas, diante dos supostos riscos de reverem lei elaborada por regime de exceção e submetida por ditador militar goela adentro do Congresso Nacional. Nos votos, preponderou exacerbado anacronismo, o tempo presente, ausente. Ali, não foi levada em conta a evolução da norma internacional, da prática acumulada das democracias e dos Judiciários no mundo em face de crimes cometidos por regimes de exceção e a exigibilidade de sua punição. Prevaleceu a contrafação histórica da lei nº 6.683/79, como resultado de um grande "acordo político", apesar de a conjuntura de 1979 ali descrita não bater com o que aconteceu. A Lei da Anistia não foi produto de acordo, pacto, negociação alguma, pois o projeto não correspondia àquele pelo qual a sociedade civil, o movimento da anistia, a OAB (Ordem dos Advogados do Brasil) e a heroica oposição parlamentar haviam lutado. Pouco antes de sua votação, em setembro de 1979 houve o Dia Nacional de Repúdio ao Projeto de Anistia do governo e, no dia 21 , um grande ato público na praça da Sé promovido pela OAB-SP, igualmente contra o projeto do governo. A lei celebrada nos debates do STF como saldo de "negociação" foi aprovada com 206 votos da Arena, o partido da ditadura, contra 201 do MDB. A oposição, em peso, votou contra ato de Legislativo emasculado pelas cassações, infestado por senadores biônicos. Parece que o movimento da anistia e a oposição na época não tinham sido comunicados de seu papel no "acordo nacional" que os ministros 30 anos depois lhes atribuiriam. Foram abundantes nos votos as metáforas de trânsito, como a "dupla via", a "ponte" de perdão mútuo e reconciliação que a Lei da Anistia alegadamente teria significado. Com o argumento prosaico de que a lei nº 6.683 não foi uma autoanistia porque "bilateral", pois as vítimas dos criminosos do Estado foram também beneficiadas . Como o ditador e o regime de exceção foram tão bonzinhos, contemplando, além dos torturadores, o "outro lado" - as vítimas-, a Lei de Anistia não se incluiria nos casos que a Corte Interamericana de Direitos Humanos condena como autoanistia. Foi inebriante o coro, com acentos gongóricos, de condenações à tortura. Pena que o clamor de justiça pela sociedade e pelos familiares dos desaparecidos, sequestrados, estuprados, torturados e assassinados pelos agentes da ditadura não tenha sido levado a sério. Por zelo formalista, a maioria dos ministros jogou pá de cal no exame, pelo Judiciário, desses crimes. A execração da tortura soou farisaica, pois consagrou a impunidade dos torturadores e negou direitos e justiça às vítimas. Houve, igualmente, uma exaltação do direito à verdade, à completa reconstituição da história da repressão. Vai ver, os ministros acreditam que os torturadores, agora impunes, irão revelar tudo sobre seus crimes. Revelem ou não, a consagração, pelo STF, da impunidade dos agentes do Estado bandido faz ainda mais candente e urgente o estabelecimento de uma comissão da verdade, para que a sociedade, tendo-lhe sido negado o acesso à justiça, possa ao menos conhecer a verdade. A recusa da revisão da Lei de Anistia, ressalvados dois votos contrários, consagrou de vez o Brasil na rabeira dos países do continente quanto à responsabilização dos agentes do Estado responsáveis por graves violações de direitos humanos. Diante desse constrangimento, resta provarmos, governo federal, Legislativo e sociedade, que temos competência para fazer prevalecer a verdade, mesmo sem a justiça que o Supremo Tribunal Federal negou.

PAULO SÉRGIO PINHEIRO, 66, é professor adjunto de relações internacionais da Brown University (EUA). Foi secretário de Estado de Direitos Humanos no governo Fernando Henrique Cardoso.
Publicado na Folha de S.Paulo - TENDÊNCIAS/DEBATES - São Paulo, quarta-feira, 05 de maio de 2010

Texto da Danuza Leão

Duas Bolas, por favor?

Não há nada que me deixe mais frustrada do que pedir sorvete de sobremesa, contar os minutos até ele chegar e aí ver o garçom colocar na minha frente uma bolinha minúscula do meu sorvete preferido. Uma só.Quanto mais sofisticado o restaurante, menor a porção da sobremesa.Aí a vontade que dá é de passar numa loja de conveniência, comprar um litro de sorvete bem cremoso e saborear em casa com direito a repetir quantas vezes a gente quiser, sem pensar em calorias, boas maneiras ou moderação.
O sorvete é só um exemplo do que tem sido nosso cotidiano.
A Vida anda cheia de meias porções, de prazeres meia-boca, de aventuras pela metade.A gente sai prá jantar, mas come pouco.Vai à festa de casamento, mas resiste aos bombons.Conquista a chamada liberdade sexual, mas tem que fingir que é difícil (a imensa maioria das mulheres continua com pavor de ser rotulada de 'fácil'). Adora tomar um banho demorado, mas se contém prá não desperdiçar os recursos do planeta.Quer beijar aquele cara 20 anos mais novo, mas tem medo de fazer papel ridículo..
Tem vontade de ficar em casa vendo um DVD, esparramada no sofá, mas se obriga a ir malhar. E por aí vai..
Tantos deveres, tanta preocupação em 'acertar', tanto empenho em passar na vida sem pegar recuperação...Aí a vida vai ficando sem tempero, politicamente correta e existencialmente sem-graça, enquanto a gente vai ficando melancolicamente sem tesão...

Às vezes dá vontade de fazer tudo 'errado'. Deixar de lado a régua, o compasso, a bússola, a balança e os 10 mandamentos.Ser ridícula, inadequada, incoerente e não estar nem aí pro que dizem e o que pensam a nosso respeito.Recusar prazeres incompletos e meias porções.
Até Santo Agostinho, que foi santo, uma vez se rebelou e disse uma frase mais ou menos assim:'Deus, dai-me continência e castidade, mas não agora'...
Nós, que não aspiramos à santidade e estamos aqui de passagem, podemos (devemos?) desejar várias bolas de sorvete, bombons de muitos sabores, vários beijos bem dados, a água batendo sem pressa no corpo, o coração saciado.
Um dia a gente cria juízo.Um dia.Não tem que ser agora. Por isso, garçom, por favor, me traga: cinco bolas de sorvete de chocolate, um sofá prá eu ver 10 episódios do 'Law and Order', uma caixa de trufas bem macias e o Richard Gere, nu, embrulhado prá presente. OK?
Não necessariamente nessa ordem.Depois a gente vê como é que faz prá consertar o estrago.

Empty promises?

Obama's Hesitant Embrace of Human Rights, by Kenneth Roth

After eight years of the Bush administration, with its torture of suspected terrorists and disregard for international law, Barack Obama's victory in the November 2008 U.S. presidential election seemed a breath of fresh air to human rights activists. Obama took office at a moment when the world desperately needed renewed U.S. leadership. In his inaugural address, Obama immediately signaled that, unlike Bush, he would reject as false "the choice between our safety and our ideals."Obama faces the challenge of restoring the United States' credibility at a time when repressive governments -- emboldened by the increasing influence of authoritarian powers such as China and Russia -- seek to undermine the enforcement of international human rights standards. As he put it when accepting the Nobel Peace Prize, the United States cannot "insist that others follow the rules of the road if we refuse to follow them ourselves." His Nobel speech in Oslo also affirmed the U.S. government's respect for the Geneva Conventions. "Even as we confront a vicious adversary that abides by no rules," Obama argued, "I believe the United States of America must remain a standard bearer in the conduct of war. That is what makes us different from those whom we fight. That is a source of our strength."When it comes to promoting human rights at home and abroad, there has undoubtedly been a marked improvement in presidential rhetoric. However, the translation of those words into deeds remains incomplete.AN INCOMPLETE REVERSALObama moved rapidly to reverse the most abusive aspects of the Bush administration's approach to fighting terrorism. Two days after taking office, he insisted that all U.S. interrogators, including those from the CIA, abide by the stringent standards adopted by the U.S. military in the wake of the Abu Ghraib debacle. He also ordered the shuttering of all secret CIA detention facilities, where many suspects "disappeared" and were tortured between 2001 and 2008. Finally, he promised to close the detention center at Guantánamo Bay, Cuba, within a year.But it is not enough for the government to stop using torture; perpetrators must also be punished. The Obama administration has so far refused to investigate and prosecute those who ordered or committed torture -- a necessary step to prevent future administrations from committing the crime. While in office, as he did during the campaign, Obama has repeatedly spoken of wanting to "look forward, not back." And although Attorney General Eric Holder has launched a "preliminary review" of interrogators who exceeded orders, he has until now refrained from prosecuting those who ordered torture or wrote the legal memos justifying it. This lets senior officials -- arguably those who are most culpable -- off the hook.Meanwhile, Obama's one-year deadline for closing Guantánamo has slipped because of congressional opposition and the complexity of deciding how to handle the cases of more than 200 detainees. The real issue, however, is less when Guantánamo will close than how. Human Rights Watch and other nongovernmental organizations (NGOs) have urged the administration to prosecute detainees in regular federal courts, repatriate them, or resettle them in safe countries willing to accept them. However, the White House has insisted on maintaining two other options: prosecuting suspects before military commissions or continuing to hold them indefinitely without charge or trial.The Obama administration's military commissions would avoid the most problematic aspect of the Bush administration's commissions -- the power to introduce at trial statements obtained through coercion and abuse. But the Obama commissions, as approved by Congress, continue to suffer from a lack of independence (their judges are military officers, who must report to superiors in the chain of command), controversy about the offenses they cover (some are not clearly war crimes or were not clearly criminal at the time they were committed), and untested rules of procedure (unlike regular courts or even courts-martial, which have well-established procedures, the rules for military commissions are being constructed largely from scratch). These due process shortcomings are likely to keep the public and the press focused on the fairness of the trials accorded suspects, rather than the gravity of their alleged crimes.Obama has also tried to distinguish himself from Bush in his approach to detaining suspects without charge or trial. The new administration has abandoned Bush's claim of inherent executive authority and relied instead on an interpretation of Congress' 2001 authorization to use military force against al Qaeda, the Taliban, and associated groups. But both approaches still permit the detention of suspects not captured on a traditional battlefield, such as in Afghanistan. That is a controversial approach because it permits U.S. soldiers or law enforcement officials to indefinitely detain suspected terrorists anywhere in the world without regard to the due process standards of the United States or any other country.Obama's refusal to end the use of military commissions and detention without trial risks perpetuating the spirit of Guantánamo even after the physical facility has been shut. STREET CREDThe Bush administration had difficulty encouraging foreign leaders to respect human rights because of its perceived arrogance, hypocrisy, and unilateralism. Since taking office, Obama has worked hard to restore U.S. credibility.Obama's speeches in Accra, Cairo, Moscow, Oslo, and Shanghai have been a key vehicle for promoting a renewed U.S. human rights agenda. Rather than merely preaching abstract principles, Obama has drawn examples from the United States' checkered history and his own life story to encourage other nations to respect human rights. The humility in this approach avoids Bush's hectoring tone and places the United States squarely within the community of nations as a country that, like others, struggles to respect human rights and benefits when it does so.In Accra, in a rebuke to President Bill Clinton's embrace of authoritarian African leaders in the 1990s, Obama observed, "Africa doesn't need strongmen, it needs strong institutions," such as "strong parliaments; honest police forces; independent judges; an independent press; a vibrant private sector; a civil society." However, Obama has not put sustained pressure on such U.S. allies as Paul Kagame of Rwanda or Meles Zenawi of Ethiopia to reform their increasingly authoritarian rule. Forceful U.S. condemnations have been largely limited to such pariahs as Robert Mugabe of Zimbabwe, Omar al-Bashir of Sudan, and the military junta in Guinea.In Cairo, Obama rejected Bush's attempt to justify the invasion of Iraq as an exercise in democracy promotion, declaring that "no system of government can or should be imposed by one nation on any other." But he insisted nonetheless that the United States remains committed "to governments that reflect the will of the people." He stressed the importance of principled conduct even when it works against short-term U.S. interests, suggesting that, unlike Bush, he would accept an electoral victory by Egypt's Islamist opposition group, the Muslim Brotherhood.Frustrating as that comment might have been to the government of Egyptian President Hosni Mubarak, Obama has generally shown too much deference to his hosts. He has not publicly criticized U.S. allies in the Middle East that violate democratic principles, nor is there any evidence that he has privately encouraged these authoritarian governments to move in a more democratic direction. For example, Washington has promised Cairo that there will be no human rights conditions placed on U.S. economic assistance to Egypt and has acquiesced in the Egyptian government's demand that all funds from the U.S. Agency for International Development earmarked for NGOs go only to those groups that comply with the Mubarak government's onerous restrictions. Obama's desire to maintain close relations with Mubarak, especially in the hope that he might assist in resolving the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, seems to have taken precedence over the human rights principles Obama articulated in his Cairo speech.In Moscow, Obama met with civil-society representatives and praised the vital role they play in Russian society. He explained that criticisms and tough questions from U.S. civil-society organizations help him make better decisions and strengthen the United States -- a bold statement in a country where NGOs monitoring human rights or promoting government accountability are routinely harassed. Yet his administration has not applied sustained pressure on the Russian government to stop trying to silence leaders of NGOs. Nor has Obama warned Russian leaders that serious abuses, such as the brazen murders of activists and journalists fighting human rights abuses in the North Caucasus, could damage the bilateral relationship.Similarly, in China, Obama followed in the footsteps of successive U.S. presidents by downplaying the importance of human rights in favor of promoting trade, economic ties, and diplomatic cooperation. Before a handpicked audience of "future Chinese leaders" in Shanghai, he spoke of the United States' journey up from slavery and the struggles for women's and workers' rights, making clear that the United States, too, has a far-from-perfect human rights record. He affirmed the United States' bedrock belief "that all men and women are created equal, and possess certain fundamental rights." However, in a question-and-answer session, he seemed to suggest that China's draconian "great firewall" on the Internet was a reflection of different "traditions," rather than demanding that it be torn down. That remark led to a storm of criticism from Chinese bloggers, and Obama left the country appearing to be in thrall to Chinese economic power and barely interested in risking anything to protect the rights of the 1.3 billion Chinese still living under a dictatorship.In a speech at Georgetown University a few weeks later, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton justified this approach as "principled pragmatism," and administration officials have spoken privately of building up political capital to press China on human rights in the future. But there is no such pressure today. From Clinton's February 2009 statement that human rights "can't interfere" with other U.S. interests in China to Obama's refusal to meet with the Dalai Lama in October, Washington has consistently failed to confront China's authoritarian rulers on questions of religious and political freedom.MULTILATERALISM LITEDuring the 2008 election campaign, Obama promised to replace Bush's notorious unilateralism with a greater commitment to cooperation, alliance building, and engagement with adversaries. One early symbol of this new approach was the decision to reverse Bush's policy and authorize U.S. participation in the UN Human Rights Council -- an important step toward trying to salvage that troubled institution. The 47-member council has been dominated by authoritarian governments since its inception in June 2007. Its members have incessantly criticized Israel and have generally seemed more concerned with protecting abusive leaders than condemning them for human rights violations.But the positive step of joining the council was significantly offset in September, when Washington distanced itself from a council-sponsored report -- written by the respected South African jurist Richard Goldstone -- that accused Israel (as well as Hamas) of war crimes during its December 2008-January 2009 invasion of the Gaza Strip and called for the perpetrators to be brought to justice. Washington's strong criticism of the report called into question Obama's commitment to the impartial application of human rights principles to friends and foes alike. The move was particularly unfortunate because the report broke new ground for the council by criticizing an Israeli adversary, Hamas. Obama had it right in Oslo, when he said that "only a just peace based on the inherent rights and dignity of every individual can truly be lasting." Unfortunately, he has not yet applied that insight to Israel.The Obama administration has also taken a more positive approach to international law than the wary and often hostile Bush administration did. Accelerating a trend that began in the late Bush years, Obama has actively supported the work of the International Criminal Court, especially in Darfur and the Democratic Republic of the Congo, as well as, more recently, in Kenya. For the first time, U.S. officials have participated as observers in deliberations about the tribunal's future.The United States is also embracing certain UN human rights treaties, after an eight-year hiatus. It signed the new Convention on the Rights of People with Disabilities. In October, when Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu suggested that the laws of war should be amended to make it easier for states to fight irregular armed groups, Susan Rice, the U.S. ambassador to the United Nations, pushed back by reaffirming Washington's commitment to the Geneva Conventions -- a position that Obama himself reiterated in Oslo.Yet there have been limits to Obama's commitment to international law. His administration has sent mixed signals about a 1997 treaty banning antipersonnel land mines, first announcing that it would not sign the treaty and then saying that a policy review was still ongoing, even though the United States has not used, produced, or exported these weapons in the 12 years since the treaty was established. The administration has so far failed to seize this easy opportunity to embrace an important multilateral treaty. Similarly, the administration has not yet joined many of its NATO allies in endorsing the 2008 Convention on Cluster Munitions, which bans the use of these indiscriminate weapons, even though the U.S. military has not used them since 2003 and recognizes the danger they pose to civilians. And although the Obama administration has declared that it plans to ratify the UN Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination Against Women, it has not pressed for Senate ratification of it, nor has it pressed for Senate ratification of the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child. The United States has the dubious distinction of being the only country other than Somalia not to have ratified the children's rights treaty and finds itself in the unenviable company of only Iran, Nauru, Somalia, Sudan, and Tonga when it comes to the treaty on women's rights.DESTRUCTIVE ENGAGEMENTObama has rightfully rejected Bush's policy of dealing with repressive governments mainly by refusing to talk to them. His new approach has been most visible in Myanmar (also called Burma) and Sudan, where U.S. envoys have increased communication with senior officials without abandoning pressure on their governments to curb repression. In the case of Sudan, despite some mixed signals, the administration has managed to engage the government on the importance of curbing violence in Darfur and southern Sudan without speaking directly with President Bashir, who has been indicted as a war criminal.In Central Asia, however, this emphasis on engaging authoritarian regimes has yielded disappointing results. In the highly repressive nations of Turkmenistan and Uzbekistan, where the dominant U.S. concern is sustaining military supply lines into neighboring Afghanistan, the Obama administration has refrained from publicly articulating specific human rights concerns. It has limited itself instead to general statements about U.S. support for democracy and the rule of law while stressing U.S. respect for the sovereign prerogatives of these countries' autocratic leaders. The administration has also largely squandered the opportunity to push for reform in Kazakhstan, despite the fact that its repressive government was particularly susceptible to pressure in the months before it assumed the rotating chairmanship of the Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe.In Afghanistan, Obama administration officials recognized from the outset that abusive and corrupt warlords linked to President Hamid Karzai's government were fueling the Taliban's popularity throughout the country. After Karzai's tainted electoral victory in August, the administration pushed his government to distance itself from some officials with blood on their hands or ill-gotten gains in their pockets. However, it is not yet clear whether Washington is prepared to sever its own ties with some of these tainted officials, such as the president's younger brother, Ahmed Wali Karzai, a powerful figure in Kandahar who is reportedly on the CIA payroll despite being connected to drug traffickers. Nor is there any indication that U.S. Special Forces will abandon the abusive militia they have hired in provinces such as Herat and Uruzgan.Across the border in Pakistan, the Obama administration has been providing conditional military aid to the elected government -- a more principled approach than its predecessor's, which unconditionally supported the autocratic rule of General Pervez Musharraf. Washington also accepted the reinstatement of ousted Supreme Court Chief Justice Iftikhar Chaudhry, even though his constitutional rulings and his revival of corruption charges could imperil President Asif Ali Zardari, a U.S. partner. Still, Obama has not taken up the cases of thousands of people who disappeared during Musharraf's rule. Nor has he pushed for human rights abusers from the Pakistani military, including Musharraf himself, to be held accountable.Closer to home, in Latin America, Obama has cooperated with regional allies far more than his predecessor did. Unlike Bush, who tacitly accepted the 2002 coup attempt against Venezuela's Hugo Chávez, Obama was quick to join regional allies in condemning the ouster of Honduran President Manuel Zelaya last June and calling for his reinstatement -- even if the administration did not adequately pressure the de facto government to accept Zelaya's return.The White House has rightly deferred consideration of a much-sought-after free-trade agreement with Colombia, whose government has failed to dismantle the highly abusive paramilitary forces responsible for the murder of hundreds of trade unionists and others. Genuinely dismantling those paramilitary forces, and holding their leaders and accomplices accountable, should be a prerequisite to any free-trade agreement. At the same time, however, Obama has continued the misguided Bush-era policy of certifying the Colombian military's compliance with the human rights standards necessary to receive U.S. military aid -- despite an ongoing atmosphere of impunity for the soldiers and officers responsible for widespread extrajudicial executions.Obama has similarly fallen short in Mexico, where the U.S. government promised to contribute $1.35 billion over several years to the government for equipment and training to combat drug trafficking. Roughly 15 percent of these funds are dependent on Mexico's compliance with certain human rights requirements, including bringing military abuses under the jurisdiction of civilian courts. Mexico has utterly failed to meet that requirement, but the State Department has nevertheless allowed a portion of these funds to be delivered. All of this calls into question Obama's commitment to curbing military abuses and ending official impunity south of the border. WALKING THE WALKFrom a human rights perspective, there is no doubt that the Obama White House has done better than the Bush administration. As one would expect from so eloquent a president, Obama has gotten the rhetoric largely right. The challenge remains to translate poetic speeches into prosaic policy -- and live up to the principles he has so impressively articulated. Making that shift will not be easy, but the consistent application of human rights principles is essential if Washington is to redeem its reputation and succeed in promoting the global values that Obama rightly believes are the key to prosperity and stability throughout the world.

Published in: Foreign AffairsFebruary 24, 2010

Um ano imperfeito

"Como dizia aquele francês, criador do mais irresistível clichê destas plagas: "Brasil, terra de contrastes".

De um lado, a abundância da Mulher Melão, da Priscila BBB e da Nicole Paniquete, três candidatas à musa deste carnaval. De outro, a fila esquálida de modelos nas semanas de moda. Umas com tanto, outras com tão pouco. Ei, e se a gente trocasse de lugar as passarelas do samba e da moda?

As mulheres-hortifrútis e seus derivados desfilariam, sei lá, no SPFW. Quadris pra mais de metro esgarçam as silhuetas esguias do outono-inverno. As coxas solidificadas à base de muito leg press e injeção de gás carbônico apavoram a fila. Os peito espremidos nas roupinhas manequim 36 sacodem para, enfim, a alegria dos fotógrafos. O estilista chora.

Enquanto isso, no Sambódromo, as meninas magrinhas fariam carão em frente à bateria de uma escola de samba. O peso do espaldar curva o corpo frágil, prejudicando a evolução. O tapa-sexo desta vez tapa muito mais que o sexo, já não há mesmo muito o que ver nas ancas impúberes. Os braços finos saúdam o povo, atônito, e pedem passagem (para Paris). O carnavalesco chora.

Chooora, não vou ligar: o que modelos pesos-pena têm em comum com quadris de 120 centímetros? Susan Orbach responde.

Peraí, Susan quem? É do Brazil's Next Top Model? Tava na Record? Fez Malhação? Não. Essa inglesa é uma das melhores pensadoras de questões femininas. Psicoterapeuta, ajudou a princesa Diana a escapar da bulimia. Autora de vários estudos sobre o corpo, foi consultora da "campanha pela beleza real" da Dove, aquela que mostra mulheres de vários tamanhos e cores e seus anúncios.

Em seu livro mais recente, Bodies (ainda sem tradução por aqui, mas numa Amazon perto de você), Susan investiga o que está acontecendo com o meu, o seu, os nossos corpos. Com os corpos subfaturados da moda e os superfaturados da avenida. Um e outro, reflexo do mesmo problema, que ela resume numa frase: "Nos últimos 30 anos, passamos a ver o corpo em que vivemos como um corpo que poderia e deveria ser perfeito".

O que é perfeição? Depende. Na moda, é o que deixa a menina sem comer para continuar magríssima. Na avenida, é o que faz a mulher comer ração humana no café da manhã, clara de ovo no almoço e nada no jantar, para ficar bombada. É, sempre, aquilo que você não é - e que, diabos, cisma em tentar ser. É, afinal, o que provoca uma insatisfação permanente com o próprio corpo.

Como ainda é fevereiro e esta é a primeira TPM do ano, ainda está em tempo: um ótimo (e imperfeito, no melhor sentido) 2010 pra você".

Editorial da Revista TPM, de fevereiro de 2010.

Eles foram para Petrópolis

"Ivan,

Há um exagero de maio em São Paulo. Fico brincando de descobrir o que sobrou da antiga Avenida Brigadeiro Luis Antônio, que desde que me lembro por gente subi e desci, rumo a endereços vários. Percorro, com antigo encantamento, as avenidas debruadas de casas rodeadas de verde, gramados, jardins, chorões despencados. Tão São Paulo! A luz coada, a finura do ar, o frio bom e estimulante.
Num mundo que mudou tanto, tão outro eu mesmo, quase fico reconhecido de reencontrar os antigos marcos. A rua em que eu ía à piscina, todas as manhãs, a grande igreja quieta, um casarão que achava bonito e que amarelou, envelheceu, perdeu a antiga solenidade. O cinema que vi inaugurar, grã-fino e suntuoso, é hoje um cinema de bairro, com um jeito pobre e suburbano. Recortados contra o céu, na surpresa de uma esquina, os minaretes finos da casa do turco e em frente o bangalozinho de tijolos vermelhos que me abrigou na adolescencia. Tenho saudades? Não tenho.
Sou turista do mundo, na cidade em que nasci, numa tarde sem programa, nem pedaço de rua que já quase não reconheço. Gosto de revirar dentro do peito as emoções que me voltam desses antigos caminhos, com dores antigas e antigas alegrias, que já perderam umas e outras a sua força.
Mas me assusto, de repente, com a ruazinha estreita que, no meu tempo, não chegava até aqui. Entro por ela, espantado de que as casinhas geminadas, com o jardim anão, na frente, continuem tão iguais. A luz, o céu, o frio da tarde, as pedras desiguais da rua, a torneira de regar jardim, o gramado, a gradezinha, o terraço em que só cabia uma poltrona de vime e um antigo pé de samambaia, minhas duas janelas. Há mais de vinte anos virei aquela esquina para nunca mais.
Paro diante de um senhor que brinca com o neto, na minha porta, no meu terraço. Rua, jardim, terraço, são tão pequenos que não preciso dar explicações. Não, não estou procurando ninguém, não vendo produtos, não vim receber nenhuma prestação.
Desculpe, era só saudade. Saí daqui com um menino igual a esse, os pés menores do que esses paralelepípedos em que um dia, deslumbrado, o vi tropeçar os primeiros passos. É, tomava banho de mangueira, equilibrado nessa mesma torneira - como está polida! -, e era posto a secar sobre a grama.
Era uma beleza de menino! Ficou homem e me roubou um pouco, crescendo, daquela alegria de ter um menino, que é mais um brinquedo do que gente. Ainda não me acostumei com a idéia de que uma criança encaracolada que a gente borrifa de água e deixa secar na grama, antes da sopinha da tarde, de repente cresce por conta própria, faz a barba, bota a chave da casa no bolso, fuma, trabalha, sofre. Parece meio esquisito. Do homem e do menino a gente gosta igual, só que do menino resolve mais problemas. Virei aquela esquina e desemboquei 25 anos para trás. Não contava chegar tão longe.

Mario Sergio"

(Eles foram para Petrópolis - correspondências entre Ivan Lessa e Mario Sergio Conti).

Só no Brasil