Algumas leis que solucionariam

Muitos reclamam da corrupção que grassa por essas terras brasileiras, mas a verdade é que com a aplicação de algumas simples leis, o dinheiro público seria muito melhor administrado.

O excesso de leis e governantes ineptos é a causa da miséria do povo brasileiro, a maioria das leis não resolvem em nada nossa vida e apenas dá mais poderes à juízes, deputados, ministros, senadores e todo tipo de autoridade que existe, deixando o cidadão comum inerme perante esses tubarões, com eles livres para
dizerem o que é certo e o que é errado.

Bem, do mesmo modo que a lei nos ferra, ela pode nos salvar outrossim. E aqui estão algumas idéias de leis que tive.

1. Proibição do populismo na TV: Ou seja, proibição de qualquer individuo com posse de cargo publico eletivo de aparecer na TV, em época que não seja de campanha.

O populismo é uma praga enervante onde quer que se instale, aqui no Brasil a lei parece desejar que o populismo cresça, por permitir que políticos conduzam "programas" de televisão sensacionalistas, cujo o único escopo é a promoção pessoal, mantendo-se em perpétuo estado de campanha política, sem contar que os "programas" em questão são extremamente aborrecidos, mas a massa parece gostar.

2. Proibição de qualquer autoridade pública de utilizar as redes de saúde e ensino privadas: Uma das melhores leis, e que se fosse promulgada, lançaria o IDH do Brasil ao nível de países da Europa.

Acabaria-se o sucateamento das instituições de saúde e de ensino, por tabela haveria uma revolução no saneamento básico pois grande parte dos que estão no hospital público, estão lá por falta deste. E é claro que as "autoridades" investiriam no saneamento porque com isso acabaria a lotação nos hospitais. As escolas seriam completamente remodeladas, pois afinal as "autoridades" não quereriam que seus amados filhos estudassem em um prédio velho todo zoado, com professores sem nenhuma qualificação.

3.Qualquer crime de corrupção envolvendo o erário público, ou favorecimento pessoal através de cargo público, terá sentença triplicada, com banimento eterno de aplicabilidade para qualquer cargo público: Ou seja a sanção inicial será multiplicada por três, com destituição imediata do cargo e impedimento perpétuo de exercer qualquer cargo público.

Essas foram as idéias de lei que tive, seria realmente belo se algum novo político de fibra propusésse-as, mas é devaneio, como seria devaneio se mesmo que existisse tal político, essas leis passassem em qualquer das câmaras, de mais a mais, por menor que seja qualquer um desses conceitos, se aplicados no ordenamento jurídico do país, seria de uma utilidade jamais vista antes.

Do Imaculado Conhecimento

“Ontem a lua, ao nascer, pareceu-me que ia dar à luz um sol: tão avultada e prenhe jazia no horizonte.

Mentia, porém, com a sua prenhez, e mais julgaria a lua homem do que mulher.

Claro que também é muito pouco homem este tímido notâmbulo. Anda pelos telhados com a consciência turva.

Que a solitária lua está cheia de cobiça e de inveja: cobiça a terra e todas as alegrias dos que amam.

Nada; não me agrada esse gato dos telhados; previnem-me todos os que espreitam as janelas voltadas.

De manso e silencioso anda por alfombras de estrelas; mas eu detesto todos os pés cautelosos em que nem mesmo as esporas tilintam.

Os passos do homem leal falam; mas o gato anda em segredo. Vede: a lua caminha deslealmente como o gato.

A vós, hipócritas afetados, que procurais o “conhecimento puro”, ofereço esta parábola. A vós eu chamo lascivos.

Vós também amais a terra e tudo quanto é terrestre: compreendi-vos bem! O vosso amor, porém, envergonha-se com uma consciência tortuosa: pareceis-vos com a lua.

O vosso espírito convenceu-se de que deve menosprezar tudo quanto é terreno; mas não se convenceram as vossas entranhas. Elas são, todavia, o mais forte que há em vós.

E agora o vosso espírito envergonha-se de obedecer às vossas entranhas, e segue caminhos escusos e ilusórios para se livrar da sua própria vergonha.

“Para mim seria a coisa mais elevada (assim diz a si mesmo o vosso falso espírito) olhar a vida sem cobiça, e não como cães, com a língua de fora.

Ser feliz na contemplação, com a vontade morta, isento de capacidade e de apetite egoísta, frio de corpo, mas com os olhos embriagados de lua.

Para mim seria o melhor (assim se engana a si mesmo o enganado) amar a terra como a luz a ama, e tocar na sua beleza apenas com os olhos.

Eis o que eu chamo o imaculado conhecimento de todas as coisas: não querer das coisas mais do que poder estar diante delas”.

Hipócritas afetados e lascivos! Falta-vos a inocência no desejo, e por isso caluniais o desejo!

Vós não amais a terra como criadores, como geradores satisfeitos de criar.

Onde há inocência? Onde há vontade de engendrar. E o que criar qualquer coisa superior a si mesmo, esse, para mim, tem a vontade mais pura.

Onde há beleza? Onde é mister que eu queira com toda a minha vontade, onde eu quero amar e desaparecer, para que uma imagem não fique reduzida a uma simples imagem.

Amar e desaparecer: são coisas que andam a par há eternidades. Querer amar é também estar pronto a morrer. Assim vos falo eu, covardes!

Mas o vosso olhar ambíguo e afeminado quer ser contemplativo! E para vós, que maculais os nomes nobres, o que se pode tocar com olhos pusilânimes deve-se chamar “belo!”

A vossa maldição, porém, — ó! imaculados que procurais o simples conhecimento! — há de ser nunca chegardes a dar à luz, por muito avultados e prenhes que apareçais no horizonte.

Na verdade, encheis a boca de palavras nobres, e havíamos de crer que o vosso coração transborda, embusteiros?

As minhas palavras, porém, são grosseiras, desprezadas e informes: a mim agrada-me recolher o que nos vossos festins cai da mesa.

Com as minhas palavras chego sempre a dizer a verdade aos hipócritas! Sim, as minhas arestas, as minhas conchas e as minhas folhas espinhosas devem fazer-vos cócegas nos narizes, hipócritas!

Sempre há ar viciado em redor de vós e dos vossos festins: porque no ar flutuam os vossos lascivos pensamentos, as vossas mentiras e as vossas dissimulações.

Atreveis-vos, pois, em primeiro lugar a ter fé em vós mesmos — em vós e nas vossas entranhas! — o que não tem fé em si mesmo mente sempre.

Pusesteis diante de vós a máscara de um deus, homens “puros”: a vossa ignominiosa e rasteira larva ocultou-se detrás da máscara de um deus.

A verdade é que vos enganais, “contemplativos!” Zaratustra também foi joguete das vossas divinas peles; não suspeitou que eram serpentes que enchiam essa pele.

Nos vossos divertimentos julgava eu ver divertir-se a alma de um deus, simples investigadores! Eu não conhecia arte melhor que os vossos artifícios!

A vossa distância ocultava-me imundícies de serpente e maus cheiros, e eu não sabia que por aqui rondava, lasciva, a astúcia de um lagarto.

Abeirei-me, porém, de vós: então chegou a mim a luz — e agora chega a vós; — os amores da lua estão no seu declive.

Olhai-a. Aí a tendes surpreendida e pálida ante a aurora!

Porque já surge ardente a aurora: o seu amor pela terra aproxima-se! Todo o amor solar é inocência e desejo do criador.

Vede como a aurora passa impaciente pelo mar! Não sentis a sede e o cálido alento do seu amor?

Quer aspirar o mar e beber as suas profundidades, e o desejo do mar eleva-se com mil ondas.

Porque o mar quer ser beijado e aspirado pelo sol; quer tornar-se ar e altura e senda de luz também.

Eu, à semelhança do sol, como a vida e todos os mares profundos.

E tal é para mim o conhecimento: todo o profundo deve subir à minha altura”.

Assim falava Zaratustra.

Observations by Another Hand

We may be permitted to make a few additional reflections on an odious and disgusting subject, which however, unfortunately, forms a part of the history of opinions and manners.

This offence may be traced to the remotest periods of civilization. Greek and Roman history in particular allows us not to doubt it. It was common before people formed regular societies, and were governed by written laws.

The latter fact is the reason that the laws have treated it with so much indulgence. Severe laws cannot be proposed to a free people against a vice, whatever it may be, which is common and habitual. For a long time many of the German nations had written laws which admitted of composition and murder. Solon contented himself with forbidding these odious practices between the citizens and slaves. The Athenians might perceive the policy of this interdiction, and submit to it; especially as it operated against the slaves only, and was enacted to prevent them from corrupting the young free men. Fathers of families, however lax their morals, had no motive to oppose it.

The severity of the manners of women in Greece, the use of public baths, and the passion for games in which men appeared altogether naked, fostered this turpitude, notwithstanding the progress of society and morals. Lycurgus, by allowing more liberty to the women, and by certain other institutions, succeeded in rendering this vice less common in Sparta than in the other towns of Greece.

When the manners of a people become less rustic, as they improve in arts, luxury, and riches, if they retain their former vices, they at least endeavor to veil them. Christian morality, by attaching shame to connections between unmarried people, by rendering marriage indissoluble, and proscribing concubinage by ecclesiastical censures, has rendered adultery common. Every sort of voluptuousness having been equally made sinful, that species is naturally preferred which is necessarily the most secret; and thus, by a singular contradiction, absolute crimes are often made more frequent, more tolerated, and less shameful in public opinion, than simple weaknesses. When the western nations began a course of refinement, they sought to conceal adultery under the veil of what is called gallantry. Then men loudly avowed a passion in which it was presumed the women did not share. The lovers dared demand nothing; and it was only after more than ten years of pure love, of combats and victories at tournaments that a cavalier might hope to discover a moment of weakness in the object of his adoration. There remains a sufficient number of records of these times to convince us that the state of manners fostered this species of hypocrisy. It was similar among the Greeks, when they had become polished. Connections between males were not shameful; young people united themselves to each other by oaths, but it was to live and die for their country. It was usual for a person of ripe age to attach himself to a young man in a state of adolescence, ostensibly to form, instruct, and guide him; and the passion which mingled in these friendships was a sort of love—but still innocent love. Such was the veil with which public decency concealed vices which general opinion tolerated.

In short, in the same manner as chivalric gallantry is often made a theme for eulogy in modern society, as proper to elevate the soul and inspire courage, was it common among the Greeks to eulogize that love which attached citizens to each other.

Plato said that the Thebans acted laudably in adopting it, because it was necessary to polish their manners, supply greater energy to their souls and to their spirits, which were benumbed by the nature of their climate. We perceive by this, that a virtuous friendship alone was treated of by Plato. Thus, when a Christian prince proclaimed a tournament, at which every one appeared in the colors of his mistress, it was with the laudable intention of exciting emulation among its knights, and to soften manners; it was not adultery, but gallantry, that he would encourage within his dominions. In Athens, according to Plato, they set bounds to their toleration. In monarchical states, it was politic to prevent these attachments between men, but in republics they materially tended to prevent the double establishment of tyranny. In the sacrifice of a citizen, a tyrant knew not whose vengeance he might arm against himself, and was liable, without ceasing, to witness conspiracies grow out of the resolutions which this ambiguous affection produced among men.

In the meantime, in spite of ideas so remote from our sentiments and manners, this practice was regarded as very shameful among the Greeks, every time it was exhibited without the excuse of friendship or political ties. When Philip of Macedon saw extended on the field of battle of Chæronea, the soldiers who composed the sacred battalion or band of friends at Thebes, all killed in the ranks in which they had combated: “I will never believe,” he exclaimed, “that such brave men have committed or suffered anything shameful.” This expression from a man himself soiled with this infamy furnishes an indisputable proof of the general opinion of Greece.

At Rome, this opinion was still stronger. Many Greek heroes, regarded as virtuous men, have been supposed addicted to the vice; but among the Romans it was never attributed to any of those characters in whom great virtue was acknowledged. It only seems, that with these two nations no idea of crime or even dishonor was attached to it unless carried to excess, which renders even a passion for women disgraceful. Pederasty is rare among us, and would be unknown, but for the defects of public education.

Montesquieu pretends that it prevails in certain Mahometan nations, in consequence of the facility of possessing women. In our opinion, for “facility” we should read “difficulty.”

Voltaire

Socratic love

If the love called Socratic and Platonic is only a becoming sentiment, it is to be applauded; if an unnatural license, we must blush for Greece.

It is as certain as the knowledge of antiquity can well be, that Socratic love was not an infamous passion. It is the word “love” which has deceived the world. Those called the lovers of a young man were precisely such as among us are called the minions of our princes—honorable youths attached to the education of a child of distinction, partaking of the same studies and the same military exercises—a warlike and correct custom, which has been perverted into nocturnal feasts and midnight orgies.

The company of lovers instituted by Laius was an invincible troop of young warriors, bound by oath each to preserve the life of any other at the expense of his own. Ancient discipline never exhibited anything more fine.

Sextus Empiricus and others have boldly affirmed that this vice was recommended by the laws of Persia. Let them cite the text of such a law; let them exhibit the code of the Persians; and if such an abomination be even found there, still I would disbelieve it, and maintain that the thing was not true, because it is impossible. No; it is not in human nature to make a law which contradicts and outrages nature itself—a law which would annihilate mankind, if it were literally observed. Moreover, I will show you the ancient law of the Persians as given in the “Sadder.” It says, in article or gate 9, that the greatest sin must not be committed. It is in vain that a modern writer seeks to justify Sextus Empiricus and pederasty. The laws of Zoroaster, with which he is unacquainted, incontrovertibly prove that this vice was never recommended to the Persians. It might as well be said that it is recommended to the Turks. They boldly practise it, but their laws condemn it.

How many persons have mistaken shameful practices, which are only tolerated in a country, for its laws. Sextus Empiricus, who doubted everything, should have doubted this piece of jurisprudence. If he had lived in our days, and witnessed the proceedings of two or three young Jesuits with their pupils, would he have been justified in the assertion that such practices were permitted by the institutes of Ignatius Loyola?

It will be permitted to me here to allude to the Socratic love of the reverend father Polycarp, a Carmelite, who was driven away from the small town of Gex in 1771, in which place he taught religion and Latin to about a dozen scholars. He was at once their confessor, tutor, and something more. Few have had more occupations, spiritual and temporal. All was discovered; and he retired into Switzerland, a country very distant from Greece.

The monks charged with the education of youth have always exhibited a little of this tendency, which is a necessary consequence of the celibacy to which the poor men are condemned.

This vice was so common at Rome that it was impossible to punish a crime which almost every one committed. Octavius Augustus, that murderer, debauchee, and coward, who exiled Ovid, thought it right in Virgil to sing the charms of Alexis. Horace, his other poetical favorite, constructed small odes on Ligurinus; and this same Horace, who praised Augustus for reforming manners, speak in his satires in much the same way of both boys and girls. Yet the ancient law “Scantinia,” which forbade pederasty, always existed, and was put in force by the emperor Philip, who drove away from Rome the boys who made a profession of it. If, however, Rome had witty and licentious students, like Petronius, it had also such preceptors as Quintilian; and attend to the precautions he lays down in his chapter of “The Preceptor,” in order to preserve the purity of early youth. “Cavendum non solum crimine turpitudinis, sed etiam suspicione.” We must not only beware of a shameful crime but even of the suspicion of it. To conclude, I firmly believe that no civilized nation ever existed which made formal laws against morals.

Voltaire a Philosophical Dictionary Vol. Vi—part I

Enchiridion

33. Immediately prescribe some character and form of conduce to yourself, which you may keep both alone and in company.

Be for the most part silent, or speak merely what is necessary, and in few words. We may, however, enter, though sparingly, into discourse sometimes when occasion calls for it, but not on any of the common subjects, of gladiators, or horse races, or athletic champions, or feasts, the vulgar topics of conversation; but principally not of men, so as either to blame, or praise, or make comparisons. If you are able, then, by your own conversation bring over that of your company to proper subjects; but, if you happen to be taken among strangers, be silent.

Don't allow your laughter be much, nor on many occasions, nor profuse.

Avoid swearing, if possible, altogether; if not, as far as you are able.

Avoid public and vulgar entertainments; but, if ever an occasion calls you to them, keep your attention upon the stretch, that you may not imperceptibly slide into vulgar manners. For be assured that if a person be ever so sound himself, yet, if his companion be infected, he who converses with him will be infected likewise.

Provide things relating to the body no further than mere use; as meat, drink, clothing, house, family. But strike off and reject everything relating to show and delicacy.

As far as possible, before marriage, keep yourself pure from familiarities with women, and, if you indulge them, let it be lawfully." But don't therefore be troublesome and full of reproofs to those who use these liberties, nor frequently boast that you yourself don't.

If anyone tells you that such a person speaks ill of you, don't make excuses about what is said of you, but answer: " He does not know my other faults, else he would not have mentioned only these."

It is not necessary for you to appear often at public spectacles; but if ever there is a proper occasion for you to be there, don't appear more solicitous for anyone than for yourself; that is, wish things to be only just as they are, and him only to conquer who is the conqueror, for thus you will meet with no hindrance. But abstain entirely from declamations and derision and violent emotions. And when you come away, don't discourse a great deal on what has passed, and what does not contribute to your own amendment. For it would appear by such discourse that you were immoderately struck with the show.

Go not [of your own accord] to the rehearsals of any
authors , nor appear [at them] readily. But, if you do appear, keepyour gravity and sedateness, and at the same time avoid being morose.

When you are going to confer with anyone, and particularly of those in a superior station, represent to yourself how Socrates or Zeno would behave in such a case, and you will not be at a loss to make a proper use of whatever may occur.

When you are going to any of the people in power, represent to yourself that you will not find him at home; that you will not be admitted; that the doors will not be opened to you; that he will take no notice of you. If, with all this, it is your duty to go, bear what happens, and never say [to yourself], " It was not worth so much." For this is vulgar, and like a man dazed by external things.

In parties of conversation, avoid a frequent and excessive mention of your own actions and dangers. For, however agreeable it may be to yourself to mention the risks you have run, it is not equally agreeable to others to hear your adventures. Avoid, likewise, an endeavor to excite laughter. For this is a slippery point, which may throw you into vulgar manners, and, besides, may be apt to lessen you in the esteem of your acquaintance. Approaches to indecent discourse are likewise dangerous. Whenever, therefore, anything of this sort happens, if there be a proper opportunity, rebuke him who makes advances that way; or, at least, by silence and blushing and a forbidding look, show yourself to be displeased by such talk.

Incoerência

Notícia

Ok,vamos analisar isso pela lógica fria, analítica e comum a todos.

O que eu não consegui entender, foi qual o delito que essa senhora cometeu, afinal ela não impunha sua "cura" a ninguém, ela apenas oferecia tratamento aos que a procuravam voluntariamente, aqueles que se sentiam incomodados com a sua "opção" sexual, e queriam voltar ao gênero sexual que a natureza deu a eles.

Na condenação dessa mulher eu só consigo ver um significado, uma vez gay, eternamente gay, não porque se quer, mas porque agora o sistema imporá isso, nenhum psicólogo poderá te ajudar se você for gay e querer deixar de sê-lo.

O individuo gay será forçado a sê-lo pelo resto de sua vida, porque o movimento gay e o sistema judiciário e legislativo brasileiro, quiseram assim.

Por acaso esse tipo de coisa é qualquer coisa diferente das leis homofóbicas que proibiam os gays de se assumirem um século atrás?

O conceito é o mesmo.

Rótulos e moralidade

Dos artistas que ouço, muitos deles são repetitivos, alguns no bom sentido outros não, parece que uma vez que rotulam sua música, ela tem de manter-se fiel ao rótulo até o fim. Os motivos são vários, fidelidade a uma sub-cultura, lucro, amor aos fãs entre outros.

Poucos artistas são capazes de ousar, poucos são descompromissados, e poucos colocam a criatividade acima de tudo, poucos tem culhões para isso.

Acho que esse é o problema de misturar arte e dinheiro, quero dizer, uma vez que você ganha muito dinheiro com um álbum escrito de certa maneira, muito dificilmente você irá mudar esse estilo porque as perspectivas de dinheiro turvam sua mente. Ainda que seu espírito te incline a mudar de estilo.

Rotular-se é a pior coisa que um artista pode fazer, exceto se quiser levar alguma causa ao peito ou coisa parecida, mas na arte pela arte, o rótulo é coisa nociva.

Na arte é onde o homem atinge sua liberdade plena, pode fazer o que quiser, não há limites, os rótulos deturpam isso e põe grilhões nas suas juntas.

O que se diz dos rótulos pode-se dizer da moralidade(ou politicamente correto).

É tolice querer analisar a arte numa perspectiva moral, a não ser que ela seja posta em certo contexto, a arte é amoral, ilimitada, infinita.

Moralizar a arte ou censurá-la, é escravizá-la, ou rebaixá-la ao nível vulgar, nenhum juiz de direito jamais terá legitimidade em julgar qual arte é boa ou não, porque a arte está além do poder dele, ele pode fingir que julgou, pode mandar prender o artista, mas a arte será sempre livre, a arte é mais poderosa que a repressão da democracia brasileira, e nenhum juiz jamais conseguirá destruí-la.

Todo meu apoio a Danilo Gentili:

http://danilogentili.com/

http://twitter.com/DaniloGentili

Viva a liberdade de expressão, abaixo a censura na internet.