Brazil on the rise

I'm in Brazil right now, enjoying home for a week. As always, what strikes my eye the fiercest when I come back is the same. Social inequalities. Favelas, homeless children. And this in the 6th biggest economy in the world. Yesterday I saw this picture online, which still represents the sad reality of Brazil urban centers. I posted it with the caption "Sometimes people ask me why I'm a socialist. Isn't this reason enough?" The image is powerful. Suddenly much of the optimism of Larry Rochter's "Brazil on the Rise" is washed away. 

 The bad politics of Brazilian society ultimately led to this image. It is useful to recall the famous words of Brecht that everything in society depends on political decisions; it's where the prostitute, the homeless child, and the corrupt politician all meet their origin. Brazil is a country of vast resources, that can easily feed several times its population. It prides itself of being a "gentle mother" to all its citizens, but reality is far different, with social inequalities still being one of the worst problems that the country still has to solve. As one can see with one's own eyes, a significant portion of the population of its big cities lives in favelas, that in the case of Rio are side by side with luxurious neighbourhoods. It's perhaps the most significant beta city in the world where the wounds created by income disparity glare more obviously. 

 This scenario in Brazil occurs exclusively for the lack of welfare policies. Evidence of it is that the country has been thriving under the first left-wing government of its history (elected in 2002 and in power since). Imagine having George Bush, Mitt Romney, and Paul Ryan in power for five hundred years. This secular-long string of right-wing governments of the rich by the rich for the rich created Brazilian society. If on the one hand we have an economy more powerful than that of Canada and Great Gritain, on the other we have levels of social inequality similar to the poorest African countries. I was fortunate to be born in a middle-class family that in spite of getting by from paycheck to paycheck could nonetheless afford to pay rent in Rio's acclaimed neighbourhoods, as well as assure me and my sisters access to a good public school, one of top-five of the city. These are basic rights, but turn out in Brazil to be class privilege. These homeless children must have access to the same opportunities. 

Given Brazil's economic virility, what is needed are policies of income redistribution. Welfare programs, homeless shelters, investment in basic education, alongside with progressive taxation and reduction of political corruption. These are policies of the social-democractic left, of the labor party, and that's why they have my vote. The celebrated Brazilian economic boom is in great part the effect of closing the rich-poor gap by income redistribution. 

 That said, the conditions in other coutries are different, and in communist dictatorships everyone is equal and equally poor. This argues for a middle path of moderation in government reach - not too much not too little. And always - I cannot stress it enough: always - with a democratic process, the best (yet not perfect) way to correct government mismanagement. By having a social-democracy in the style of the Western Europe, Australia, New Zealand, and Canada (i.e., any developed country except the US) we could provide equal opportunity to all, and finally deconstruct this state of affairs that disregards the open wound of the existence of poverty in a rich country.

Racismo e Homofobia

Este quadrinho anda rolando pelo facebook. Não dei muita bola quando vi da primeira vez (não dá pra parar a vida toda vez que alguém está errado na internet). Mas depois de ver pela segunda, pela terceira, e finalmente redirecionado por dois parentes meus, não pude mais ignorar.

Mascarado como um convite à reflexão, a mensagem do quadrinho é na verdade uma forma da conhecida falácia do espantalho. Não há nada de errado em "gostar" de ser membro da maioria.

O branco pode gostar de ir e vir sem ser parado à toa por policiais por parecer suspeito; o branco pode gostar de dirigir um carrão sem que achem que foi roubado; ou de entrar num prédio sem o porteiro mandar ele subir pelo elevador de serviço.

Da mesma forma o hétero pode gostar de não ter que ter medo de andar na rua de mão dada com quem ama; pode gostar de não correr o perigo de ser espancado e morto por sua orientação sexual; pode gostar da sociedade não o negar dividir com seu cônjuge coisas como seguro de saúde, propriedades, conta conjunta, herança, ou mesmo uma coisa tão simples como uma visita no hospital.

Isso tudo o branco hétero pode gostar. São direitos tão auto-evidentes, que todo mundo gostaria de tê-los.

Mas se orgulhar é um problema. Porque não são todos que os tem. É privilégio de alguns apenas - embora maioria - e deveria ser de todos.

Se orgulhar seria como proferir hoje em dia a antiga reza comum 2,000 anos atrás "Deus, obrigado por não ter me feito mulher".

Afinal, qual o mérito em se orgulhar de uma coisa que você não escolheu, e cujos prazeres embutidos tampouco foram construídos por você? Não, são privilégios relegados por séculos, por milênios de exploração no caso dos não-brancos, ou ódio irracional no caso dos não-héteros.

Já as minorias tem motivo de se orgulhar. Não de sua cor ou sua orientação sexual, pois tampouco as escolheram. Mas do fato que a conquista de seus direitos civis sim foi fruto de uma luta árdua e recente, em que eles são parte ativa.

Gay "Pride"?

Why I'm not proud of being gay, by Jesse Bering. A lucid text on why gay "pride" is not about pride at all. It's illogical to be proud about something one cannot choose and, like the author, I too defy the concept of a gay brotherhood or community, given that whether I feel attracted to penis or vagina has little effect on how I connect to people in nonsexual situations - which comprise most of my everyday life.

The pride in gay pride is not defined by the condition, given that homosexuality is not a choice - it is defined by the fight for civil rights. "Pride" is highlighted because not long ago being gay was something shameful and wrong, something to be repressed. Or hidden at best. The celebration of homoaffectiveness therefore counteracts this forced feeling of shamefulness, towards the ideal situation when there should be no need for shame or pride when it comes to sexuality.

The "pride" in gay pride is therefore an example of black-and-white thinking, the fallacy of the false dilemma. The motivation may be commendable, but pride is not the only thing that can replace shame. The march for gay pride is actually a march for self-esteem and self-respect.

Discrimination on Scouts

Blatant discrimination. An atheist boy in the UK expelled from the Scouts because he was uncomfortable with reciting their Promise of "do their duty by God and the Queen", and voiced his discomfort with the theistic motto.

 His father sums it up quite well: "George had the guts to stand up and admit his view and I believe the Scouts are being narrow-minded when we are supposed to be tolerant." 

Espousing every single view of Robert Baden-Powell is obviously uncritical thinking. One example will suffice: if on the one hand he promoted a good side of religion, on the other hand he sympathized with fascism and recommended the reading of Mein Kampf. By bringing to the 21st century all the views of a Victorian/Edwardian (or of anyone of any era for that matter) one is bringing not only the good ideals but also the prejudices and bigotry of their zeitgeist.

 Scouts of Britain - and of the USA, where such cases have also happened - should modernize their ideas, as did some more progressive Scout associations worldwide, such as the Scouts of Canada.

What if the cure for cancer is trapped inside the mind of someone who cannot afford education?

What if the cure for cancer is trapped inside the mind of someone who cannot afford education? This simple question poses a problem that I think is one of the major shortcomings of the education system in the United States. When education is such an expense as it is in the US, how many brilliant people are denied an education simply because their parents did not have the purchase power to do so? Not to mention that one of the recruitment techniques of the US army is to say that "with the money you'll make, you can afford to go to college". Kids wind up dead in Afghanistan and Iraq because conservatives make education in this country an incredible expense.

The point here is that we live in society, and the whole of society reaps the benefits of educating its population. Add to it the fact that education is a human right. The logical conclusion is that it is both undesirable and unethical to turn it into a for-profit enterprise.

Saying that we can solve the problem with merit-based scholarships touches the difficult issue of where to start recognizing one's merit. Should we have merit-based scholarships in Kindergarten? Elementary school? High school? Undergrad? Grad school? None of these works since most ways of measuring merit are entangled with economic power. Those whose parents could afford a better education have an obvious advantage. There is no way out of it that does not involve making education tax-funded and free for all. Even making education "affordable" by making it subsidized yet charging a symbolic amount - as done in Canada - does not solve the problem that there will always be people who cannot afford even a low tuition.

 So, the solution I see is to give free education and equal opportunity to all. Place the merit after education is over. That is, instead of merit-based scholarships, merit-based research grants.

Is heaven real?

A guy falls into coma, then wakes up talking about angels and lights and butterflies and a sexy female guide that took him on a tour of the clouds. Guy converts to Christianity and plans to devote life to prove the existence of the afterlife. So far, similar to countless other hollow anecdotal accounts of near-death experiences. But said guy is a neurosurgeon, and because of it Newsweek adds appeal to authority to the wishful thinking, turning it into a cover story. Neuroscientist Sam Harris brilliantly deconstructs the supposed authority.