http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=X51jR8fGh9o
Quando vemos as imagens/ícones do caucasiano efeminado que os vitorianos conceberam para representar o mito de Jesus Cristo. Dá vontade de esculhambar mesmo, apoiando até brincadeiras pouco inteligentes como esta.
Aconselho entusiasticamente que vejam o filme “ A Vida de Brian”, realizado e interpretado pelos geniais Monty Python. Acima de tudo, não deixem de ler o livro de Richard Dawkins “Deus, um delírio” (the God Delusion)

Antídoto para Sucuris
Ou
Taijin Kyofusho


Não me recrimines,
Nem me digas o que fazer,
Enquanto gasto o meu tempo
No enlevo de te admirar
A coragem de amar em desespero...
O luto dos amores cura-se...
Como a picada das raias
Ou o corte dos corais...
Os círculos concêntricos dessa dor
Dissimulam-se em padrões fractais
Que em flores impressionistas desabrocham
Abrindo gretas nas paredes do quotidiano;
Atentam contra o frio aprumo do concreto
E a solidão encaixotada GRITA
Quando falta a luz...e o vazio
Mostra a sua face insustentável,
Nos despindo sem pudor,
Nos descarnando sem piedade...
O que lemos no padrão das cicatrizes
São augúrios das nossas inseguranças.
Já só escuto promessas da morte,
Mas aceito o beijo da liberdade.

Xando

No que concerne aos espermatozoides, sabemos que os (X)Y, masculinos, são melhores nadadores do que os seus pares (X)X, femininos. Assim, uma mulher fecunda no pico do seu período fértil tem maiores probabilidades de gerar um menino.
Há alguns anos tomámos conhecimento de que os omnipresentes agrotóxicos contribuem imenso para a diminuiçao da fertilidade masculina.
Agora cientistas brasieliros (afectos à Univ. de S. Paulo) provaram que, quanto mais poluido está o ambiente, maior é o índice de nascimentos feminos. O cromossoma Y, para além de ser mais sensível à acidez natural da vagina, é também mais vulnerável aos efeitos deletérios dos poluentes químicos.

Classemediawayoflife.blogspot.com
Vale a pena passar os olhos por este blog que caracteriza, satirizando, a hodierna classe média(/alta) brasileira.



As cinzas do quilombo na piscina

Curas que envenenam;
Do leito para a pia
Ganha-se a alforria.
O lobo temporal uiva de gozo;
Mantem-se o império das trevas.
Na cidadela os coros papagueam
Textos sagrados como libelos de sangue.
Seculares anseios nas bocas sem línguas;
Heresiotomias para calar blasfêmias.
O espectáculo deve mesmerizar o povo,
- Não inquietá-lo à toa!...

No Carnaval, a liberdade mascára-se de antoiança
E a igualdade tantaliza os que ousam sonhar.
Escapando à ígnea purificação,
Os súcubos roubam o sêmen
E os íncubus injectam-no nas malditas,
Assim gerando vozes dissidentes
- Que também nada saberão sobre África,
Mas que escutam os ventos de mudança;
O fragor da guerrilha libertária
Vinda da mata para se insinuar nas consciências
Dos boêmios desconhecedores de tais febres
Por nunca se aventurarem na colheita das mandrágoras,
Onde Zumbi se engasgou com a própria virilidade.
Bem diferentes são aqueles produzidos pelo Senhor
[do engenho
Quando os navios negreiros falham em trazer reses
(“Peças”, “madeira de ébano”, “galinhas”,...)
Lá da terra da danação (onde sobra músculo e falta trabalho),
Zeloso pela manutenção do seu rebanho bípede,
Faz clandestinas visitas à senzala...
Terror e ira na gênese da mulataria
Que serve na casa grande e a caminho do mercado.
Nega, poupa o teu menino desse atroz destino;
Envia-o de volta à pátria amada,
Sufocando-o antes que ele saiba ver.
Ah, essas lágrimas não lavarão o pelourinho!
O teu leite é alvo como o parasita que o irá mamar;
Seduzi-lo-ás ou botarás pimenta nos mamilos?...

O códice das batucadas incendeia a noite
Até o canto dos mutuns convoca os guerreiros,
Sabendo que as camélias amanhecerão rubras
Como os olhos dos injustiçados no breu

O sistema de castas imposto pelo culto ao capital
Que dilui na multidão os contornos do monstro...
O professor é mais um empregado do papai
Formando acólitos do fordismo.
Muitos condenarão às linhas de montagem
O que só a Amazônia conseguiu vencer

Vamos espreitar a nudez da miss eugenia?
Deificados pela máquina de propaganda,
Comemoram na piscina do condomínio
(Cujo nome homenageia a natureza que destruiu)
Graças a deus por mais este querubim!
Um príncipe de Mercedes a esposará.
- Porra, seus escurinhos, para quê lhes pago?!
Muros que só o sol a pique transpõe;
Cercas eléctricas e guardas armados,
E, ainda assim, invadem e poluem o meu jardim
As cinzas de um quilombo há muito esquecido!!
OU será que os bandidos queimam barricadas na favela?!...
- vêm nos esporões dos quero-quero, patrão....
Siá, os teus deuses moram no acaso
E os meus esvaíram-se no ocaso...

PB

"It's the action, not the fruit of the action, that's important. You have to do the right thing. It may not be in your power, may not be in your time, that there'll be any fruit. But that doesn't mean you stop doing the right thing. You may never know what results come from your action. But if you do nothing, there will be no result."

- Gandhi

90 milhões de brasileiros não tem rede de esgotos; outros 50 milhões carecem de água tratada em casa. Apenas 4% dos esgotos no Brasil são alvo de algum tratamento.
A destruição da natureza silvestre continuam a um ritmo de galope apocalíptico.
E ainda há tanta gente por aqui que passa fome...
Mas o governo prepara-se para, em breve, gastar mais 7,7 biliões/bilhões de dólares em material bélico! Isso é uma fracção do que vai gastar com a Copa do Mundo (de futebol, em 2014) e com os Jogos Olímpicos no Rio de Janeiro (em 2016)... Estamos perante um governo que se diz socialista mas que, para além de sempre baixar as calças aos banqueiros, até tirou fundos ao sistema público de saúde para se auto promover na realização dos jogos Pan Americanos... E por aí vai...

black-throated saltator

A propaganda está para a democracia como o cassetete está par os Estados totalitários.- Noam Chomsky

"Time to Stand Up"
By Richard Dawkins


"To blame Islam for what happened in New York is like blaming Christianity for the troubles in Northern Ireland!" Yes. Precisely. It is time to stop pussyfooting around. Time to get angry. And not only with Islam.

Those of us who have renounced one or another of the three "great" monotheistic religions have, until now, moderated our language for reasons of politeness. Christians, Jews and Muslims are sincere in their beliefs and in what they find holy. We have respected that, even as we have disagreed with it. The late Douglas Adams put it with his customary good humor, in an impromptu speech in 1998 (slightly abridged):



Now, the invention of the scientific method is, I'm sure we'll all agree, the most powerful intellectual idea, the most powerful framework for thinking and investigating and understanding and challenging the world around us that there is, and it rests on the premise that any idea is there to be attacked. If it withstands the attack then it lives to fight another day and if it doesn't withstand the attack then down it goes. Religion doesn't seem to work like that. It has certain ideas at the heart of it which we call sacred or holy or whatever. What it means is, "Here is an idea or a notion that you're not allowed to say anything bad about; you're just not. Why not?--because you're not!" If somebody votes for a party that you don't agree with, you're free to argue about it as much as you like; everybody will have an argument but nobody feels aggrieved by it. If somebody thinks taxes should go up or down you are free to have an argument about it. But on the other hand if somebody says 'I mustn't move a light switch on a Saturday,' you say, "I respect that."
The odd thing is, even as I am saying that, I am thinking "Is there an Orthodox Jew here who is going to be offended by the fact that I just said that?" But I wouldn't have thought "Maybe there's somebody from the left wing or somebody from the right wing or somebody who subscribes to this view or the other in economics" when I was making the other points. I just think "Fine, we have different opinions." But, the moment I say something that has something to do with somebody's (I'm going to stick my neck out here and say irrational) beliefs, then we all become terribly protective and terribly defensive and say "No, we don't attack that; that's an irrational belief but no, we respect it."

Why should it be that it's perfectly legitimate to support the Labor party or the Conservative party, Republicans or Democrats, this model of economics versus that, Macintosh instead of Windows--but to have an opinion about how the Universe began, about who created the Universe . . . no, that's holy? What does that mean? Why do we ring-fence that for any other reason other than that we've just got used to doing so? There's no other reason at all, it's just one of those things that crept into being and once that loop gets going it's very, very powerful. So, we are used to not challenging religious ideas but it's very interesting how much of a furor Richard creates when he does it! Everybody gets absolutely frantic about it because you're not allowed to say these things. Yet when you look at it rationally there is no reason why those ideas shouldn't be as open to debate as any other, except that we have agreed somehow between us that they shouldn't be.

Douglas is dead, but I think he would join me in asking people now to stand up and break this absurd taboo. My respect for the Abrahamic religions went up in the smoke and choking dust of September 11th. The last vestige of respect for the taboo disappeared as I watched the "Day of Prayer" in Washington Cathedral, where people of mutually incompatible faiths united in homage to the very force that caused the problem in the first place: religion. It is time for people of intellect, as opposed to people of faith, to stand up and say "Enough!" Let our tribute to the dead be a new resolve: to respect people for what they individually think, rather than respect groups for what they were collectively brought up to believe.

Notwithstanding bitter sectarian hatreds over the centuries (all too obviously still going strong), Judaism, Islam and Christianity have much in common. Despite New Testament watering down and other reformist tendencies, all three pay historic allegiance to the same violent and vindictive God of Battles, memorably summed up by Gore Vidal in 1998:



The great unmentionable evil at the center of our culture is monotheism. From a barbaric Bronze Age text known as the Old Testament, three anti-human religions have evolved--Judaism, Christianity, and Islam. These are sky-god religions. They are, literally, patriarchal--God is the Omnipotent Father--hence the loathing of women for 2,000 years in those countries afflicted by the sky-god and his earthly male delegates. The sky-god is a jealous god, of course. He requires total obedience from everyone on earth, as he is not just in place for one tribe, but for all creation. Those who would reject him must be converted or killed for their own good.
In The Guardian of 15th September, I named belief in an afterlife as the key weapon that made the New York atrocity possible. Of prior significance is religion's deep responsibility for the underlying hatreds that motivated people to use that weapon in the first place. To breathe such a suggestion, even with the most gentlemanly restraint, is to invite an onslaught of patronizing abuse, as Douglas Adams noted. But the insane cruelty of the suicide attacks, and the equally vicious though numerically less catastrophic 'revenge' attacks on hapless Muslims living in America and Britain, push me beyond ordinary caution.

How can I say that religion is to blame? Do I really imagine that, when a terrorist kills, he is motivated by a theological disagreement with his victim? Do I really think the Northern Ireland pub bomber says to himself "Take that, Tridentine Transubstantiationist bastards!" Of course I don't think anything of the kind. Theology is the last thing on the minds of such people. They are not killing because of religion itself, but because of political grievances, often justified. They are killing because the other lot killed their fathers. Or because the other lot drove their great grandfathers off their land. Or because the other lot oppressed our lot economically for centuries.

My point is not that religion itself is the motivation for wars, murders and terrorist attacks, but that religion is the principal label, and the most dangerous one, by which a "they" as opposed to a "we" can be identified at all. I am not even claiming that religion is the only label by which we identify the victims of our prejudice. There's also skin color, language, and social class. But often, as in Northern Ireland, these don't apply and religion is the only divisive label around. Even when it is not alone, religion is nearly always an incendiary ingredient in the mix as well.

It is not an exaggeration to say that religion is the most inflammatory enemy-labelling device in history. Who killed your father? Not the individuals you are about to kill in 'revenge.' The culprits themselves have vanished over the border. The people who stole your great grandfather's land have died of old age. You aim your vendetta at those who belong to the same religion as the original perpetrators. It wasn't Seamus who killed your brother, but it was Catholics, so Seamus deserves to die "in return." Next, it was Protestants who killed Seamus so let's go out and kill some Protestants "in revenge." It was Muslims who destroyed the World Trade Center so let's set upon the turbaned driver of a London taxi and leave him paralyzed from the neck down.

The bitter hatreds that now poison Middle Eastern politics are rooted in the real or perceived wrong of the setting up of a Jewish State in an Islamic region. In view of all that the Jews had been through, it must have seemed a fair and humane solution. Probably deep familiarity with the Old Testament had given the European and American decision-makers some sort of idea that this really was the 'historic homeland' of the Jews (though the horrific stories of how Joshua and others conquered their Lebensraum might have made them wonder). Even if it wasn't justifiable at the time, no doubt a good case can be made that, since Israel exists now, to try to reverse the status quo would be a worse wrong.

I do not intend to get into that argument. But if it had not been for religion, the very concept of a Jewish state would have had no meaning in the first place. Nor would the very concept of Islamic lands, as something to be invaded and desecrated. In a world without religion, there would have been no Crusades; no Inquisition; no anti-Semitic pogroms (the people of the diaspora would long ago have intermarried and become indistinguishable from their host populations); no Northern Ireland Troubles (no label by which to distinguish the two 'communities,' and no sectarian schools to teach the children historic hatreds--they would simply be one community).

It is a spade we have here, let's call it a spade. The Emperor has no clothes. It is time to stop the mealy-mouthed euphemisms: 'Nationalists,' 'Loyalists,' 'Communities,' 'Ethnic Groups.' Religions is the word you need. Religion is the word you are struggling hypocritically to avoid.

Parenthetically, religion is unusual among divisive labels in being spectacularly unnecessary. If religious beliefs had any evidence going for them, we might have to respect them in spite of their concomitant unpleasantness. But there is no such evidence. To label people as death-deserving enemies because of disagreements about real world politics is bad enough. To do the same for disagreements about a delusional world inhabited by archangels, demons and imaginary friends is ludicrously tragic.

The resilience of this form of hereditary delusion is as astonishing as its lack of realism. It seems that control of the plane which crashed near Pittsburgh was probably wrestled out of the hands of the terrorists by a group of brave passengers. The wife of one of these valiant and heroic men, after she took the telephone call in which he announced their intention, said that God had placed her husband on the plane as His instrument to prevent the plane crashing on the White House. I have the greatest sympathy for this poor woman in her tragic loss, but just think about it! As my (also understandably overwrought) American correspondent who sent me this piece of news said:



"Couldn't God have just given the hijackers a heart attack or something instead of killing all those nice people on the plane? I guess he didn't give a flying fuck about the Trade Center, didn't bother to come up with a plan for them." (I apologize for my friend's intemperate language but, in the circumstances, who can blame her?)
Is there no catastrophe terrible enough to shake the faith of people, on both sides, in God's goodness and power? No glimmering realization that he might not be there at all: that we just might be on our own, needing to cope with the real world like grown-ups?

Billy Graham, Mr. Bush's spiritual advisor, said in Washington Cathedral:



But how do we understand something like this? Why does God allow evil like this to take place? Perhaps that is what you are asking now. You may even be angry at God. I want to assure you that God understands those feelings that you may have.
Well, that's big of God, I must say. I'm sure that makes the bereaved feel a whole lot better (the pathetic thing is, it probably does!). Mr. Graham went on:



I have been asked hundreds of times in my life why God allows tragedy and suffering. I have to confess that I really do not know the answer totally, even to my own satisfaction. I have to accept, by faith, that God is sovereign, and He is a God of love and mercy and compassion in the midst of suffering. The Bible says God is not the author of evil. It speaks of evil as a "mystery."
Less baffled by this deep theological mystery were two of America's best-known televangelists, Pat Robertson and Jerry Falwell. In a conversation on Robertson's lucrative television show (religion is tax-exempt), they knew exactly where to put the blame. The whole thing was obviously caused by America's sin. Falwell said that God had protected America wonderfully for 225 years, but now, what with abortion and gays and lesbians and the ACLU, "all of them who have tried to secularize America . . . I point the finger in their face and say you helped this happen." "Well, I totally concur," responded Robertson. Bush, to his credit, swiftly disowned this characteristic example of the religious mind at work.

The United States is the most religiose country in the Western world, and its born-again Christian leader is eyeball to eyeball with the most religiose people on Earth. Both sides believe that the Bronze Age God of Battles is on their side. Both take risks with the world's future in unshakeable, fundamentalist faith that He will grant them the victory. Incidentally, people speak of Islamic Fundamentalists, but the customary genteel distinction between fundamentalist and moderate Islam has been convincingly demolished by Ibn Warraq in his well-informed book, Why I Am Not a Muslim.

The human psyche has two great sicknesses: the urge to carry vendetta across generations, and the tendency to fasten group labels on people rather than see them as individuals. Abrahamic religion gives strong sanction to both--and mixes explosively with both. Only the willfully blind could fail to implicate the divisive force of religion in most, if not all, of the violent enmities in the world today. Without a doubt it is the prime aggravator of the Middle East. Those of us who have for years politely concealed our contempt for the dangerous collective delusion of religion need to stand up and speak out. Things are different now. "All is changed, changed utterly."