Mostrando postagens com marcador New York Times. Mostrar todas as postagens
Mostrando postagens com marcador New York Times. Mostrar todas as postagens

segunda-feira, 26 de outubro de 2009

Minas no New York Times

http://travel.nytimes.com/2009/10/25/travel/25brazil.html?hpw

sexta-feira, 17 de outubro de 2008

Nasce um Escritor




Ron Jeremy's Ron Jeremy: The Hardest (Working) Man in Showbiz, published by HarperCollins and co-written with Eric Spitznagel, is No. 32 on the new New York Times Hardcover Nonfiction Best-Seller List.

quinta-feira, 16 de outubro de 2008

O Terrorista Barack Obama

By FRANK RICH
Published: October 11, 2008

IF you think way back to the start of this marathon campaign, back when it seemed preposterous that any black man could be a serious presidential contender, then you remember the biggest fear about Barack Obama: a crazy person might take a shot at him.
Skip to next paragraph
Enlarge This Image
Barry Blitt

Go to Columnist Page »
Related
Times Topics: Presidential Election of 2008
Fred R. Conrad/The New York Times

Frank Rich
Readers' Comments

"Many of us who had looked to John McCain to restore some semblance of sensible conservatism to the Republican Party have been dismayed and disappointed... "

Jack, Portland, Ore.

* Read Full Comment »

Some voters told reporters that they didn’t want Obama to run, let alone win, should his very presence unleash the demons who have stalked America from Lincoln to King. After consultation with Congress, Michael Chertoff, the homeland security secretary, gave Obama a Secret Service detail earlier than any presidential candidate in our history — in May 2007, some eight months before the first Democratic primaries.

“I’ve got the best protection in the world, so stop worrying,” Obama reassured his supporters. Eventually the country got conditioned to his appearing in large arenas without incident (though I confess that the first loud burst of fireworks at the end of his convention stadium speech gave me a start). In America, nothing does succeed like success. The fear receded.

Until now. At McCain-Palin rallies, the raucous and insistent cries of “Treason!” and “Terrorist!” and “Kill him!” and “Off with his head!” as well as the uninhibited slinging of racial epithets, are actually something new in a campaign that has seen almost every conceivable twist. They are alarms. Doing nothing is not an option.

All’s fair in politics. John McCain and Sarah Palin have every right to bring up William Ayers, even if his connection to Obama is minor, even if Ayers’s Weather Underground history dates back to Obama’s childhood, even if establishment Republicans and Democrats alike have collaborated with the present-day Ayers in educational reform. But it’s not just the old Joe McCarthyesque guilt-by-association game, however spurious, that’s going on here. Don’t for an instant believe the many mindlessly “even-handed” journalists who keep saying that the McCain campaign’s use of Ayers is the moral or political equivalent of the Obama campaign’s hammering on Charles Keating.

What makes them different, and what has pumped up the Weimar-like rage at McCain-Palin rallies, is the violent escalation in rhetoric, especially (though not exclusively) by Palin. Obama “launched his political career in the living room of a domestic terrorist.” He is “palling around with terrorists” (note the plural noun). Obama is “not a man who sees America the way you and I see America.” Wielding a wildly out-of-context Obama quote, Palin slurs him as an enemy of American troops.

By the time McCain asks the crowd “Who is the real Barack Obama?” it’s no surprise that someone cries out “Terrorist!” The rhetorical conflation of Obama with terrorism is complete. It is stoked further by the repeated invocation of Obama’s middle name by surrogates introducing McCain and Palin at these rallies. This sleight of hand at once synchronizes with the poisonous Obama-is-a-Muslim e-mail blasts and shifts the brand of terrorism from Ayers’s Vietnam-era variety to the radical Islamic threats of today.

That’s a far cry from simply accusing Obama of being a guilty-by-association radical leftist. Obama is being branded as a potential killer and an accessory to past attempts at murder. “Barack Obama’s friend tried to kill my family” was how a McCain press release last week packaged the remembrance of a Weather Underground incident from 1970 — when Obama was 8.

We all know what punishment fits the crime of murder, or even potential murder, if the security of post-9/11 America is at stake. We all know how self-appointed “patriotic” martyrs always justify taking the law into their own hands.

Obama can hardly be held accountable for Ayers’s behavior 40 years ago, but at least McCain and Palin can try to take some responsibility for the behavior of their own supporters in 2008. What’s troubling here is not only the candidates’ loose inflammatory talk but also their refusal to step in promptly and strongly when someone responds to it with bloodthirsty threats in a crowded arena. Joe Biden had it exactly right when he expressed concern last week that “a leading American politician who might be vice president of the United States would not just stop midsentence and turn and condemn that.” To stay silent is to pour gas on the fires.

It wasn’t always thus with McCain. In February he loudly disassociated himself from a speaker who brayed “Barack Hussein Obama” when introducing him at a rally in Ohio. Now McCain either backpedals with tardy, pro forma expressions of respect for his opponent or lets second-tier campaign underlings release boilerplate disavowals after ugly incidents like the chilling Jim Crow-era flashback last week when a Florida sheriff ranted about “Barack Hussein Obama” at a Palin rally while in full uniform.

From the start, there have always been two separate but equal questions about race in this election. Is there still enough racism in America to prevent a black man from being elected president no matter what? And, will Republicans play the race card? The jury is out on the first question until Nov. 4. But we now have the unambiguous answer to the second: Yes.

McCain, who is no racist, turned to this desperate strategy only as Obama started to pull ahead. The tone was set at the Republican convention, with Rudy Giuliani’s mocking dismissal of Obama as an “only in America” affirmative-action baby. We also learned then that the McCain campaign had recruited as a Palin handler none other than Tucker Eskew, the South Carolina consultant who had worked for George W. Bush in the notorious 2000 G.O.P. primary battle where the McCains and their adopted Bangladeshi daughter were slimed by vicious racist rumors.

No less disconcerting was a still-unexplained passage of Palin’s convention speech: Her use of an unattributed quote praising small-town America (as opposed to, say, Chicago and its community organizers) from Westbrook Pegler, the mid-century Hearst columnist famous for his anti-Semitism, racism and violent rhetorical excess. After an assassin tried to kill F.D.R. at a Florida rally and murdered Chicago’s mayor instead in 1933, Pegler wrote that it was “regrettable that Giuseppe Zangara shot the wrong man.” In the ’60s, Pegler had a wish for Bobby Kennedy: “Some white patriot of the Southern tier will spatter his spoonful of brains in public premises before the snow falls.”

This is the writer who found his way into a speech by a potential vice president at a national political convention. It’s astonishing there’s been no demand for a public accounting from the McCain campaign. Imagine if Obama had quoted a Black Panther or Louis Farrakhan — or William Ayers — in Denver.

The operatives who would have Palin quote Pegler have been at it ever since. A key indicator came two weeks after the convention, when the McCain campaign ran its first ad tying Obama to the mortgage giant Fannie Mae. Rather than make its case by using a legitimate link between Fannie and Obama (or other Democratic leaders), the McCain forces chose a former Fannie executive who had no real tie to Obama or his campaign but did have a black face that could dominate the ad’s visuals.

There are no black faces high in the McCain hierarchy to object to these tactics. There hasn’t been a single black Republican governor, senator or House member in six years. This is a campaign where Palin can repeatedly declare that Alaska is “a microcosm of America” without anyone even wondering how that might be so for a state whose tiny black and Hispanic populations are each roughly one-third the national average. There are indeed so few people of color at McCain events that a black senior writer from The Tallahassee Democrat was mistakenly ejected by the Secret Service from a campaign rally in Panama City in August, even though he was standing with other reporters and showed his credentials. His only apparent infraction was to look glaringly out of place.

Could the old racial politics still be determinative? I’ve long been skeptical of the incessant press prognostications (and liberal panic) that this election will be decided by racist white men in the Rust Belt. Now even the dimmest bloviators have figured out that Americans are riveted by the color green, not black — as in money, not energy. Voters are looking for a leader who might help rescue them, not a reckless gambler whose lurching responses to the economic meltdown (a campaign “suspension,” a mortgage-buyout stunt that changes daily) are as unhinged as his wanderings around the debate stage.

To see how fast the tide is moving, just look at North Carolina. On July 4 this year — the day that the godfather of modern G.O.P. racial politics, Jesse Helms, died — The Charlotte Observer reported that strategists of both parties agreed Obama’s chances to win the state fell “between slim and none.” Today, as Charlotte reels from the implosion of Wachovia, the McCain-Obama race is a dead heat in North Carolina and Helms’s Republican successor in the Senate, Elizabeth Dole, is looking like a goner.

But we’re not at Election Day yet, and if voters are to have their final say, both America and Obama have to get there safely. The McCain campaign has crossed the line between tough negative campaigning and inciting vigilantism, and each day the mob howls louder. The onus is on the man who says he puts his country first to call off the dogs, pit bulls and otherwise.
More Articles in Opinion » A version of this article appeared in print on October 12, 2008, on page WK10 of the New York edition.

quinta-feira, 18 de setembro de 2008

Caetano X Cláudio Tognolli: A Luta contra a imprensa continua...

C
NEW YORK TIMES
12/09/2008 6:47 am

Robson, acho, pensou que creio que os grandes jornais americanos não permitiriam críticas negativas a medalhões. Eu não disse isso. De fato, se fosse assim a imprensa de lá seria o oposto de uma imprensa livre. E o desenvolvimento técnico dos artistas estaria estagnado. Mas não é assim. Citei dois ídolos de geração anterior à minha porque eram os exemplos que eu dava quando comecei a falar no assunto. Mas não seria muito diferente se se tratasse de Dylan, Prince ou Al Green. Mesmo Iggy Pop. Um tratamento grosseiro e de antemão desqualificador não fica bem em jornais como NYT ou o Washington Post, eis tudo. Citei o caso extremo da crítica a Chico na Ilustrada: poderia lembrar que lá também li que o cello de Jaques Morelenbaum é “assassino” (sendo ele um cellista de quem o grandes músicos, críticos e produtores do mundo todo dizem tirar o mais belo som daquele instrumento - além de ter uma capacidade de improvisar e entender os meandros da harmonia com uma sensibilidade sem competidores) - e que os músicos da Timbalada deveriam estar numa jaula. Não é isso, no entando, o que interessa. O caso é que, na crítica ao show de Roberto comigo cantando Jobim, não chegou a haver uma patada desse tipo (embora “naftalínico” e “necrófilo” tivessem aparecido no Estadão e, sei lá, “modorrento” ou algo assim na Folha). Eu apenas identifiquei que, por trás disso, havia o folclore de soar desabusado - coisa que vem manchando a crítica de música popular no Brasil há anos. E quis informar a quem não sabe que isso não é normal no mundo todo. Escrevi que a crítica de música popular é “o lixão” do jornalismo porque é o que observo desde sempre (e isso é assim em todo o mundo, diferentemente do hábito de escrever de modo forçadamente iconoclasta, que só vejo acontecer aqui; digo, na grande imprensa, pois nos tablóides pós-punk - sobretudo ingleses, mas com imitações francesas, italianas, portuguesas etc. - isso é a norma). Mas ressalvei que, com a virada dos Beatles, uma confusão interessante se deu - e ela é visível sobretudo nos citados tablóides e revistas roqueiras, a um tempo esnobes e chulas. A imprensa neo-conservadora tende a ser grosseira (a Veja é exemplo gritante, mas vemos isso na Fox News, até na Newsweek e na Time, com seus “ele está errado”) e, com isso, adotou algo do linguajar desses tablóides. Mas vê-se que mesmo aí há exigência e cuidado quando se trata de crítica de cinema: alguém pode imaginar Isabela Boscov escrevendo absurdos como os que o Martins da música pop escreve? Alguma matéria sobre cinema é, de longe, irresponsável, errada, cínica, grotesca como a que li em Veja sobre supostos seguidores do Los Hermanos? Não. A Boscov mostra que estuda, que faz o dever de casa. Martins põe que Zé Miguel é “pior do que Moby“. Mas eu, eu mesmo, não sou vítima desses malucos. Recebo mais elogios do que mereço. Claro, os ódios contra mim são espalhafatosos. As mesmas razão que me protegem contra uma desqualificação unânime serve para deixar meus detratores espumando: minhas relações decisivas com o rock, que me levam a ter um certo protagonismo na história do gênero no país e, ao mesmo tempo, minha independência de - e mesmo relativa desatençao a - ele. Quando a Ilustrada abriu o gosto para uma perspectiva internacional e anti-provinciana, eu era do cânone - enquanto Bethânia, Chico e Milton, por exemplo, estavam no Index. Chiei muito contra isso. Milton, naquela época, era o músico brasileiro com maior prestígio internacional. Bethânia e Chico eram as duas mais sólidas reputações do mundo da música no Brasil. Era desproporcional um caderno de cultura e entretenimento reservar-lhes espaço pequeno e palavras de leve desprezo. Roqueiros dos 80 mais Gil, Caetano e Gal - fora, é claro, toda a inglesada e alguns americanos - me parecia programa estreito. Disse isso a Marcos Augusto e a Matinas. Ouvi pessoas próximas a mim dizerem, em tom de piada violenta, que não-sei-quem ou não-sei-quem deveriam ser despedidos. Sempre desmereci essas piadas, mesmo como piadas. Mas já li até na Caros Amigos, contado por um jornalista que está em plena e brilhante atividade, que destruí a carreira de jovem e promissor repórter por ele ter se negado a namorar comigo (eu teria recusado dar-lhe entrevista em Londres por ele não se entregar a mim - quando, na verdade, a entrevista foi feita, publicada e tudo, sem que ninguém tenha forçado ninguém a fazer nada com ninguém). Nessa mesma entrevista foi lançada a expressão “máfia do dendê” para caraterizar-nos a mim e a Gil - a aos baianos em geral - como manipuladores dos meios de comunicação. Unanimidade? Nunca, em nenhum período da minha vida, experimentei tal status. Não estou preocupado com isso: nem a desejo nem a temo, a unanimidade. E, pensando bem, até Machado de Assis recebe reiteradas estocadas (às vezes bem violentas e injustas) de Millor Fernandes. Colombo e Jotabê, no entanto, não parece que miravam em mim. Miravam institivamente no ambiente celebratório que cerca os eventos dos 50 anos da bossa nova. E ainda por cima com antipatia pela evidente ligação com o Rio que esses eventos fatalmente teriam. Houve um descompasso suspeito, sintomático, que foi flagrado por Bárbara Gância, colega e amiga dos dois críticos. Eu não me sinto impedido de me manifestar (com o desleixo que o assunto merece, mas não sem o esforço de precisão que a luta contra as consequências nefastas desses gestos exige). Finalmente, só tinha lido o trecho do Jotabê que Robson citara - e tinha achado forte (embora não me escapasse a falsidade da visão de meus poderes de cortador de cabeças). Fui ler hoje o texto inteiro. Achei bem menos forte do que o trecho fazia esperar. Mas o português está melhor (será que há um antropólogo copidescando o lance dele?). Hermano aqui só conserta coisas como Pasquali, Zizec… Aquele maravilhoso ato falho de, contando que trocara um “s” por um “z” num texto criticando o português (e a ética) do Xexéo, eu ter escrito “veses” ele deixou. E o “trexo” foi só uma vez, num texto que tinha a palavra grafada corretamente várias outras. Mas já confessei que me atrapalho em ortografia. F. Scott Fitzgerald dizem que era bem pior. E ninguém escreveu nada como “O Grande Gatsby”. Mas num blog, escrito nas migalhas das madrugadas, “typos” abundam. (”Typos”, para quem não sabe, pronuncia-se “táipôs”, com tônica na primeira sílaba, e é expressão inglesa para dizer “erro de digitação” ou “troca de uma letra por outra na gráfica”).

Chega desse papo. Como crítico, adoro os versos que chegam nos orgasmos mútiplos em “Homem“. E os de “Lapa”, então, com Lula e FH, nem vou falar. Mas hoje gravei violão e voz em “Lobão tem razão“. Ficou “pronta” pela primeira vez. Ia gravar mais, mas as relações da lendária mesa (que também foi onde se gravou todo o “Clube da Esquina“) com a outra mesa maior, e dessas com Moreno e Daniel, não foram harmônicas: eles perderam horas com os técnicos do estúdio AR tentando desvendar o mistério de um problema que pintou. Amanhã ouvimos como ficou gravada hoje e, a depender do que achemos do resultado, gravamos de novo. E, com fé em Billy Wilder, gravamos outras duas. Estou com pressa? Kind of. Aliás, falando em inglês, eu queria responder a um americano que escreveu duas vezes faz tempo: acho que vai ser legal um post bem curtinho em inglês. Mas será que eu sei escrever posts bem curtinhos?

Comecei com vergonha de tocar volão. Depois relaxei mais. Daí fui cantar e perdi todo o entusiasmo com o disco. Me achei sem graça, chato, com essa trava que aparece no estúdio (em show isso é bem melhor). Mas depois de cantar umas cinco vezes a canção toda (até para Daniel e Moreno chegarem à captação de som que queriam) comecei a me animar com as possibilidades. E terminei gostando de algo ali. E voltou à toda meu entusiasmo pelo disco.

A escolha da primeira música a ser gravada obedeceu a um critério apenas prático: era a primeira música que estava na fita em que só tem uma versão de cada arranjo e, portanto, não precisa de Daniel fazer reduções complicadas nem de nós todos elegermos qual das versões se presta mais à adição do violão e do canto.


segunda-feira, 15 de setembro de 2008

Morre David Foster Wallace

Published: September 14, 2008

David Foster Wallace, whose prodigiously observant, exuberantly plotted, grammatically and etymologically challenging, philosophically probing and culturally hyper-contemporary novels, stories and essays made him an heir to modern virtuosos like Thomas Pynchon and Don DeLillo, an experimental contemporary of William T. Vollmann, Mark Leyner and Nicholson Baker and a clear influence on younger tour-de-force stylists like Dave Eggers and Jonathan Safran Foer, died on Friday at his home in Claremont, Calif. He was 46.

Skip to next paragraph
Suzy Allman for The New York Times

David Foster Wallace at a Manhattan bookstore in 2006.

Mr. Wallace was an apparent suicide. A spokeswoman for the Claremont police said Mr. Wallace’s wife, Karen Green, returned home to find that her husband had hanged himself. Mr. Wallace’s father, James Donald Wallace, said in an interview on Sunday that his son had been severely depressed for a number of months.

A versatile writer of seemingly bottomless energy, Mr. Wallace was a maximalist, exhibiting in his work a huge, even manic curiosity — about the physical world, about the much larger universe of human feelings and about the complexity of living in America at the end of the 20th century. He wrote long books, complete with reflective and often hilariously self-conscious footnotes, and he wrote long sentences, with the playfulness of a master punctuater and the inventiveness of a genius grammarian. Critics often noted that he was not only an experimenter and a showoff, but also a God-fearing moralist with a fierce honesty in confronting the existence of contradiction.

“David Foster Wallace can do practically anything if he puts his mind to it,” Michiko Kakutani, chief book critic of The New York Times, who was not a consistent praiser of Mr. Wallace’s work, wrote in 2006. “He can do sad, funny, silly, heartbreaking and absurd with equal ease; he can even do them all at once.”

Mr. Wallace, who had taught creative writing at Pomona College in Southern California since 2001 and before that had taught at Illinois State University, came to prominence in 1986 with a broadly comic first novel, “The Broom of the System” (Viking), published when he was just 24. It used the narrative frame of a young woman’s search for identity to draw a loopy portrait of America on a comic and dangerous spiral into the Disneyesque confusion of reality and artifice.

Mr. Wallace was best known for his mammoth 1996 novel, “Infinite Jest” (Little, Brown), a 1,079-page monster that perceives American society as self-obsessed, pleasure-obsessed and entertainment-obsessed. (The president, Johnny Gentle, is a former singer.) The title refers to an elusive film that terrorists are trying to get their hands on because to watch it is to be debilitated, even killed, or so it’s said, by enjoyment. The main characters are a stressed-out tennis prodigy and a former thief and drug addict, and they give rise to harrowing passages about panic attacks and detox freak-outs. The book attracted a cult of fans (and critics too) for its subversive writing, which was by turns hallucinogenically stream of consciousness, jubilantly anecdotal, winkingly sardonic and self-consciously literary. The following year Mr. Wallace received a MacArthur Foundation grant, the so-called genius award.

In contrast to the lively spirit of his writing, Mr. Wallace was a temperamentally unassuming man, long-haired, unhappy in front of a camera, consumed with his work and its worth, perpetually at odds with himself. Journalists who interviewed him invariably commented on his discomfort with celebrity and his self-questioning. And those who knew him best concurred that Mr. Wallace was a titanically gifted writer with an equally troubled soul.

“He was a huge talent, our strongest rhetorical writer,” Jonathan Franzen, a friend of Mr. Wallace and the author of “The Corrections,” said in an interview on Sunday, adding later, “He was also as sweet a person as I’ve ever known and as tormented a person as I’ve ever known.”

Mr. Wallace was born in Ithaca, N.Y., where his father was a graduate student in philosophy. When David was 6 months old, his father got a job at the University of Illinois, and the family moved to Champaign, Ill., where David became a locally prominent junior tennis player. At Amherst College, he studied philosophy and English, graduating summa cum laude in 1985. It was also at Amherst, said his mother, Sally Foster Wallace, an English teacher who specialized in grammar, that he began to write. One of his two senior theses became “The Broom of the System”; the other was about Aristotle and whether statements about the future can be true.

Mr. Wallace received a master’s degree in fine arts from the University of Arizona in 1987 and began sending out his short stories, many of them collected in the volumes “Girl With Curious Hair,” “Brief Interviews With Hideous Men” and “Oblivion.” He also wrote essays and reported pieces on an astonishing array of topics, from lobsters to Roger Federer, the pornography industry to John McCain, collected in several volumes, the latest being “Consider the Lobster and Other Essays” (Little, Brown, 2006).

In addition to his wife, whom he married in 2004, and his parents, who live in Urbana, Ill., Mr. Wallace is survived by a sister, Amy Wallace Havens of Tucson.

His father said Sunday that Mr. Wallace had been taking medication for depression for 20 years and that it had allowed his son to be productive. It was something the writer didn’t discuss, though in interviews he gave a hint of his haunting angst.

In response to a question about what being an American was like for him at the end of the 20th century, he told the online magazine Salon in 1996 that there was something sad about it, but not as a reaction to the news or current events. “It’s more like a stomach-level sadness,” he said. “I see it in myself and my friends in different ways. It manifests itself as a kind of lostness.”

James Wallace said that last year his son had begun suffering side effects from the drugs and, at a doctor’s suggestion, had gone off the medication in June 2007. The depression returned, however, and no other treatment was successful. The elder Wallaces had seen their son in August, he said.

“He was being very heavily medicated,” he said. “He’d been in the hospital a couple of times over the summer and had undergone electro-convulsive therapy. Everything had been tried, and he just couldn’t stand it anymore.”

Free trial. Read the complete New York edition of The Times on computer,

quinta-feira, 11 de setembro de 2008

Machado, o Argentino

This article has been revised to reflect the following correction:

Correction: September 6, 2008
A film entry in the Listings pages on Friday about the Latinbeat 2008 survey of Latin American cinema, at the Walter Reade Theater, misidentified the nationality of the novelist Machado de Assis, whose work is the basis of two films that will be shown. He was Brazilian, not Argentine.

segunda-feira, 1 de setembro de 2008

Texto da Maureen Dowd no NYT

America’s back in the cold war and W.’s back on vacation.

Talk about your fearful symmetry.

After eight years, the president’s gut remains gullible. He’ll go out as he came in — ignoring reality; failing to foresee, prevent or even prepare for disasters; misinterpreting intelligence reports; misreading people; and handling crises in ways that makes them exponentially worse.

He has spent 469 days of his presidency kicking back at his ranch, and 450 days cavorting at Camp David. And there’s still time to mountain-bike through another historic disaster.

As Russian troops continued to manhandle parts of Georgia on Friday, President Bush chastised Russian leaders that “bullying and intimidation are not acceptable ways to conduct foreign policy in the 21st century” — and then flew off to Crawford.

His words might have carried more weight if he, Cheney and Rummy had not kicked off the 21st century with a ham-fisted display of global bullying and intimidation modeled after Sherman’s march through the other Georgia.

We knew we could count on the cheerleader in chief to be jumping around like a kid in Beijing with bikini-clad beach volleyball players while the Re-Evil Empire was sending columns of tanks into its former republic. (Georgia made the mistake of baiting the bear.)

If only W. had taken the rest of his presidency as seriously as he’s taken his sports outings.

When I interviewed him at the start of his first presidential run in 1999, he took an obvious shot and told me, “I believe the big issues are going to be China and Russia.”

But after 9/11, he let Cheney, Rummy and the neocons gull him into a destructive obsession with Iraq. While America has been bogged down and bled dry, China and Russia are plumping up. China has bought so much of America that we’d be dead Peking ducks if they pulled their investments out of our market, and Russia has transformed itself from a pauper nation to a land filled with millionaires — all through our addiction to oil.

What was so galling about watching W.’s giddy sightseeing at the Olympics was that it underscored China’s rise as a superpower and, thanks to the administration’s derelict foreign and economic policies, America’s fade-out. It’s as though China has become us and we’ve become Europe. Like Russia, China has also been showing jagged authoritarian ways and ignoring America’s preaching, including W.’s tame criticism as he flew into Beijing to revel in the spectacle of China’s ascension.

Despite his 1999 prediction that Russia and China would be key to security in the world, W. never bothered to study up on them. In 2006, at the Group of Eight summit meeting in St. Petersburg, Russia, a microphone caught some of the inane remarks of W. to the Chinese president, Hu Jintao.

“This is your neighborhood,” W. said. “It doesn’t take you long to get home. How long does it take you to get home? Eight hours? Me, too. Russia’s a big country and you’re a big country.”

President Bush and his Russian “expert” Condi have played it completely wrong with Russia from the start. W. saw a “trustworthy” soul in a razor-eyed K.G.B. agent who has never been a good guy for a single hour. Now the Bush crowd, which can do nothing about it, is blustering about how Russian aggression “must not go unanswered,” as Cheney put it. (W.’s other Russian expert, Bob Gates, was, as always, the only voice of realism, noting, “I don’t see any prospect for the use of military force by the United States in this situation.”)

The Bush administration may have a sentimental attachment to Georgia because it sent 2,000 troops to Iraq as part of the fig-leaf Coalition of the Willing, and because Poppy Bush and James Baker were close to Georgia’s first president, Eduard Shevardnadze.

But with this country’s military and moral force so depleted, the Bushies can hardly tell Russia to stop doing what they themselves did in Iraq: unilaterally invade a country against the will of the world to scare the bejesus out of some leaders in the region they didn’t like.

W. and Condi are suddenly waking up to how vicious Vladimir is. In a press conference with Condi on Friday, Mikheil Saakashvili, the president of Georgia, chided the West for enabling Russia to resume its repressive tactics.

“Unfortunately, today we are looking evil directly in the eye,” he said. “And today this evil is very strong, very nasty and very dangerous, for everybody, not only for us.”

As Michael Specter, the New Yorker writer who has written extensively about Russia, observed: “There was a brief five-year period when we could get away with treating Russia like Jamaica — that’s over. Now we have to deal with them like grown-ups who have more nuclear weapons than anybody except us.”

More Articles in Opinion » A version of this article appeared in print on August 17, 2008, on page WK11 of the New York edition.

Past Coverage

* U.S. and Poland Set Missile Deal (August 15, 2008)

* Bush Sending Aid to Georgia (August 13, 2008)

* Russia Steps Up Its Push; West Faces Tough Choices (August 12, 2008)

* OLMERT TO RESIGN AFTER PARTY VOTE THIS SEPTEMBER (July 31, 2008)

quarta-feira, 20 de agosto de 2008

Russia Never Wanted a War

Readers' Comments

"The proximate cause of all of this was U.S. adventurism in Georgia."
Mark Morss, Columbus, Ohio

THE acute phase of the crisis provoked by the Georgian forces’ assault on Tskhinvali, the capital of South Ossetia, is now behind us. But how can one erase from memory the horrifying scenes of the nighttime rocket attack on a peaceful town, the razing of entire city blocks, the deaths of people taking cover in basements, the destruction of ancient monuments and ancestral graves?

Russia did not want this crisis. The Russian leadership is in a strong enough position domestically; it did not need a little victorious war. Russia was dragged into the fray by the recklessness of the Georgian president, Mikheil Saakashvili. He would not have dared to attack without outside support. Once he did, Russia could not afford inaction.

The decision by the Russian president, Dmitri Medvedev, to now cease hostilities was the right move by a responsible leader. The Russian president acted calmly, confidently and firmly. Anyone who expected confusion in Moscow was disappointed.

The planners of this campaign clearly wanted to make sure that, whatever the outcome, Russia would be blamed for worsening the situation. The West then mounted a propaganda attack against Russia, with the American news media leading the way.

The news coverage has been far from fair and balanced, especially during the first days of the crisis. Tskhinvali was in smoking ruins and thousands of people were fleeing — before any Russian troops arrived. Yet Russia was already being accused of aggression; news reports were often an embarrassing recitation of the Georgian leader’s deceptive statements.

It is still not quite clear whether the West was aware of Mr. Saakashvili’s plans to invade South Ossetia, and this is a serious matter. What is clear is that Western assistance in training Georgian troops and shipping large supplies of arms had been pushing the region toward war rather than peace.

If this military misadventure was a surprise for the Georgian leader’s foreign patrons, so much the worse. It looks like a classic wag-the-dog story.

Mr. Saakashvili had been lavished with praise for being a staunch American ally and a real democrat — and for helping out in Iraq. Now America’s friend has wrought disorder, and all of us — the Europeans and, most important, the region’s innocent civilians — must pick up the pieces.

Those who rush to judgment on what’s happening in the Caucasus, or those who seek influence there, should first have at least some idea of this region’s complexities. The Ossetians live both in Georgia and in Russia. The region is a patchwork of ethnic groups living in close proximity. Therefore, all talk of “this is our land,” “we are liberating our land,” is meaningless. We must think about the people who live on the land.

The problems of the Caucasus region cannot be solved by force. That has been tried more than once in the past two decades, and it has always boomeranged.

What is needed is a legally binding agreement not to use force. Mr. Saakashvili has repeatedly refused to sign such an agreement, for reasons that have now become abundantly clear.

The West would be wise to help achieve such an agreement now. If, instead, it chooses to blame Russia and re-arm Georgia, as American officials are suggesting, a new crisis will be inevitable. In that case, expect the worst.

In recent days, Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice and President Bush have been promising to isolate Russia. Some American politicians have threatened to expel it from the Group of 8 industrialized nations, to abolish the NATO-Russia Council and to keep Russia out of the World Trade Organization.

These are empty threats. For some time now, Russians have been wondering: If our opinion counts for nothing in those institutions, do we really need them? Just to sit at the nicely set dinner table and listen to lectures?

Indeed, Russia has long been told to simply accept the facts. Here’s the independence of Kosovo for you. Here’s the abrogation of the Antiballistic Missile Treaty, and the American decision to place missile defenses in neighboring countries. Here’s the unending expansion of NATO. All of these moves have been set against the backdrop of sweet talk about partnership. Why would anyone put up with such a charade?

There is much talk now in the United States about rethinking relations with Russia. One thing that should definitely be rethought: the habit of talking to Russia in a condescending way, without regard for its positions and interests.

Our two countries could develop a serious agenda for genuine, rather than token, cooperation. Many Americans, as well as Russians, understand the need for this. But is the same true of the political leaders?

A bipartisan commission led by Senator Chuck Hagel and former Senator Gary Hart has recently been established at Harvard to report on American-Russian relations to Congress and the next president. It includes serious people, and, judging by the commission’s early statements, its members understand the importance of Russia and the importance of constructive bilateral relations.

But the members of this commission should be careful. Their mandate is to present “policy recommendations for a new administration to advance America’s national interests in relations with Russia.” If that alone is the goal, then I doubt that much good will come out of it. If, however, the commission is ready to also consider the interests of the other side and of common security, it may actually help rebuild trust between Russia and the United States and allow them to start doing useful work together.

Mikhail Gorbachev is the former president of the Soviet Union. This article was translated by Pavel Palazhchenko from the Russian.

Past Coverage

quarta-feira, 23 de janeiro de 2008

Blog de Stanley Fish

http://fish.blogs.nytimes.com/

Blog do crítico literário Stanley Fish no New York Times.