quinta-feira, 30 de abril de 2026

Série - Coldwater

 




The Spectator - Europe is finally standing up to Trump

 

(personal underlines)

Europe is finally standing up to Trump

Donald Trump (photo: Getty)

The longer the war in Iran churns on, the more hot-tempered and unhinged President Trump becomes. On Tuesday, Trump was at it again, lambasting Washington’s European allies on Truth Social for sitting on their hands and refusing to lift a finger to reopen the Strait of Hormuz, the Persian Gulf chokepoint through which around 20 per cent of the world’s crude oil passes. Calling out the United Kingdom specifically, Trump went on to scold the allies much as a parent would tell a lazy 28 year-old to get out of the house. ‘You’ll have to start learning how to fight for yourself, the USA won’t be there to help you anymore, just like you weren’t there for us,’ Trump wrote. The president pressed the issue during a short interview with his favourite tabloid: ‘let the countries that are using the strait, let them go and open it.’

In normal times, European leaders would scramble like headless chickens, dial each other up in a full-blown panic and brainstorm about how to climb the American commander-in-chief down from the ledge. When Trump barks, Europe usually answers the call to mollify him. Recall that last year, Keir Starmer and Italian premier Giorgia Meloni were instrumental in bringing Trump and Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy back into a functional relationship. Last summer, amidst a blow-up between Trump and Nato over defence spending, the organisation’s secretary general, Mark Rutte, found a way to grease the skids via a substantial increase in spending over the next decade. The announcement was geared toward giving Trump a win and saving the annual Nato summit from disaster.

The war in Iran, however, has forced Europe to grow a spine. European leaders are no longer interested in dropping to their knees and grovelling to stay on Trump’s good side. Even Starmer, whose wimpishness is the stuff of Saturday Night Live legend, is increasingly perturbed by Trump’s decision-making, the lack of consultation and the White House’s incessant demands for London to become more involved militarily. The decision to wage a preventative war on Iran, it seems, is perceived as so outlandish, ill thought out and stupid that even Washington’s traditional lackeys are staying away from it.

The evidence for the above conclusion is stark and growing by the day. On Monday, Spain, a country Trump has had longstanding grievances with over everything from trade to defence spending, not only shut its airspace for US military aircraft participating in the war but also prohibited the US from using jointly operated bases on Spanish territory for any activity connected to the conflict. Spanish Prime Minister Pedro Sánchez, whose approval ratings dipped earlier in the year, has since transitioned into one Europe’s leading statesmen and the chief antagonist to Trump’s America First policies. Sánchez may strongly oppose Trump’s Iran policy, but the war itself and Madrid’s reaction to it has nevertheless elevated his political stature.

France, too, is becoming more emboldened. Trump’s love-hate relationship with French President Emmanuel Macron is currently in the hate phase. Trump himself blamed Paris for refusing to allow US military planes carrying weapons to fly through French airspace, although there was no independent French confirmation on the matter. However, French sources have confirmed that Israeli aircraft with US weapons were denied access rights. To the Americans, the move is likely a distinction without a difference and is yet another demonstration of Europe’s ungrateful attitude. To the French, it’s a point of principle; although Macron has no love for Iran, he called the US and Israeli-initiated war ‘outside of international law,’ which is a polite way of labelling it an illegal act of aggression.  

Italy, one of the more Trump-friendly states in Europe, isn’t exactly thrilled with the conflict either. This week, the Italians didn’t allow the US military to land aircraft at the Sigonella naval base in Sicily. Although the Italian government chalked this up to a bureaucratic slip-up – the Trump administration, Rome argued, needed permission from Italian lawmakers to land the plane per established protocols but put in the request too late – it doesn’t take a political genius to recognise that the war in Iran is incredibly unpopular amongst the Italian public. Meloni, who like Nato Secretary General Mark Rutte is often referred to as a Trump whisperer of sorts, is now feeling the negative political aftershocks produced by her close relationship with a president that most Italians despise. 

Even Poland, the most pro-US state in the European Union, is turning down US requests. Asked by the Trump administration to donate air defence systems to the Middle East, Warsaw shrugged it off. ‘Our Patriot batteries and their armaments are used to protect Polish airspace and Nato’s eastern flank,’ Polish defence minister Wladyslaw Kosiniak-Kamysz wrote on X. ‘Nothing is changing in this regard, and we have no plans to move them anywhere!’

As he typically does, Trump will self-servingly simplify all of this opposition to European passivity and entitlement. On the issue of defence spending, he’s right. But on the subject of Iran, he’s dead wrong. Bluntly put, Europe hates the war, hates how Trump is prosecuting it and wants nothing to do with it.

Observador - Vemo-nos em Valhalla, Sr. José



 (sem sublinhados pessoais...)


Vemo-nos em Valhalla, Sr. José

Aí, a médica, já com o mesmo sorriso confortante, lá explicou ao Sr. José que não se preocupasse porque, na verdade, para o caso dele, um caso onde a doença era fatal e muito dolorosa, havia “opções”

O caminho para o médico era caro e inconveniente para o Sr. José. Durante anos, com maior ou menor periodicidade, a discussão com a mulher sobre a necessidade de ir ao médico sempre fora uma constante: ela que queria ir, que tinham que ir ver o doutor, e ele a cismar que quem ia ao médico arriscava-se era a sair de lá doente. “Eles hoje em dia descobrem o que não existe”, explicava. E acrescentava: “aqui de casa até ao doutor são vinte sete quilómetros, pagar a consulta, sem contar com o almoço, mais a gasolina para a Famel, contando a ida e a vinda, são quase cem paus”.

Mas lá acabava sempre por ceder. Afinal, a mulher insistia, insistia, e voltava a insistir, pelo que mais valia gastar os cem paus do que ficar a ouvi-la durante meses, até que, por exaustão, finalmente, aceitando a derrota naquela particular questão, desistir e gastar os 100 paus na mesma. E sempre assim foi, durante anos.

A vida, ainda que dura, não era já má de todo. Tratavam os dois da horta e dos bichos, ele ganhava algum nas obras, como pedreiro, por estes dias de reformado já só como biscate, e ela nas limpezas. Desde que os filhos tinham partido rumo a outras paragens e sonhos, os dias acumulavam-se numa rotina, cansativa, é certo, mas que no aconchego da repetição, junto com sensação de dever cumprido, traziam consigo aquilo que, com modéstia, poderia ser chamado de felicidade.

Certo dia, inesperadamente, chegou a casa para o almoço e encontrou a mulher caída no chão. Trombose. Fulminante. Morta. Foi o dia mais infeliz da sua vida. E desse modo aviltante, trágico, ainda que banal, se quebrou para sempre aquela rotina particular: num enterro, simples e bonito, apesar de um dos filhos não ter conseguido aparecer. Em três dias apenas o mundo inteiro do Sr. José tinha acabado.

A adaptação à vida de viúvo não foi feliz. Aos filhos, dois, emigrados em França, apenas os via durante o mês de Agosto. Agora que tinham mulheres de outros sítios já nem os via pelo Natal. Depois, telefonar para o estrangeiro era caro e, apesar da insistência dos filhos para mandar cartas pela internet — havia um computador na junta —, aquilo era coisa que não lhe fazia jeito, mais a mais agora que não tinha mulher a insistir que sim, que tinha que ser feito. “É a vida, a gente fá-los crescer e depois eles vão à vida deles”, costumava lamentar no café, enquanto beberricava um trago de aguardente, um velho prazer que reforçou na solidão de quem, agora, já não tinha hora para chegar a casa.

Ainda assim, a rotina, manhosa e despercebida, regressou. De manhã, tomava conta da horta; à tarde, ia para o café, à noite via televisão. E, a pouco e pouco, os biscates de pedreiro desapareceram dando lugar àquele novo quotidiano. Ao serão, talvez mais desinibindo pelo medronho, deu por si a comentar o programa na direcção da cadeira onde, agora, se sentava apenas a ausência da mulher. Perdeu peso, algo que a dona do café foi notando e comentando. “Sr. José, está ficando muito magro, tem que ir ao médico”. O Sr. José ria: “arre, que se há coisa boa da viuvez é não ter que discutir mais sobre ir ao médico”. E não foi.

O tempo passou, e junto com umas dores apareceu uma tosse estranha. Depois, foi uma falta de vigor, de força mesmo, que se instalou. Escoados uns meses, a conversa nocturna com a cadeira vazia que ainda escondia debaixo de si o cesto com os novelos de lã que ficaram por ser tricotados em camisolas ou cachecóis, passou a ser sobre o médico: “já te disse que não preciso de ir ao doutor, porra”, gritou ele, para o vazio. Mas, ainda nesse próprio dia, quando deu por si próprio incapaz de levantar-se da sanita porque lhe faltavam as forças nas pernas, lá acabou por ceder: “até depois de morta me ganhas a discussão, mulher”, lamentou. Mas assumiu: “amanhã vou ao médico”.

Nessa manhã seguinte, a Famel custou a pegar. Desde que a carrinha da Junta de Freguesia lhe tinha passado a trazer as compras a casa que não se lembrava da última vez que saíra de mota de casa. Ao fim de meia hora, por entre baforadas de monóxido de carbono que rapidamente se esfumava no frio da manhã, lá arrancou para fazer os vinte sete quilómetros até à vila. Em chegado ao centro de saúde, viu que a coisa estava diferente. As portas fechadas, as persianas do segundo andar corridas e apenas um enorme cartaz de propaganda governamental à porta onde se lia que o governo trabalhava incansavelmente pelo bem-estar dele, José. Bateu à porta. Nada. Deu a volta ao edifício para ver se a porta de entrada tinha mudado de sítio. Zero. Espreitou por uma janela lateral para ver se havia alguém dentro do centro de saúde. Nicles.

Foi uma senhora que, de passagem, ao ver o velho desorientado, lhe gritou: “ó senhor, o centro de saúde fechou”. E, logo de seguida, explicou: “agora tem que ir ao novo centro lá na cidade, aqui já não está ninguém”. O Sr. José agradeceu, mas entristecido: o desvio significava mais cerca de trinta quilómetros. E, de regresso para casa, mesmo com um atalho por terra batida que conhecia desde os tempos de juventude em que tinha andado na apanha da cortiça por aquelas herdades ali da zona, eram mais uns quarenta. Não punha as botas em casa tão cedo.

Não obstante, decidiu-se a seguir. Já tinha investido o suficiente para não querer chegar a casa de mãos a abanar. Lá foi. Chegado ao novo centro de saúde, reparou que o cartaz de propaganda governamental era diferente do outro que vira na vila. Neste, uma fotografia do chefe do governo sorria enquanto explicava que a sua maior preocupação era o bem-estar dele, José. “Muito obrigado, Sr. Dr.”, murmurou enquanto transpunha as portas automáticas do centro de saúde.

Infelizmente não viu o médico. Foi-lhe explicado que tinha que ter marcado consulta, que o caso não era urgente, o melhor teria sido nem lá ir e que se queria ser visto rapidamente o ideal seria meter o processo de agendamento pela internet. “Ah, isso da internet é que é uma maravilha, os meus filhos também têm disso, mas eu…”. Tinha que ser pelo procedimento normal, interrompeu a recepcionista, pouco interessada, enquanto lhe passava um molho de papeis. Passados quarenta e cinco minutos, o Sr. José lá devolveu o requerimento, recebeu de volta uma folha carimbada e, sem sorrisos, foi informado de que a consulta seria dali a seis meses.

Bom, de consciência aliviada, apenas sobrava esperar. Depois, os meses passaram como quem não dá por eles. E tanto assim foi que o Sr. José já nem se lembrava da consulta até que, por acaso, a dona do café, uma moça mais nova de olho muito vivo e a quem pouco escapava, lhe perguntou uns dias antes se a consulta não estaria para breve. O Sr. José lá foi vasculhar os papéis que tinha no velho louceiro à entrada de casa e viu que sim, então não era que era mesmo verdade, a consulta era mesmo por aqueles dias. Nessa noite, apesar de grato à dona do café, o Sr. José lamentou a falta da mulher. Virando-se para a cadeira vazia, comentou: “se ainda tivesses aí o rabo sentado já tinha ido ao médico há mais de um ano atrás.”

No dia seguinte, lá foi directo ao destino certo. A consulta foi rápida, e não requereu estetoscópio, nem que tirasse a camisa: ela perguntava coisas, ele respondia, ela teclava no computador. Menos mal. Depois, a doutora, ainda novita, teclou mais umas coisas, imprimiu uma papeis, passou-lhos, e explicou que era para marcar uns exames para marcar exames. À saída, ficou a saber que tinha que lá voltar duas vezes nos próximos seis meses, uma vez para um raio X, outra vez para uma outra coisa que ele não percebeu o que era.

Desta vez, para não se esquecer, colou os papeis dos exames na parede da sala, ao lado do louceiro. E não se esqueceu. Cada um a seu tempo, sempre à hora certa, lá fez os dois exames. No final do segundo, o tal que parecia toque ou taque, sabia içá ele o que era, pode marcar de novo consulta e, passados três meses, lá foi ver a médica de novo. Aí, quando entrou no consultório percebeu que a médica era diferente. Esta, muito simpática, recebeu-o com muita empatia e muito entusiasmo. “Sr. José, está com muito boa cara”, disse ela logo. Ele gostou muito da senhora e sorriu, apesar de não se sentir muito bem. “Sempre tive boa cara”, justificou ele. “É um Don Juan”, exclamou a médica. E ele corou sem perceber porquê, enquanto agarrava a bengala que, entretanto, tinha começado a usar.

Depois, a consulta começou. A médica desde logo a dizer que ele já lá deveria ter ido muito antes, e ele dizia que sim, que devia ter ouvido mais a mulher, e ela acrescentava que estas coisas são muito chatas, que os exames eram muito contundentes, e ele dizia que sim com a cabeça baixa sem perceber o que ‘contundente’ significava. A médica, no entanto, não parava, continuando a dizer, se bem que no mesmo tom jovial e optimista, que o que ele tinha era um cancro. Ora, essa palavra já conhecia ele, pelo que se quedou logo o Sr. José em choque: “Então e agora”, perguntou ele, ao que a médica, estalando a língua e, tirando o sorriso, olhando muito séria para frente, respondeu que já não achava que valia a pena operar. “Isto já está muito avançado”, decretou.

Silêncio. Depois, continuou ela, ele tinha que ter atenção que as listas no IPO são muito grandes, e perguntava se o Sr. José tinha vagar de ir todas as semanas a Lisboa, se tinha família lá para pernoitar, ou como é que queria fazer. Ele, ainda abananado, lá lhe murmurou que não, que não tinha família em Lisboa, que não tinha carro e que não sabia o que haveria de fazer. Novo silêncio.

Finalmente, o Sr. José perguntou se aquilo era coisa que matasse, e se matava como é que ia ser. A médica logo lhe explicou que sim, que aquilo o ia matar, que ia ser uma coisa muito lenta, que ia doer muito, muita tosse, muito sangue, em particular os comprimidos que lhe iam receitar davam muitas dores, que eram químicos que tinha muitas sequelas, matava as células más, mas também as boas, enfim, aquilo era uma desgraça anunciada — além de que ia custar uma fortuna.

Aí, a médica, já com o mesmo sorriso confortante que desde logo o tinha seduzido, lá explicou ao Sr. José que não se preocupasse porque, na verdade, para o caso dele, um caso onde a doença era fatal e muito dolorosa, havia “opções”. O Sr. José logo se interessou em conhecer quais eram. E a médica lá lhe explicou que era uma coisa nova, que agora as pessoas já não tinham que sofrer, que era uma forma digna de acabar uma vida de trabalho, um tratamento especial que antecipava o fim inevitável, mas sem ter que passar pelo sofrimento do tratamento tradicional, bárbaro, indigno, que até aí as pessoas, coitadas, se tinham sujeitado. Se o Sr. José quisesse até tinha ali aquele panfleto e, retirando de um molho pousado em cima da secretária, entregou-lhe um tríptico de papel com um sénior sorridente na capa onde se lia “Eutanásia: Um Final Feliz Para Uma Vida Feliz”.

“Então”, perguntou o Sr. José enquanto torcia nervosamente o boné nas mãos, “este tratamento novo não é bem um tratamento, é assim a modos que…”, e baixando a voz, “… matar um tipo para não sofrer, não é verdade?”. E logo a médica lhe explicou que não, que não era nada disso, que era muito diferente, porque ali era uma coisa feita no interesse das pessoas, que era pelo melhor, muito mais que apenas para não sofrer, que não era desistir como nos suicídios, mas sim abraçar a qualidade de vida que terminar a vida antes de ter que sofrer com a doença garantia.

Depois, claro, a poupança da coisa: tempo, dinheiro, sofrimento, tudo isso era qualidade de vida, explicava ela enquanto ia apontando com o bico da caneta no panfleto a quantidade de pontos que estavam escritos debaixo do subtítulo ‘Vantagens do Procedimento’. E, guardando o panfleto, rematou: “viver bem até ao último dia, isso é que é uma vida feliz”.

Ao Sr. José nunca lhe tinha ocorrido matar-se. Tinha tido um tio que se enforcara e dois vizinhos que se despacharam a tiro de caçadeira. Nunca lhe tinha parecido bem tal coisa: “a vida é para ser vivida”, sempre dissera ele à sua mulher. No entanto, pensou ele, de facto havia que reconhecer que o tempo dele já tinha acabado: os filhos estavam criados, a mulher estava morta, estava sempre sozinho e a perspectiva de penar solitariamente em casa durante meses com dores excruciantes não era propriamente animadora. Por fim, lá admitiu que a ideia se calhar não era má. A médica disse-lhe que fosse para casa, que lesse o panfleto, que pensasse no assunto e, depois, se quisesse, que metesse o requerimento na recepção. E entregou-lhe um molho de folhas onde se lia o título “REQUERIMENTO PARA EUTANÁSIA”.

O Sr. José despediu-se, mas, sem aviso, logo tratou de preencher os papéis: respondeu que era homem, que era de sua livre vontade, que desejava a coisa, meteu o nome completo, a morada, o número fiscal e o número do Cartão do Cidadão. Até preencheu uma secção que não era obrigatória com cruzes: que tinha conhecido o procedimento no centro de saúde, que não se importava de ser contactado para publicidade, que sim, que tinha religião e que era a católica — e aí enganou-se e pôs a cruz na opção que dizia ‘nórdica’, que ficava mesmo debaixo da ‘católica’, mas do erro não se apercebeu. Escreveu a morada do filho mais velho que tinha na carteira como recipiente das suas coisas e que deveria ser notificado após o procedimento. Uma hora depois, a recepcionista recebeu os ditos, carimbou-os e meteu-os no topo de uma pilha que tinha no extremo esquerdo da bancada, passando-lhe o recibo: “são trinta euros de taxa, se faz favor”.

Três semanas depois, chegou o dia. O Sr. José saiu de casa pela última vez após passar ao de leve com as mãos pela cadeira vazia da mulher que lhe tinha feito companhia nos últimos dois anos. “Hoje, vou ter contigo”, murmurou. Passou ao largo do café e acenou à dona enquanto lhe gritou um ‘até logo’, e fez-se à estrada.

Chegado ao hospital, foi recebido com entusiasmo e sentado numa sala de espera novinha em folha, em frente a uma janela que dava para um grande jardim, tendo lhe sido dado um copo de espumante para a mão. Não gostou, mas, para não fazer desfeita, bebeu até ao fim. Na televisão, ligada, discutia-se futebol numa diatribe que entrava a cem e saía a duzentos nos ouvidos do Sr. José. Passados uns minutos, outro cliente chegou. Cumprimentaram-se. E depois, mais outro, e outra, e mais outro ainda. Todos se iam olhando em silêncio, enquanto na televisão a diatribe continuava, agora era um comentador que berrava com outro sobre os eventos de um jogo que tinha acontecido na véspera.

Passada cerca de uma hora, entrou um médico que segurava vários processos na mão.  Começou a ler dos cabeçalhos e, à medida que ouviam os seus nomes, as pessoas que ali estavam iam acenando, ou levantando a mão, sendo encaminhados para uma porta. O Sr. José, apesar de ter sido o primeiro a chegar, foi o último a ser chamado.

Passou então para um vestiário onde, primeiro, se despiu e, depois, vestiu uma bata branca que um enfermeiro simpático lhe tinha dado. Os seus pertences, onde se incluía a carteira e o boné, foram enfiados num saco de plástico e, de acordo com o enfermeiro, seriam enviados por correio para casa dos familiares que tivesse indicado no requerimento. Quanta eficiência, pensou o Sr. José. Aliás, a ele fez-lhe apenas confusão estar em público sem o boné, mas, pensou, também não seria por muito tempo.

Juntou-se, então, de novo ao grupo numa sala espaçosa cheia de camas. Cada um tomou a cama que lhe foi indicada pelo enfermeiro apenas para que, passados uns minutos, um outro enfermeiro tivesse tempo de colocar o cateter no braço de cada um. O silêncio imperava. Após o processo estar concluído — apesar de ter sido difícil ter colocado o cateter no Sr. José, o mais velho da sala —, o médico regressou. Aí, o silêncio quebrou-se quando o médico entregou um molho de kits médicos com agulhas e pediu ao enfermeiro que desse início ao processo. “Felicidades a todos”, disse o médico. Virando-se para o auxiliar, “Sr. Enfermeiro, não se atrase que ainda temos mais um procedimento antes de eu ter que sair para almoçar”, lembrou ele antes de sair da sala.

Aí, o enfermeiro, bem-mandado, estugou o passo e começou na ponta esquerda da sala: rapidamente, passava os olhos pelo processo para saber o nome da pessoa e, verificando a religião do utente, escolhia a apropriada última palavra que daria ao paciente — um pormenor da sua própria autoria, do qual se orgulhava e gabava publicamente no café pelo humanismo que permitia nele revelar.

E foi assim que, quando chegou a vez do Sr. José, o enfermeiro impressionou-se com o facto de a religião ser ‘nórdica’, mas, solícito, não se atemorizou. Afinal, tinha acabado de ver uma série de vikings na TV e sabia muito bem o enredo principal de tal religião. “Vemo-nos em Valhalla, Sr. José”, disse, então, o enfermeiro, com um sorriso. E, sem reparar na perplexidade do velho perante tão estranhas palavras, as últimas que ouviu e que não compreendeu, o enfermeiro carregou no êmbolo que silenciosa e eficazmente matou o Sr. José.

***

N. do A – O presente conto é uma versão revista, modificada, aumentada de um pequeno apontamento em tempos publicado no meu blog pessoal e que já não está disponível para leitura pública.


The Spectator - The perils of London: a beginner’s guide

 

(personal underlines)

The perils of London: a beginner’s guide

Angus Colwell has narrated this article for you to listen to.

An interesting new perspective on London is doing the rounds. Our capital city is being advertised as a paradise. London, it seems, is suddenly a place where every building is a Wren, where every sunset is a Turner, where every neighbourhood is Notting Hill. The sentiment has even got a name – ‘Londonmaxxing’. It’s been invented by tech accounts on X who got excited by the long queues at AI events run by Vercel earlier this month. There has also been speculation that a disgruntled-with-Trump Anthropic could move to London.

As much as I love London, like any true sceptical Londoner, I suspect bollocks. Look at the map by our resident artist J.G. Fox. Anyone considering the move should in fact be sniffer dog-aware of a multiplicity of perils. Those of us living here will already be familiar with them, but they might startle a novice.

Let’s start in King’s Cross, where the tech bros would likely be working. The number of fentanyl-zonked gentlemen outside the station may make anyone from San Francisco feel at home, but it does make a trip home from the excellent local pubs a rather ‘interesting’ experience.

To the north, there’s Camden market, where you can hardly move for 15-year-olds scoring their first bag of weed. There’s a risk, too, of encountering Britain’s remaining goths. Refuge might be found further north-west on Hampstead Heath, but don’t expect to have a quiet walk. Instead, observe the Passchendaele-like mudbaths on some terrible dates. And any excitement about seeing Dua Lipa or Taylor Swift’s ex Joe Alwyn walking around is cancelled out by the prospect of spotting Alastair Campbell in the lido.

To the east, where the bros would probably set up home, there are other dangers. Finsbury Park may have some good pubs, but it also has Jeremy Corbyn. It’s home as well to hundreds of stolen phones, nicked from the centre of town, ferried up on the Victoria line, and hidden in the back of shops.

Heading east, there’s London Fields, where the rite of passage is to smile and pretend the £13 you spent on a Dusty Knuckle focaccia sandwich was worth it. The area also threatens you with Charli XCX. A fascinating prospect awaits further south in Tower Hamlets, where Lutfur Rahman’s borough testifies to the Olde English tradition of corruption with some aplomb. You could then go west into the City, where the hiccupping stockbrokers of the 1980s have been replaced by proteinmaxxers called Miles who sleep in their gilets.

To Bloomsbury, where a run through the gauntlet of SOAS students protesting against, well, only one thing really, will get you over to Oxford Street. There, rickshaws ferry fat families of tourists around to the sound of ‘Despacito’ played at 130 decibels. The money-laundering candy shops don’t even try to hide what they’re up to.

South of there, Mayfair is risky: steer clear of 5 Hertford Street, for fear of encountering Liz Truss. In South Kensington, the French are aggressively French. Beware, too, the school trip.

As you journey south, the areas get more duplicitous: Clapham Common may look nice, but it has a fourth-year-of-Durham energy, which means that anyone living there in their thirties must be treated with extreme suspicion. There are also a lot of Australians.

Barnes is London’s prettiest area – such a lovely pond – but watch out for Gary Lineker, or even worse, the smarmy Stanley Tucci whispering in your ear that ‘Italian cooking is the simple things, done well’.

Anything else south of the river can be rejected outright. It’s just roundabouts and people shouting at each other.

So there you go. To be fair, I must admit that this doubles up as a covert operation to keep the San Francisco drips away, and stop them from importing their matcha, their therapy-speak, their rocket emojis, their veganism, their cold plunges, their polycules, their ayahuasca and ketamine macrodosing, and their weird belief that having sex with your dog is all right.

But whether it’s Rolex pinchers or £8 coffees, tech bros should, to use their language, be bullish with caution.

Download a large-scale version of the map here. You can also purchase 1 of 50 limited edition prints of the map here, each signed and numbered by the artist.

Livros - Gagner le débat face à un gauchiste

 








Cartoon - Charlie Brown

 








quarta-feira, 29 de abril de 2026

The Spectator - White port is the new G&T

 

(personal underlines)

White port is the new G&T

Spring is here and, as the garden blooms, readers might find themselves reaching for the Pink Diesel to enjoy in the sunshine. But I have another idea: white port and tonic will make you thank God for inventing Portugal and being so good as to align it with England.

The great promulgators of white port in Portugal nowadays can be found in the Symington Family Estates. In 1882, 19-year-old Andrew James Symington boarded a boat from Glasgow and headed for opportunities beyond the Clyde. On arrival in Portugal, he worked for Graham’s Port, before breaking out to do his own thing. Symington soon became one of the defining names in Portuguese wine production.

A.J., as he’s known in the family, had such success that his descendants were able to acquire Graham’s in 1970. Today, Symington Family Estates own four major port brands – Graham’s, Warre’s, Dow’s and Cockburn’s – and a smattering of smaller ones. They’re among the largest vineyard owners in the Douro Valley, and one of the last remaining British-descended families involved in producing port. Five generations on, Symingtons are still in the driving seat of the company.

Of course, people have been enjoying white port – mostly straight and usually on the rocks – for a long time. But it was only in 2019 that Graham’s launched the first ever white port blended specifically for mixing, either with tonic or as part of another cocktail. Charles Symington, the head winemaker, was challenged to produce a drink that would attract new people to appreciate the old wine, something that might be able to take on the tyranny of the spritz.

The result was Graham’s Blend No.5. Light, crisp and aromatic, it’s comprised of two main grape varieties: Malvasia Fina, bringing freshness and acidity; and Moscatel Galego, rarely used in white port production, adding fruity notes. All the grapes are hand-picked at a higher than usual altitude in the valley. Unlike sherry, which is fortified after fermentation, the fortification here happens during the cold fermentation process. The payoff is a fruitier rather than nutty drink, perfect for mixing with tonic. It’s more exotic than G&T and served with lemon and mint brings a deep sense of refreshment. The marketers would probably say at 19 per cent ABV it’s a lighter choice than gin or vodka, but I’d argue it allows you to have double the amount before asking the Cardinal Archbishop of Lima to dance.

For those seeking a slightly more traditional spring port, I’d suggest Graham’s 20-year-old Tawny: a carefully crafted blend of wines aged in oak. Through this ageing in wood, it provides notes of dried fruit, nuts and subtle spice, and the mix of older and newer wines makes for a pleasing complexity. Serve straight from the fridge on a warm day.

Here we find another nod to the innovation Graham’s has led in recent years. It transformed the aged tawny market in the early 2000s by moving its range into clear glass bottles, designed to showcase colour. The rest of the industry has followed suit, so we can better assess the contents before choosing which port to enjoy in the garden.

Yes, the angels may be whispering in your ear to go pink, but these options allow you to support a fabulous Anglo-Portuguese family still producing excellence alongside innovation. If, as Tolstoy wrote, spring is the time of plans and projects, then let us come together and also make it a time for port.

The Spectator - How the army can rediscover its fighting spirit

personal underlinings, silent reflections 

How the army can rediscover its fighting spirit

The seemingly endless debate about the hollowness of our armed forces has concentrated on size, technical capability and sustainability – never more so than in recent days when the UK’s unreadiness for war, or even to defend its own bases overseas, has been exposed. But there has been no mention of the moral component of fighting power (morale, spirit, will), which is the most important element of combat effectiveness. Napoleon is often quoted as saying that in war, ‘the moral is to the physical as three to one’, and history is littered with examples showing this to be true.

The most recent was the evaporation, within days, of the Afghan army on which the US had spent around $20 billion. It was technically very capable but it lacked a willingness to fight. Vietnam was another example.

So, when discussing the state of our own armed forces, the question must be asked whether the moral component of our fighting power is sufficiently robust or has it become as depleted as our combat supplies? There is evidence to suggest that the latter is true, and in my view the main cause of this has been the erosion of our traditional military ethos where individual needs are always subordinate to the common good.

The demands of war are clearly quite different from those of civilian life and consequently servicemen and women require very different disciplines, psychologies and training in peacetime if they are to prevail on the battlefield – even one dominated by drones. They must accept that one day they may be called upon to deliberately sacrifice their lives in pursuit of a common cause, and this requires a unique military ethos quite distinct from today’s social values where rights predominate over duty. We need to create the necessary mental and physical resilience in our service people to enable them to sustain the rigour of battle – and this requires a complex system of education, training and a sometimes harsh, but always fair, discipline.

Of course, our armed forces should reflect the society from which they come. As the Chief of the General Staff, General Sir
Roly Walker, rightly says, the army must stand out as an inclusive employer that values diversity and embraces equality of opportunity – but only to an extent. In any combat–effective force, inclusion must mean excluding the mentally and physically unfit; diversity must refer only to the multiple talents needed to improve lethality and sustainability; equality of opportunity can never mean lowering standards. Yet ‘gender fair’ physical tests at Sandhurst to accommodate women have resulted in a 20 per cent increased failure rate among officers attending the subsequent mandatory battle course.

Walker’s predecessor, General Sir Patrick Sanders, once announced that he was ‘proud to be the army’s LGBT champion and a straight ally’. By contrast, when, as Field Army Commander, I visited the mortar platoon of a famous regiment known to be populated by people from that community, the only thing the soldiers were interested in was: why was the British Army so short of training ammunition? These were very tough soldiers indeed who would have given me a very odd look if I had announced that I wished to be their champion. Times may have changed, but the demands of the battlefield have not.

The alterations to the courts martial procedure – arising from successive decisions made by the European Court of Human Rights (ECHR) – have seriously undermined the integrity of the chain of command in the military and significantly reduced the powers of a commanding officer. Yet, as Brigadier Allan Mallinson recently pointed out in this magazine, regimental identity is a key element in what makes soldiers fight. Regiments are family organisations, with successive generations joining the same one, and soldiers fight primarily for their own regiment. The replacement of the army recruiting system by a civilian recruiting agency, Capita, has not only resulted in a failure to meet recruiting targets, but it has greatly weakened the close-knit nature of regiments by stuffing them with Commonwealth soldiers who come from very different backgrounds. My own regiment, the Coldstream Guards, which last year celebrated its 375th anniversary, is a case in point. Non-UK soldiers now amount to 25 per cent.

Elsewhere, the intrusion of complicated health and safety rules into training is producing a generation of risk-averse service people who are usually required to produce a mass of paperwork before any military activity. Prior to departing for an operational deployment to Iraq, an officer had to produce a lengthy health and safety risk assessment. But as Lord Esher commented in 1904 after the failures of the British Army in the Boer war: ‘The natural results of an inordinately centralised system have been the destruction of initiative throughout the army… and minds brought up to attend to a minutia of administrative detail can scarcely be expected to take bold decision in war.’

Not long ago, I asked a student at the Joint Services Staff College how they debated diversity, equity and inclusion, and was told that it was forbidden to question MoD policy on such matters and that if anyone did, their career would be ended. If this is true, then I fear for the future of our armed forces and this country. It was only because people in the 1920s questioned the supremacy of the horse on the battlefield and argued in favour of tanks and aircraft that Britain was able to defeat Germany in the second world war.

The ways to put the fighting spirit back into our armed forces aren’t hard to identify: derogate from the ECHR, bring back military summary jurisdiction and recalibrate courts martial, put recruiting back into the hands of regimental recruiting officers, make safety the function of minor tactics where it belongs, and bring back single service Staff Colleges where open debate is encouraged. And always remember Major Birdie Martin,
who was ignored when he wrote a paper in 1973 saying that the battlefield one day would be dominated by small, remotely controlled planes carrying cameras and bombs.

General Sir Michael Rose is former Director of Special Forces and Adjutant General.

Cartoon - Jim Unger

 













Almoços - CatoldUniv

 

Com Jorge Orestes, Luis Miranda e Mário Guerra em 14 de Abril no Fragateiro



The Spectator - Trump has underestimated the Pope

 

(personal underlines)

Trump has underestimated the Pope

Donald Trump’s latest clash with the Catholic Church stunned even the most hardened veterans of culture-war Twitter. According to the President of the United States, the Chicago-born Pope Leo XIV, the conspicuously holy spiritual leader of 1.3 billion people, is ‘WEAK on crime and terrible on foreign policy’. He also claimed that ‘if I wasn’t in the White House, Leo wouldn’t be in the Vatican’.

For commentators accustomed to the fog of modern diplomatic platitudes, such trash-talk was the equivalent of a Holy Roman Emperor hurling insults at a medieval pontiff. In the year 963, for example, the Emperor Otto I accused Pope John XII of fornicating with his own niece, ‘making the sacred palace a whorehouse’ while he drunkenly murdered his enemies and consecrated a ten-year-old bishop.

Trump’s rhetoric may have been mild in comparison, but the fact remains that not once in the 250-year history of the United States has a Commander in Chief launched a personal attack on the Supreme Pontiff.

Trump didn’t stop there. Less than an hour after eviscerating Leo, he posted an AI-generated image of himself dressed like Jesus, healing a sick person with his messianic touch, the Stars and Stripes billowing, onlookers gazing adoringly, American eagles and planes flying overhead. It was as if the President, not content with outraging Catholics by lashing out at the Vicar of Christ, was also determined to alienate Protestants with a blast of outright blasphemy.

All this just months away from midterm elections that no one expects to be a GOP landslide, in which the President’s party must cling on to Catholic voters, among whom the Pope enjoys an 84 per cent approval rating.

The uproar was predictably deafening. ‘Not even Hitler or Mussolini attacked the Pope so directly and publicly,’ said Massimo Faggioli, an Italian church historian and former professor at the Catholic Villanova University in Pennsylvania. That wasn’t surprising: Faggioli, once close to Pope Francis, is a seasoned Trump-hater. More significantly, the president of the US Catholic bishops, Archbishop Paul Coakley, said he was ‘disheartened that the President chose to write such disparaging words about the Holy Father’ – a carefully worded statement that failed to conceal his cold fury.

Meanwhile, conservative Catholics, already split by the Iran war into isolationist and interventionist camps, issued anguished denunciations. CatholicVote.org, the conservative nonprofit credited with delivering millions of votes for Trump in successive elections, declared that the image of Trump as Jesus ‘is blasphemous and we condemn it’. Its president, Kelsey Reinhardt, tweeted that: ‘President Trump’s post insulting Pope Leo crossed again a line of decorum that plays an important part in diplomacy and sets the temperature for interactions between the two. Calls for an apology are well founded.’ Trump refused to apologise, though he did delete the post with the image.

Yet what has become clear is that Trump’s outburst, while startling, was not out of the blue. In fact, the reaction from CatholicVote speaks volumes about the dramatic breakdown in relations between the Vatican and the White House. The organisation was co-founded by the Catholic political activist Brian Burch, its president until last year. He’s now the American ambassador to the Holy See. ‘He has been very nervous recently,’ says one insider. ‘This has put him in a really horrible position.’

It’s not just Burch, however. The events of the past week have reminded us that Catholics wield unprecedented influence in the administration of this most secular of presidents. Vice-President J.D. Vance is a passionate convert and Secretary of State Marco Rubio is a devout Mass-goer. But they are also rivals who attract support from different factions in the fractured world of conservative American Catholicism.

Last week an article in the Free Press by the Italian journalist Mattia Ferraresi broke the story of a heated closed-door meeting between Pentagon officials and the papal nuncio to the United States, Cardinal Christophe Pierre. Details were sparse, but US sources described ‘frank exchanges’ over American foreign policy and the Vatican’s perceived meddling. Democrats immediately spun it into conspiracy theories about the Pentagon threatening military action against the Holy See. No such threat was made, of course. But Vatican diplomats are telling colleagues in Rome that Pentagon officials lost their temper with Pierre.

According to one source, relations between the White House and the Holy See have been deteriorating since Leo’s election last May and took a nosedive in December when the administration updated its National Security Strategy. This unveiled the so-called ‘Donroe Doctrine’ – a new, hard-edged emphasis on the Monroe Doctrine that asserts American political and economic supremacy over the entire western hemisphere.

This is where we shouldn’t dismiss President Trump’s belief that Pope Leo was elected in order to clip his wings. The Latin American cardinals knew that Robert Prevost, for decades a missionary and then a bishop in Peru, identified as much with South as North America. ‘The political and philosophical aggressiveness towards a part of the world very dear to the new Holy Father went down very badly,’ says a source.

Paradoxically, matters were hindered, not helped, by the sophisticated Catholic orthodoxy of J.D. Vance. The Vice President has talked extensively about the inspiration he draws from St Augustine. Leo is an authority on the saint and a former head of the Augustinian order. Vance appears to have believed that he was uniquely qualified to handle the new pontificate. If so, he was soon put right. Even before Leo was elected pope he had clashed with Vance on the subject of how Augustine’s teaching applied to Christian ethics. In February last year he retweeted from his (now defunct) private X account @drprevost an article with the headline: ‘JD Vance is wrong: Jesus doesn’t ask us to rank our love for others.’

Undeterred, when the Vice President visited the Pope in May he presented him with copies of Augustine’s City of God and On Christian Doctrine – a curious gesture, all things considered. And, according to one insider with contacts within both the White House and the Vatican, the meeting with Cardinal Pierre reflected Vance’s continuing ambition to handle relations with the Holy See. That is why it was held in the Pentagon, where he wields far more influence than in the Secretariat of State.

The leak of the disastrous ‘frank exchanges’ at that meeting, followed immediately by Trump’s anti-Leo tirade, must have been excruciating for the Vice President. Worse was to come. On Monday it was Vance, not Rubio, who was wheeled out to defend the President’s criticism of the Pope. ‘I certainly think it would be best for the Vatican to stick to matters of morality, to stick to matters of, you know, what’s going on in the Catholic Church and let the President of the United States stick to defending American public policy,’ he said.

On Tuesday Vance dug the hole even deeper. Drawn into a discussion about Leo’s admittedly hard-to-interpret statement that Jesus ‘is never on the side of those who once wielded the sword and today drop bombs’, he opined that: ‘It’s very, very important for the Pope to be careful when he talks about matters of theology.’

To grasp how agonising this must have been for the Vice President, we need to understand that he belongs to the so-called ‘post-liberal’ school of Catholic thought that treats papal authority with extreme reverence. Presumably, Trump decided that it was Vance who should sweat in front of the cameras. If so, he was really twisting the knife.

Making sense of this chaos is quite a challenge. If Trump’s strategy is mysterious, so is Leo’s, even if he does express himself with infinitely greater subtlety. Why has he said so little about Iran’s slaughter of tens of thousands of its own citizens? His opposition to the Iran war, and especially Trump’s horrifying threat to wipe out a whole civilisation, enjoys overwhelming support among the world’s Catholics. But before this conflict, at a time when Trump was playing the role of peacemaker, the Vatican appeared to interpret every action by the United States in the worst possible light, reawakening memories of Pope Francis’s crude anti-Americanism.

But here we risk falling into the trap of lumping together Francis and Leo. This Pope is more theologically orthodox than his predecessor, and brighter. On Tuesday the website Catholic Culture carried a perceptive article by Peter Wolfgang, a Catholic advocate for family values, under the headline ‘Memo to Trump and the non-Catholic Right: Leo isn’t Francis’.

Wolfgang, an opponent of the Iran war, wrote that he understood some of Trump’s frustration with the Pope, and especially with his baffling decision to meet the Obama cheerleader David Axelrod – a move that is thought to have made Trump apoplectic. Combine that with intriguingly timed leaks about diplomatic spats between the Vatican and Washington, plus a big interview on CBS’s 60 Minutes (a show Trump watches) featuring three left-wing American cardinals criticising the war on Iran, and it’s not surprising that senior Republicans spy a Democratic ‘op’ to woo back Catholic voters ahead of the midterms. 

Wolfgang’s main point, however, was that ‘attacking Leo is not like attacking Francis, because conservative Catholics actually like and respect Leo. What Trump and the right assumed would play like their long-running disputes with Pope Francis instead misfired. Leo’s moral emphasis on peace, service and Gospel teaching resonates with a broad range of Catholics, including many on the right… His moral authority cuts across traditional partisan lines, which is why attacks on him are a form of political malpractice’.

In other words, Leo is more formidable than Francis, whose juvenile sniping at the United States was easy for Trump to exploit. The American Pope is completely unruffled by middle-of-the-night outbursts from the West Wing. Cynics might say that, having surreptitiously poked the bear in the White House, he is enjoying the opportunity to exhibit his Christian serenity.

What is beyond doubt is that global enthusiasm for the Pope extends far beyond his own gigantic constituency. He may even win the Nobel Peace Prize. Just imagine the Truth Social post if that happens.


quinta-feira, 23 de abril de 2026

Cartoon - Jim Unger

 








Almoços vários

Em 07.04.2026 com os VetVals1: Carlos Amorim, Daniel Machado, João de Deus, João Francisco, Luis Costa, Luis Miranda, eu, José Azevedo e Alfredo Duarte.



Em 24 de Março com IST2 - Zé Morgado (há 45 anos que o não via), o Fernando Freitas, o Jorge Matos e o João Cruz no Fragateiro na Trafaria.






Com o Alfredo Duarte (e família) na Amadora em 07.03.2026


Com Jorge Basílio e Isabel no XS Lounge (22.03.2026)


Livro - Le Sport-Spectacle de compétition de Jean Marie Brohm

Apesar da tendência progressista do autor, é inegável o talento para elencar e denunciar o que de mal o desporto actual tem. Incluindo um exemplo nacional como a invasão da academia do Sporting...

Por cá, para lá de continuar tudo bem (...), não tenho conhecimento de ensaios desta natureza.