quarta-feira, 6 de maio de 2026

Fotos - Trafaria

 Trafaria, no regresso do almoço com To Costa e Eunice







Musica - Devant le garage (film "Les parapluies de Cherbourg")

 



Devant le garage




https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cEr0oltYh9I&list=RDcEr0oltYh9I&start_radio=1



The dinner scene from "Parapluies de Cherbourg" (1964)

The Spectator - The latest Guardian attack on Nigel Farage is desperate stuff

 



(personal underlines)

The latest Guardian attack on Nigel Farage is desperate stuff

Some years ago I was approached by someone from a platform called ‘Cameo’. Not all Spectator readers will have heard of this platform, and I hadn’t either. As a result I listened to their pitch with the same amount of scepticism I might reserve for an email addressed to me as ‘Dear Beloved’, revealing that a distant relative had left me a share in a Nigerian diamond mine, and that if only I sent a quick cash deposit the diamonds would start flowing in my direction.

I was informed that Cameo was a platform where I could make ‘easy money’. Being part-Scottish, I do not believe that there is any such thing. In fact I find the whole idea of easy money a contradiction in terms. All money is hard to come by and once gained – if gained – it should be swiftly hidden in a pillowcase or mattress.

Anyway, the point with Cameo is that it turned out to be a platform through which celebrities (and this is where I also became suspicious) are paid to record tailor-made video messages for members of the public for around a hundred quid a pop. ‘Happy birthday Marjorie, from your favourite columnist’ type stuff. I was promised that if I agreed to the arrangement I could knock off a few such videos every morning without even leaving the house, then kick up my feet for the rest of the day, drinking daiquiris in bed or the like.

Absolutely nothing in this was appealing and so I declined. First of all, because I didn’t believe that anyone would want a personalised video from me, however badly their life might be going. Secondly, because something about the enterprise made me feel a bit icky. And thirdly because I felt sure that the whole thing would prove to be a hostage to fortune. I was pretty sure that if anyone did ask for a personalised video from me for their birthday, wedding night or bar mitzvah, then it would turn out to be Rod Liddle or another colleague, operating under a pseudonym, only in order to rip into me for the rest of time for being such a cheap tart.

I suppose that folded into this last concern was the possibility I would end up sending a birthday greeting to someone who would turn out to be a serial killer or well-known sex offender. Not that this is who I imagine my average reader to be, you understand, but because you just never know. Any benefits seemed to me to be outweighed by the considerable potential negatives.

In general, Nigel Farage seems to me to be a man of pretty sound judgment. But he obviously does not share my intensely suspicious, not to say gloomy, Celtic nature. And so it seems that when he was out of the front line of British politics, Farage did indeed sign up to do personalised videos for Cameo. He appears to have been rather good at it, as I would have expected him to be. And in fact I can imagine a certain type of person who would have been thrilled to get a personalised video of Nigel raising a pint for their friend’s birthday or something.

But now the Guardian newspaper has tried to use this interregnum in Farage’s career to do a number on him of the type I had feared for myself. Some fearless – and presumably bored – Guardian journalists have trawled through a remarkable 4,366 clips that the Reform UK leader has made for Cameo since joining the platform in 2021. The short videos he has sent fans and supporters have included personalised messages wishing people a happy birthday, happy Christmas or even (and I do think this a bit odd) a happy Valentine’s Day.

Of course, the Guardian being the Guardian, they trawled through all of these innocuous greetings in the hope that at least some of them would be videos celebrating Hitler’s birthday, mourning the German defeat at Stalingrad, or sending Valentine’s Day good wishes to David Irving.

Unfortunately for the journalists, they found no such thing. It has long been my belief that if Nigel Farage were some kind of closeted Hitler-ite, we really would have known about it by now. But that doesn’t mean that the Guardian types will ever stop trying to find something that is not there.

And so they have managed to find one video in which Farage makes a very slight and inoffensive reference to a woman’s breasts, another which turned out to have been used by a group in Canada whose activities Farage was clearly not aware of, and a third in which he makes a video for a man called ‘Ben’, whose family described their relative as a longtime Reform member. Ben turns out to have been among those people thrown in prison after the summer riots in 2024. The Guardian appears keen to suggest that by sending a message to ‘Ben’, Farage was somehow endorsing illegal rioting.

What were the incriminating words that Farage used in speaking to Ben? They included these: ‘All I can say is keep your head up, keep believing in the right things, keep acting in the right way.’ It’s not quite the Beer Hall Putsch is it? In other videos, Farage has made what academic consultants to the Guardian assure us are beyond-the-pale ‘far-right’ memes, such as statements that illegal migrants should not be allowed to stay in the UK. Because I am sure we can all agree that the only acceptable thing to say on the question of illegal migrants is that everybody should be allowed to stay.

Finally, there is also a clip where Farage appears to have become irritated with the technology he is using and swears. Or, as the article puts it, it shows ‘a side to him that contrasts with his amiable public persona’. I am sure that Guardian journalists only ever say sweet things when they have a problem with their iPhone.

In any case, it is all rather desperate stuff. Farage has done nothing wrong in any of these videos. Yet his critics will keep on digging. In the meantime I feel vindicated in my own intensely suspicious attitudes towards Cameo – and, indeed, towards strangers in general.

Livros - Comprendre l'incroyable écologie


Tanta falta que faz ler, saber ler, e saber O QUE ler...




 







Desporto - Andebol

Bela equipa. Defesa (Salvador!) acima da média (quando querem...) e o Kiko e o Martin no ataque.

Esperemos que se mantenham, e adquiram um guarda redes e um central de nível europeu...




segunda-feira, 4 de maio de 2026

The Spectator - Textbooks will always beat screens

 

(personal underlines)...if we still have time...

Textbooks will always beat screens

[Getty Images]

Is the page finally beginning to turn on children and screens? For the first time since the advent of social media, we are seeing a burgeoning alliance across all political divides to protect children from digital harm. In 2024 Jonathan Haidt delivered an urgent manifesto for change in The Anxious Generation, and at the beginning of this year Australia responded with a ban on social media for under-16s. Now even Britain is finally recognising the scale of the problem. Despite this week’s decision by MPs to consult rather than enforce, the fight will rage on. Deliberation doesn’t work in the arena of addictive substances.

However, the war on classroom screentime has yet to be properly waged, let alone won. Schools have embraced online learning with an almost evangelical fervour, urged on by billion-dollar businesses and bedazzled education secretaries.

Overwhelmingly the lure of ‘one-to-one devices’ has gripped schools and, in a blitz of blue light, children across the country are gazing distractedly at screens instead of their teachers’ faces and their books.

Pupils often go unmonitored online as the teacher attempts to keep the class ‘on task’. Flitting ceaselessly between a proliferation of tabs – some educational, some not – a lot of swiping and scrolling take place. But learning? Not so much. Research has shown that students learning online spend as much as 39 minutes out of every hour off task.

The principal casualty of the digitalisation of education is the textbook. Leading publishers such as Pearson have moved online, ruthlessly killing off these reliable anchors of learning. Textbooks, damned by tech zealots as ‘analogue’, are slandered as boring compared with online resources, which offer video clips, audio, 3D modelling and other seductive 21st-century ‘essentials’.

We would beg to differ. For ‘boring’, substitute calming, reputable and blessedly undistracting. Pearson owns Edexcel, one of the biggest examination boards and currently spearheading the transition to online GCSEs and A-levels. Pearson should take a long hard look at its own educational principles.

Of course moving everything online makes things much cheaper, but schools must hold such powerful businesses to account. Pearson et al have a moral duty to research the impact of transferring education online. So much is lost in the process.

John Jerrim, a UCL-based educational researcher, conducted an experiment where 3,000 pupils took PISA tests in maths, science and reading. Over three months, half the group did all their work on paper and half on a computer. At the end, the paper-based group scored 20 points higher than the one working on screens – the equivalent of half a year’s extra schooling.

Nearly 100 per cent of ten-year-olds in Singapore, Taiwan, South Korea and Japan are issued with standardised textbooks in core subjects, compared with 10 per cent here. These countries, unsurprisingly, all vastly outperform us in these subjects, according to the most recent Trends in International Mathematics and Science Study.

Sadly, British schools often have no choice but to buy digital resources because publishers like Pearson have killed off the textbooks they once printed. Such a policy is a sunk-cost fallacy. The real cost – to our children’s ability to concentrate and learn – is immeasurable. A healthy, thoughtful, productive society is not a realistic expectation if children are not learning properly.

In contrast to a screenful of apps, Power-Points and gamified platforms, a chunky textbook provides a stable source of information. A linear repository for knowledge, it offers a tactile sanctuary for prolonged study. Online alternatives, designed for bite-sized consumption, cannot compete with the textbook’s ability to serve as a distraction-free companion to a pupil’s intellectual growth.

Textbooks also beat screens in that they don’t damage eyesight, disrupt hormones, delay sleep, trigger headaches, affect spinal formation and exacerbate symptoms of ADHD and autism, as screens do. That’s quite the list of harms for a medium which is less effective than its forerunner.

Textbooks are deliberately condemned by many in the ed tech industry as ‘inert’, ‘primitive’, and ‘outdated’, but the reality is very different. Leaving aside that they are less prone to crashing or running out of battery, they are far easier to navigate than multiple apps, enable longer and calmer periods of focus, help develop essential skills (such as notetaking) and, because pupils read from a physical page, are far more conducive to delivering knowledge that sticks.

If you talk to many teenage pupils, whether they are studying Latin or chemistry, psychology or economics, those who have an excellent, well-edited textbook prefer it to endless handouts, links and websites. They fully acknowledge that the latter methodology fragments their learning, and impairs how they access and decipher knowledge.

In education, the tools given to children should be as simple and clear as possible so that they uncover the beauty of a subject without unwanted distractions.

Sadly, the medium has become the subject. Screens have their (limited) place in this process of discovery, but too often they are a barrier; a backlit, noisy, crowded space designed for distraction, not absorption. In comparison, a textbook offers a quiet, authoritative voice that promotes sequential, linear learning.

If we wish for children to master the complexities of a subject, we must first grant them the simplicity of a medium that knows when to be silent. Ultimately, the textbook provides the one crucial thing the digital world cannot: a finite horizon, within which a child can find the peace to think.

Technology education? Of course! Education technology? An oxymoron that needs to be exposed. Bring back the textbook.

domingo, 3 de maio de 2026

The Spectator - Trump’s goals in Iran have always been clear

 


(personal underlines)

Trump’s goals in Iran have always been clear

The bombing of the Revolutionary government in Iran is drawing comparisons with the war in Iraq. But the comparisons are with the wrong war.

In 1981 there was an attack on Iraq which much more closely resembles what Donald Trump is trying to achieve in Iran. The story goes back to 1976, when the government of Jacques Chirac in France sold a nuclear reactor to the Iraqis – a deal for which the French have always managed to avoid much criticism. The French charged the Iraqi government twice the going rate. But as one of the Iraqi nuclear team later recalled: ‘We were happy to pay. After all, who else was going to sell us a nuclear reactor?’ Who indeed.

Once Saddam Hussein was in power, he poured resources into the nuclear site at Osirak in his race to be the first holder of an ‘Arab bomb’. He surrounded the nuclear site with anti-aircraft batteries and by 1981 was close to his dream. That was why, on 7 June 1981, the government of Menachem Begin in Israel deployed jets to destroy the reactor. The Israeli air force’s eight F-16s struck during a mealtime, when the anti-aircraft positions were unmanned. They hit their target and destroyed the Iraqi nuclear reactor in under two minutes.

Naturally the international backlash was immediate. Foreign governments and press condemned the Israeli action as ‘unprovoked’ and sneaky. The United Nations convened for a number of sessions to condemn the Israelis for depriving Saddam of his shiny nuclear reactor. Even the American government of the day condemned the Israelis. But there was a satisfying coda to the mission after Saddam’s invasion of Kuwait in 1990. Had he had a nuclear weapon then, not only would the Iran-Iraq war of that decade have gone very differently, but it is highly unlikely that an international force would have dared to push Iraqi forces out of Kuwait. As the American defence secretary said to the Israelis with some understatement after the liberation of Kuwait, by taking out the Osirak reactor nine years earlier: ‘You made our job easier in Desert Storm.’

I mention this bit of history because there is a lot of chatter at the moment about America getting bogged down in Iran in the same way it got bogged down in Iraq after 2003. It is hard to overstate the extent to which parts of America are pushing this narrative, cynical as they remain about all foreign military interventions after Afghanistan and Iraq. There was a period where this sentiment dominated only on the American left. In Barack Obama’s time the Democrats were so worried about getting into a ‘boots on the ground’ situation – to use the avoidable cliché – in Syria and elsewhere that they decided most of their problems could be solved by simply sending drones to kill their enemies.

With Trump’s rise to office, it was clear that a similar wariness had emerged on the American right. From the moment he started running for president, he realised that his own political side was equally tired of foreign interventions, especially ones that were lengthy, costly in every way and widely deemed to be a failure. It was Trump who broke the Republican respect for the interventionists – often in the most personal ways, as with his attacks on George W. Bush and John McCain.

Each time Trump ran for the presidency, a large part of his platform was that he would stop America getting involved in ‘stupid’ wars in the Middle East. Just as Obama had upped America’s drone programme, so Trump developed his own doctrine. The killing of the Iranian terror chief Qasem Soleimani in 2020 was perhaps the first time that Trump showed he could effectively take out an enemy of the United States and deter his opponent from any significant retaliatory strikes. Then earlier this year the US military on his orders carried out the daring raid on Caracas which brought the corrupt Venezuelan leader Nicolas Maduro to face justice in New York. Trump’s critics complain that the success of that mission has led him to the hubris of Iran.

But if you listen to what the President, his Secretary of State, Marco Rubio, and others have said since the start of this mission, the confusion is on the part of his listeners, not of the administration. From the beginning Trump has made a number of justifications for the action. But the one non-negotiable has been that Iran must not be allowed nuclear weapons. Given that the Iranian side actually boasted to the US negotiating team that they were weeks away from nuclear breakout, it isn’t hard to understand why the US chose this moment to strike. The fact that the Iranians learned from Osirak and spread out their nuclear sites is why this intervention has taken longer than two minutes.

Nevertheless there is chaff being thrown in the air from all sides. Yes at the start Trump suggested to the Iranian people that they rise up and overthrow the regime of the mullahs if they could. But the killing of tens of thousands of people by the religious militias in January has obviously had an effect. ‘Ha ha,’ say Trump’s critics. ‘You see – you tried regime change and failed. Now you will have to – once again – “put boots on the ground”.’ But the President is committed to doing no such thing.

Doubtless he would have liked to have seen the regime receive more opposition internally. But the hope that the Islamic Revolutionary government falls is the maximalist policy. The minimalist one is simply to ensure that for the foreseeable future Iran does not have any capacity to develop nuclear weapons.

I’m slightly surprised by some of the obfuscation and pretence of befuddlement that many national and international observers seem to be displaying in the face of this objective. ‘He hasn’t made it clear,’ they say again and again. But he has. The aim of Trump’s war in Iran is indeed to replay the Iraq intervention. But it is the intervention of 1981, not 2003.

sábado, 2 de maio de 2026

The Spectator - The British should have their holy places

 



(personal underlines, silent ...)

The British should have their holy places

I think by now most of us can spot a double standard when we see one. So let me try two out on you. In what situation is it acceptable to denounce an MP or parliamentary candidate as ‘not very British’ or even someone who ‘doesn’t get our values, our culture, or our history’. When it is said by a Reform candidate about an MP from an ethnic minority? Or when Jeevun Sandher MP says it about Matt Goodwin, the Reform party candidate for Gorton and Denton?

Doubtless you have already guessed the correct answer. The above phrase was used this week by Labour’s Sandher to denounce Goodwin, and as a result it has passed without any serious comment. By contrast, if Goodwin had described Sandher in similar terms I think we can all agree that the news cycle would have stopped (even Jeffrey Epstein would have fallen off the front pages) and Labour MPs would be gearing up to talk about Enoch Powell again.

Allow me to try one more double standard on you. In what situation is it acceptable to say that an area of Britain is ‘too black’? Would it be acceptable to say it about a town anywhere in England? Or would it be acceptable to go to a country in Africa and return saying that, all things considered, the place needs rather more white people if it is going to be an acceptable, indeed desirable, destination?

The answer to that is once again, obviously not. However, as we have learned this week, it is perfectly acceptable to denounce places – on this occasion the English countryside – for being ‘too white’.

At this point, long-suffering readers might be suffering a sense of déjà-vu, as in fact I am myself. Three years ago I noted that no less an expert than a presenter from the BBC’s Countryfile had denounced the countryside for its ‘lingering, ambient racism’. The Corporation ran a piece suggesting that there weren’t enough Muslim hiking groups in the Peak District.

This time the charge comes from a more formal source. Specifically the Department for Environment, Food & Rural Affairs (Defra), reports for which have concluded that the countryside is too much of a ‘white environment’, principally enjoyed by the ‘white middle class’. Defra has come to the conclusion that our countryside risks becoming ‘irrelevant’ in a multicultural society.

Before proceeding, let us note something about that word ‘irrelevant’. Is nature meant to be relevant? Are fields and hedgerows and mountains and lakes meant to be things which change and adapt to the zeitgeist?

I’d have thought not. Claiming that the countryside must somehow adapt in order to remain relevant would seem to be a rather striking category error, actually. If you want to see a changing environment, there are any number of places you can go in this country. If you want something unchanging, steadfast and even eternal, I’d have thought the countryside is your best bet. It is one reason why some of us prefer the stuff over, say, Milton Keynes.

In any case, Defra has decided that every effort must be made to make our countryside less of a ‘white environment’. A campaigner called Ken Hinds invited on to GB News very much agreed. According to Mr Hinds, the countryside has been ‘white for far too long’. Asked why it should be so desirable to make more ethnic minorities move to the countryside, he trotted out the usual cliché: ‘We can -benefit from having people from a variety of cultures living among us.’

It’s possible we can. But if so, then why is this not a universal principle? Why should Sparkhill in Birmingham not have more white people brought in? Indeed – once again – why should the Indian subcontinent or Africa not be forced to diversify by bringing in a lot of white people from Wales? Surely the locals will be amenable. Or would there be something sinister as well as silly about making such a case?

Of course the answer is yes: it would be very sinister and very silly to put forward such an argument. But somehow not when it comes to our own green spaces.

There is a madness about this approach. Some people have spent the past week claiming there are not enough Muslims walking around the countryside because too many people there have dogs, and these dogs are often off leads and might therefore be distasteful to Muslims who consider dogs to be haram. What can we do to accommodate that? Cull the dogs? Have areas for dogs to be walked in and areas in which Muslims might roam?

What of the pubs and hostelries in our rural areas? Should Muslims and other minorities be forced into the local pub in order to help diversify it? Should they be forced to drink warm bitter? Or would that be unseemly in some way?

By now we can all agree that there are plenty of people who dislike our country as well as our countryside. But to have government agencies warring on us is a different thing entirely, and I wonder where it will end. In this interim period, perhaps one might simply make a plea to anyone at Defra who has ears to hear.

There is a wonderful poem by W.H. Auden from the 1950s called ‘Streams’, which closes touchingly with the poet referring to the water being ‘Glad – though goodness knows why – to run with the human race’. It is the final two lines of the poem that most move me. There the poet refers to his wish for ‘the least of men’ to have ‘their figures of splendour, their holy places’.

If everyone else is allowed to have their holy places, is it not the right of the British people to have our own holy places too? Or is that another double standard? We can all too easily guess.


Música - do filme "Terror on the Prairie"





https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6-tSP24A4u4&list=RD6-tSP24A4u4&start_radio=1

Observador - Alterações climáticas: um debate estéril (Alberto Gonçalves)

 


(sublinhados pessoais. Reflexões silenciosas...)

Alterações climáticas: um debate estéril

Fora do “wishful thinking” de determinadas comunidades “científicas” e da redacção do “Expresso”, não deve haver praticamente uma alminha que evite ter filhos por se afligir com a temperatura

A partir de um estudo estrangeiro de 2021 e de um estudo nacional ainda não publicado, o “Expresso” concluiu que “Quatro em cada dez jovens hesitam ter filhos [sic] por causa das alterações climáticas”.

Os resultados são assustadores: assusta assistir na nossa época tão informada e esclarecida à repetição do exacto “milenarismo” de há mil anos. E “exacto” é força de expressão. Por regra, as crenças medievais no iminente fim dos tempos tinham alguma razão de ser, e aconteciam em períodos de crise ligados a guerras, fome e epidemias – ou seja, às trivialidades quotidianas daqueles tempos. Hoje, os “jovens”, que prolongam a juventude até à meia-idade e beneficiam de um conforto que os senhores feudais nem sequer podiam imaginar, deixam-se tolher face a uma ameaça vaga, discutível e, salvo na retórica apocalíptica do eng. Guterres, remota. Além disso, os medos justificados de antigamente, aliados à escassez de anticoncepcionais eficazes, não impediam as pessoas de se reproduzirem, imprudência sem a qual não estaríamos aqui, eu, o leitor, os jornalistas do “Expresso” e as jovens que padecem de “ecoansiedade” entrevistadas pelo “Expresso”. Já os medos comparativamente injustificados de agora parecem implicar uma apetência para a extinção da espécie. Antes que o clima trate do assunto, a própria espécie despacha-o mediante suicídio programado.

Isto tudo, note-se, se levarmos a sério os referidos estudos e o artigo do “Expresso”. No artigo, se o espremermos bem, o vetusto semanário limita-se a falar com duas “jovens” portuguesas. Uma, Catarina, 25 anos, teme procriar por não encontrar “respostas claras” a duas perguntas “difíceis”: “Até que idade poderá viver um filho que tenha nos dias de hoje? Será que a zona onde vivemos continuará habitável daqui a algumas décadas?”. Não são perguntas difíceis. Eis as respostas: 1) até aos oitenta, oitenta e dois, se atendermos à esperança de vida actual; 2) à conta das proezas do “poder local” e dos efeitos da “arquitectura” contemporânea, inúmeras “zonas” do país já não são habitáveis há muito.

A segunda “jovem” a falar com o “Expresso” chama-se Mourana, tem 29 anos e pertenceu à Greve Climática Estudantil, uns moços e moças que, a fim de prevenir o degelo,  lançam tinta em cima de políticos, vandalizam montras e bloqueiam estradas. Após ter cortado nos banhos e na carne, vencido as insónias e experimentado “diferenças nas capacidades cognitivas”, Mourana licenciou-se em psicologia, arranjou emprego (?) no grupo EcoPsi, “focado na promoção da saúde mental no cenário de alterações climáticas”, e “recuperou o sonho de ser mãe”. Que bom. Ou não.

É que há duas questões fundamentais em que o artigo do “Expresso” não toca. Por um lado, é positivo não só que os “ecoansiosos” tenham reservas em produzir descendentes como é sobretudo aconselhável que não o façam de todo. A julgar pelo alegado desarranjo mental dos hipotéticos pais, nada indica que os filhos, alimentados a caldos de imaturidade, ilusões de grandeza, visões do Juízo Final e paranóia, possam sair menos avariados. O provável é saírem mais avariados, mesmo que convenha apurar se tal é possível.

A outra questão de que o “Expresso” foge é a seguinte: em vez de debater se as alterações climáticas de influência antropogénica existem na dimensão propagada e com as consequências anunciadas, não seria preferível aceitar que existem, desejar que existam e rogar aos santinhos que cumpram o seu papel com rapidez? Dito de maneira diferente, vale a pena ambicionar a continuação de sociedades em que uma parte significativa da população não regula bem? Se as percentagens de “ecoansiosos” forem autênticas, é altura de começar a ponderar não os riscos das alterações climáticas, e sim a respectiva necessidade. Os perigos decorrentes de gente que, sem reparar no absurdo, recorre a tecnologia avançada para organizar manifestações em que se exige a devolução da humanidade ao Paleolítico são muito maiores. Entre ver a Terra arrasada por ondas de calor e inundações ou entregue a multidões de tontos, o meu coração não balançaria.

A nossa sorte é que estes dilemas épicos não se colocam. De regresso à realidade, fora do “wishful thinking” de determinadas (e financiadas) comunidades “científicas” e da redacção do “Expresso”, não deve haver praticamente uma alminha que evite ter filhos por se afligir com a temperatura a longo prazo. As novas gerações evitam ter filhos, e na verdade têm pouquíssimos, porque as casas são caras, porque os salários são baixos, porque tendem ao egoísmo, porque não apreciam obrigações, porque simplesmente não calhou e porque dispõem da pílula, ora essa.

A invocação, neste contexto, das “alterações climáticas” apenas visa conceder uma dignidade postiça a motivos prosaicos. É um tique contagioso, uma forma infantil de legitimação, uma “causa” que à semelhança da adesão a “causas” similares convence os meninos e as meninas de que têm relevância nos destinos do mundo. Depois, na maioria dos casos, os meninos e as meninas crescem. E uns tantos multiplicam-se.


The Spectator - British politics has become a Devil’s Wheel



 

(personal underlines)

British politics has become a Devil’s Wheel

There is a moment in Evelyn Waugh’s Decline and Fall which has been much on my mind lately. It is the bit towards the very end of the novel when our hero, Paul Pennyfeather, re-encounters the sinister modernist architect Professor Otto Silenus. By this point Pennyfeather has undergone all manner of travails. He has been debagged and sent down from Oxford, accused of human-trafficking and sent to prison. But, as the pair sit outside the Corfu villa in which Pennyfeather is staying, the professor suddenly offers to reveal his theory about the meaning of life.

Silenus describes a particular fairground attraction, the Devil’s Wheel (‘the big wheel at Luna Park’). For five francs the public can go into a room with tiers of seats. At the centre is a great revolving floor which spins around fast. People try to clamber up the revolving floor and get to the centre of the wheel. How everyone laughs as they see other players get flung off. How they whoop and holler as they get similarly flung around and fail in their climb.

‘I don’t think that sounds very much like life,’ said Paul rather sadly.

‘Oh, but it is, though,’ [replied Silenus.] ‘You see, the nearer you can get to the hub of the wheel the slower it is moving and the easier it is to stay on. There’s generally someone in the centre who stands up and sometimes does a sort of dance. Often he’s paid by the management, though, or, at any rate, he’s allowed in free. Of course at the very centre there’s a point completely at rest, if one could only find it.’

In recent years I have thought of this passage often while observing British politics. The whooping, laughter and falls seem to have become almost part of the purpose of things. For the press and other participants, they seem to provide a meaning of a kind.

Remember when we thought we couldn’t be worse run than we were under Theresa May? Remember how, having got rid of her, we had the great dawn of Boris Johnson? Remember how that devolved into a great row about a cake and booze and eventually some completely unknown Tory MP touching someone’s bum and the whole government collapsing? Remember the hours of Liz Truss and the rain-soaked end of Rishi Sunak? Next the great dawn of Keir Starmer, and now perhaps the end of that too. How many people in politics have been picked up and flung off this great revolving fairground ride in the past decade?

I can’t deny that there isn’t a certain fascination to it all. If Labour is mad enough to turf out Keir Starmer I suppose we might get Angela Rayner as prime minister, or conceivably see Ed Miliband enter Downing Street. Perhaps even this Labour party would blush at that switcheroo, vote for Christmas and we could then watch most of them get thrown off the wheel in their turn. Certainly there would be a sort of pleasure in watching this. As there was this week when Wes Streeting – who seems to imagine he could be prime minister – released all of his private text messages with Peter Mandelson, apparently in an effort to slow the wheel down, with the result that he merely sped it up.

I suppose the one consolation that the players have in this country is that our particular fairground ride is not as lethal as it is in other places.

News came through last week of the death of Saif Gaddafi, son of the late and unlamented Libyan leader. He appears to have been murdered by a rival faction in the north-west of the country. Personally I was rather surprised to learn he was alive at all. Some years ago, amid the Gaddafis’ crackdown on the Arab uprising, Saif decided to join his father in fighting to the last bullet to keep his family in power. His father then met a distinctly sticky end at the hands of a mob and a knife. Saif turned out to have been captured somewhere in the south. After a time he was reported to have re-emerged with a few fingers missing, with his captors saying something about frostbite in the desert. It seemed rather more likely they had caused the falling-off during some interrogation procedure.

All of which brings another memory to mind – that time in the late 2000s when a whole bunch of people in the UK tried to bring the Gaddafis in from the cold. The London School of Economics awarded Saif a PhD which had clearly been written for him.  The university’s then leadership accepted a seven-figure donation from the family, with those of us who criticised it being breezily dismissed. LSE even invited Colonel Gaddafi to give a guest lecture via video-link.

The fawning-ness of the students was quite something to behold. If the guest lecturer had been a Republican leader from Washington D.C. there would have been nothing but protests and heckling. But this was merely the butcher of Lockerbie and so, after a slavish introduction from faculty, the nice students asked the Colonel hardball questions like: ‘Where do you see Libya´s place in the world?’ A question I will forever be grateful for, because – after a pause – he replied through a translator, ‘Libya is in north Africa’, showing that perhaps the only person to rate that crop of students lower than I did was a dictator sitting in Tripoli.

As ever, I digress. My point is simply that it is quite the trajectory the Gaddafis ended up being on. One day they were lauded in London, and grandees couldn’t move for invites to meet them. The next moment they were waving their digits and promising to fight to the last bullet, never expecting the last bullets would be aimed at themselves.

I suppose most countries, like most sensible people, would like to find the still point in this spinning world. The best way to achieve that would be to find someone – paid or unpaid by the fairground – who has the nerves, skill and staying power to show us how to get there.



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.