STF = SUPREMO TRIBUNAL FEDERAL
STRANGERS IN THE NIGHT means "foreigners in the dark". Things trivial to Brazilians may be strange to aliens coming from a superior Civilisation.
Thursday, June 08, 2006
Friday, June 02, 2006
BRAZIL NUTS VERSUS THE ECONOMIST
Em 1999, o governo de Fernando Henrique Cardoso tentou aplacar o déficit da Previdência cobrando contribuição dos inativos e aumentando a dos funcionários públicos.
O STF julgou, com razão, inconstitucional essa medida, por prejudicar direitos adquiridos.
A revista inglesa THE ECONOMIST publicou um artigo intitulado NUTS IN BRAZIL, criticando a decisão do Supremo.
THE ECONOMIST é famosa pela competência, especialmente em assuntos econômicos - embora, ao contrário do que muitos imaginam, não se restrinja a eles, e seja excelente também nas outras matérias, como política internacional e assuntos culturais em geral - e tem um estilo conciso e irônico.
O título NUTS IN BRAZIL, embora em linguagem inocente, contém um profundo deboche em relação Judiciário brasileiro. "Nut", como se sabe, quer dizer "noz". "Cashew nuts" são as castanhas de caju - mais conhecidas como "Brazil nuts". Daí o trocadilho - muito irreverente, porque "nuts" é uma gíria muito conhecida, que quer dizer "maluco(s)".
Escrevi a correspondência com o título "NUTS TO SWINE", que a revista não publicou, defendendo a decisão do STF.
O STF julgou, com razão, inconstitucional essa medida, por prejudicar direitos adquiridos.
A revista inglesa THE ECONOMIST publicou um artigo intitulado NUTS IN BRAZIL, criticando a decisão do Supremo.
THE ECONOMIST é famosa pela competência, especialmente em assuntos econômicos - embora, ao contrário do que muitos imaginam, não se restrinja a eles, e seja excelente também nas outras matérias, como política internacional e assuntos culturais em geral - e tem um estilo conciso e irônico.
O título NUTS IN BRAZIL, embora em linguagem inocente, contém um profundo deboche em relação Judiciário brasileiro. "Nut", como se sabe, quer dizer "noz". "Cashew nuts" são as castanhas de caju - mais conhecidas como "Brazil nuts". Daí o trocadilho - muito irreverente, porque "nuts" é uma gíria muito conhecida, que quer dizer "maluco(s)".
Escrevi a correspondência com o título "NUTS TO SWINE", que a revista não publicou, defendendo a decisão do STF.
Saturday, May 27, 2006
NUTS TO SWINE
----- Original Message -----
From: FRANCISCO CARLOS DE MORAES
To: letters@economist.com
Sent: Wednesday, December 08, 1999 4:12 AM
Subject: NUTS TO SWINE
Sir:
If you allow me to quote my favourite thinker, The White Rabbitt, I shall be too late, but may be not completely lost. Your report ''Nuts in Brazil'' was unfair and should be held in contempt (of justice). What if I said that you should kick the Queen's throne, for it's an old fashioned seat? (Of course, I think that you should not do it; it is the rock upon which the country is built.) It's what you've done. Brazil is a country expected to be ruled by laws, not for the wishes of politicians or the opinions of journalists.Yes, there are corporatism, corruption, waste of public resources - but also sheer incompetency: the Executive should not propose obviously unconstitutional measures, which trespass the citizens' fundamental rights. (And I have said that the Magna Charta was the greatest achievement of the Monarchy, before the Internet site of HRH The Prince of Wales.) I would not have been attainted - I am not a public employee, nor a pensioner. But I am a lawyer, and I can say that the Brazilian Supreme Court did only apply well-known juridical principles to the case. Have they cast their nuts before swine?
Most Respecfully Yours,
Francisco Carlos de Moraes
Pelotas, RS
Brazil
fcmoraes@nutecnet.com.br
P S: As I am afraid that you will not bear this sheet, you may be afraid that I shall do it in my site www.texticles.com.
I was afraid to discover in the TLS - The Times Literary Supplement - that I was born to the ROW - Rest of the World.
From: FRANCISCO CARLOS DE MORAES
To: letters@economist.com
Sent: Wednesday, December 08, 1999 4:12 AM
Subject: NUTS TO SWINE
Sir:
If you allow me to quote my favourite thinker, The White Rabbitt, I shall be too late, but may be not completely lost. Your report ''Nuts in Brazil'' was unfair and should be held in contempt (of justice). What if I said that you should kick the Queen's throne, for it's an old fashioned seat? (Of course, I think that you should not do it; it is the rock upon which the country is built.) It's what you've done. Brazil is a country expected to be ruled by laws, not for the wishes of politicians or the opinions of journalists.Yes, there are corporatism, corruption, waste of public resources - but also sheer incompetency: the Executive should not propose obviously unconstitutional measures, which trespass the citizens' fundamental rights. (And I have said that the Magna Charta was the greatest achievement of the Monarchy, before the Internet site of HRH The Prince of Wales.) I would not have been attainted - I am not a public employee, nor a pensioner. But I am a lawyer, and I can say that the Brazilian Supreme Court did only apply well-known juridical principles to the case. Have they cast their nuts before swine?
Most Respecfully Yours,
Francisco Carlos de Moraes
Pelotas, RS
Brazil
fcmoraes@nutecnet.com.br
P S: As I am afraid that you will not bear this sheet, you may be afraid that I shall do it in my site www.texticles.com.
I was afraid to discover in the TLS - The Times Literary Supplement - that I was born to the ROW - Rest of the World.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)