July 10, 2025

The Ruthless Ambition of Stephen Miller

 

 

 

Stephen Miller was livid. It was a couple of months after Donald Trump’s inauguration, and Mr. Miller, a senior White House adviser, believed that the federal government was not doing nearly enough to stem the tide of illegal immigration into the United States. In a relentless round of meetings, phone calls and emails, he reached deep into the federal bureaucracy and, according to a former Department of Homeland Security official, berated mid- and low-level bureaucrats inside the department. To keep their jobs, he told the officials, they needed to enforce a new policy that punished the families of undocumented immigrants by forcibly separating parents from their children.

Mr. Miller’s demands, however, went unmet. That’s because he was issuing them back in 2017, and the homeland security secretary, John Kelly, had issued his own edict to D.H.S. officials: If Mr. Miller ordered them to do something, they were to refuse, unless Mr. Kelly, the only one of the two men who’d been confirmed by the U.S. Senate to run the department, agreed to the order.

Flash forward eight years, to this past May, when Mr. Miller, still livid and now the White House deputy chief of staff, paid a visit to the Washington headquarters of Immigration and Customs Enforcement, where he berated officials for not deporting nearly enough immigrants. He told the officials that rather than develop target lists of gang members and violent criminals, they should just go to Home Depots, where day laborers gather to be hired, or to 7-Eleven convenience stores and arrest the undocumented immigrants they find there.

This time, the officials did what Mr. Miller said. ICE greatly stepped up its enforcement operations, raiding restaurants, farms and work sites across the country, with arrests sometimes climbing to more than 2,000 a day. In early June, after an ICE raid in the Westlake neighborhood of Los Angeles triggered protests, Mr. Trump deployed several thousand National Guard troops and Marines to the city, over the objection of Gov. Gavin Newsom.

The crisis, from the immigration raids that sparked the protests to the militarized response that tried to put the protests down, was almost entirely of Mr. Miller’s making. And it served as a testament to the remarkable position he now occupies in Mr. Trump’s Washington. Kristi Noem, the homeland security secretary, who reportedly accompanied Mr. Miller on his visit to ICE headquarters, seems to defer to him. “It’s really Stephen running D.H.S.,” a Trump adviser said. The attorney general, Pam Bondi, is so focused on preparing for and appearing on Fox News that she has essentially ceded control of the Department of Justice to Mr. Miller, making him, according to the conservative legal scholar Edward Whelan, “the de facto attorney general.” And in a White House where the chief of staff, Susie Wiles, is not well versed or terribly interested in policy — “She’s producing a reality TV show every day,” another Trump adviser said, “and it’s pretty amazing, right?” — Mr. Miller is typically the final word.

There is much truth to the conventional wisdom that the biggest difference between the first and second Trump presidencies is that, in the second iteration, Mr. Trump is unrestrained. The same is true of Mr. Miller. He has emerged as Mr. Trump’s most powerful, and empowered, adviser. With the passage of the big policy bill, ICE will have an even bigger budget to execute Mr. Miller’s vision and, in effect, serve as his own private army. Moreover, his influence extends beyond immigration to the battles the Trump administration is fighting on higher education, transgender rights, discrimination law and foreign policy.

Mr. Miller, 39, is both a committed ideologue and a ruthless bureaucratic operator — and he has cast himself as the only person capable of fully carrying out Mr. Trump’s radical policy vision. “Stephen Miller translates Trump’s instinctual politics into a coherent ideological program,” Christopher Rufo, a conservative activist, said, “and he is the man for the moment in the second term.”

Steve Bannon, who served as White House chief strategist in the early days of Mr. Trump’s first presidency, compared Mr. Miller to David Stockman, Ronald Reagan’s budget director who ran roughshod over the cabinet as he sought to slash federal spending. But even the Stockman comparison might not do the 2025 version of Miller justice. “I’m not sure anybody,” Mr. Bannon said of Mr. Miller, “has had this much authority.”

Indeed, at times it can seem as if Mr. Miller is trying to seize the moment as much for himself as for Mr. Trump — promoting a policy vision that is not just more coherent but more radical than the president’s. It’s clear what Mr. Miller’s agenda is. Does Mr. Trump share it?

Mr. Miller’s origin story is, by now, familiar. The son of wealthy Jewish Democrats, he grew up in the early aughts in the liberal enclave of Santa Monica, Calif., where he fashioned himself as a conservative provocateur. Running for student government in high school, he campaigned on the platform that the school’s janitors weren’t doing enough work. (“Am I the only one who is sick and tired of being told to pick up my trash when we have plenty of janitors who are paid to do it for us?” he asked in his campaign speech.)

It was during his formative years that Mr. Miller developed a broader critique of society. He watched the left take over California and, in his view, turn it into a failed state — failures that he believed were directly attributable to immigration. As he explained years later, it was his experience in California that led him to conclude that “mass migration turns politics leftward” and that mass migration was turning the United States into California. “The question from the right, and this is the question that Miller is trying to answer, is whether the country functions as a ratchet that only moves leftward,” said Mr. Rufo, who also grew up in California. “It’s calling into question the basic nature of democracy itself if our democracy only moves leftward.” Mr. Miller didn’t accept that history traveled in such an inevitable arc; rather, history existed on a pendulum, and he made it his mission to swing it back to the right.

After graduating from Duke University, he worked as a Republican aide on Capitol Hill and then, in 2016, joined Mr. Trump’s first presidential campaign as the candidate’s chief (and for a time, only) speechwriter. When Mr. Trump won, Mr. Miller was put in charge of writing the administration’s immigration policy, and he set out to reduce all immigration to the United States, not just illegal border crossings. That proved to be a difficult task.

As with his early thwarted effort to institute a family separation policy, Mr. Miller was frequently stymied. The courts blocked the first version of the Muslim ban — an executive order drafted primarily by him and Mr. Bannon. And while the Supreme Court upheld a subsequent version, Mr. Miller believed it left off numerous countries that should have been included. His efforts to freeze asylum applications, enlist the F.B.I. to conduct immigration raids and turn Guantánamo Bay into a migrant detention facility were all successfully resisted by other government officials who believed they were probably illegal and definitely ill conceived.

While many of his former colleagues cashed in as lobbyists and consultants after Mr. Trump left office, Mr. Miller chose to continue the political fight, starting a group called America First Legal. It was one of several think tanks and policy shops started by former Trump aides, including the Center for Renewing America, founded by the former budget director Russell Vought; the America First Policy Institute, started by the former domestic policy adviser Brooke Rollins; and the Heritage Foundation’s Project 2025, which was run by Paul Dans, who worked in the Office of Personnel Management under Mr. Trump.

What set America First Legal apart was its focus on litigation. “He understood that the lawfare was going to be a central thing,” Mr. Bannon said of Mr. Miller. Modeling America First Legal as the conservative analogue to the American Civil Liberties Union, which sued the first Trump administration 413 times, Mr. Miller used it to launch a fusillade of legal challenges to Biden policies that sought to remedy racial discrimination against minority farmers and minority restaurant workers, support L.G.B.T.Q.+ students and expand voting rights; later, America First Legal filed civil rights complaints against corporations, including IBM and American Airlines, over their diversity practices.

The legal strategy, Mr. Miller explained at the time, was intended to combat the “insidious and explicit discrimination against white Americans, Asian Americans, Indian Americans and Jewish Americans based on their skin color and their ancestry.” Although Mr. Miller recently denounced universal court injunctions against Trump policies as “judicial tyranny,” America First Legal regularly sought, and celebrated, them in its lawsuits against the Biden administration. The group typically filed the suits in the Northern District of Texas, where it knew the cases would be heard by judges nominated by Republican presidents, including Mr. Trump.

After Mr. Trump’s second election victory, Mr. Miller brought with him the lessons he learned during the first administration and the interregnum. When a transition official reached out to Mr. Miller for the names of people he wanted to serve in immigration-related positions at D.H.S., ICE and Customs and Border Protection, Mr. Miller provided them. He also sent over names of people he wanted in posts at the State Department, the Department of Health and Human Services and the Department of Education. As Mr. Miller explained to the transition official, these were positions that might not appear to be related to immigration, but Mr. Miller had learned the hard way that they were. During Mr. Trump’s first administration, officials in those jobs had resisted Mr. Miller’s actions on immigration; now he wanted to make certain that he had his own people in those posts.

Mr. Miller worked closely with Gene Hamilton, the top lawyer at America First Legal who joined the White House as a senior counsel for its first five months before returning to America First Legal, to draft or directly inspire an extraordinary barrage of executive orders. Many dealt with issues that fell under Mr. Miller’s new, expanded remit — including terminating D.E.I. and environmental justice programs across the federal government; proclaiming that the federal government will recognize only two genders, male and female; and rolling back energy-efficiency regulations for certain household appliances, such as shower heads and gas stoves.

A number of the orders also dealt with Mr. Miller’s old hobbyhorse, immigration, including one that purports to end birthright citizenship. But his most audacious immigration move came in the form of a presidential proclamation, which Mr. Trump used to invoke the Alien Enemies Act of 1798 and deport Venezuelan immigrants accused of being members of the Tren de Aragua street gang.

Mr. Miller had discovered the Alien Enemies Act while at America First Legal. Speaking to the podcast hosts Clay Travis and Buck Sexton in 2023, he hailed the statute as something “that’s been on the books since the John Adams administration which allows you to deport any alien age 14 or older without due process if there’s a declared state of incursion, of predatory incursion or invasion from that country.” (Mr. Miller slightly misinterpreted the statute, which specifies that the alien must be both male and above 14 years of age.) Since February, Mr. Miller has used the act to send nearly 140 Venezuelans to a prison in El Salvador without due process. Federal judges have ruled several times that the men were deported illegally, prompting Mr. Miller to argue that the court has “no authority” in the matter.

That strategy reminds me of something a former senior administration official told me in 2019 about Mr. Trump and his aggressive approach to immigration policy. “His constant instinct all the time was: Just do it, and if we get sued, we get sued,” the official said. “To him, it’s all a negotiation. Almost as if the first step is a lawsuit. I guess he thinks that because that’s how business worked for him in the private sector. But federal law is different, and there really isn’t a settling step when you break federal law.” Now in his second term, with Mr. Miller greenlighting this approach and a compliant Supreme Court — which recently curtailed the power of district court judges to issue universal injunctions — seeming to ratify it, Mr. Trump’s contention that federal law isn’t in fact different appears to have been proven correct.

The challenge confronting Mr. Miller, who did not respond to interview requests, is how long he can maintain such power. His longevity in Mr. Trump’s circle is a testament, in many ways, to his ruthlessness and cunning. During Mr. Trump’s first term, Mr. Miller abandoned two old allies — Mr. Bannon, who originally introduced him to Mr. Trump, and Jeff Sessions, his old boss in the Senate — when they fell out of favor with Mr. Trump. Instead, Mr. Miller struck up an alliance with Jared Kushner and Ivanka Trump. He’s notorious for bad-mouthing colleagues to the president. In the leaked Signal chat among Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth, then-National Security Adviser Mike Waltz, C.I.A. Director John Ratcliffe, Vice President JD Vance and several other senior administration officials, it was notable that only Mr. Vance questioned Mr. Trump’s decision to carry out strikes against the Houthis in Yemen. A third Trump adviser said that was because, of the group, only Mr. Vance was elected to his position; the rest serve at the pleasure of the president, which means they could lose their jobs if they contradict Mr. Trump in Mr. Miller’s presence.

At the same time, Mr. Miller is a world-class brown noser. In an administration that puts a premium on sycophancy, he stands out for just how much he sucks up to his boss. “You have been watching the greatest economic master strategy from an American president in history,” Mr. Miller wrote on X shortly after Mr. Trump’s tariff flip-flop in April. Last year, when he was asked on a podcast to name his favorite ’80s action movie, he answered Jean-Claude Van Damme’s “Bloodsport,” an unusual choice — until you realize that Mr. Trump once deemed “Bloodsport” “an incredible, fantastic movie” and that he liked to watch it during flights on his private plane. The transition official told me that while it would overstate things to suggest that the president viewed Mr. Miller as indispensable — since no one in Mr. Trump’s circle ever is — Mr. Miller has been so central to Mr. Trump’s political operation for so long that the president would have a difficult time imagining what it would be like not to have Mr. Miller working for him.

And yet, Mr. Miller’s power could ultimately unravel because of something far more profound than office politics.

Translating Trumpism into a coherent ideological doctrine can be a vexing proposition, as MAGA’s isolationist wing recently experienced with the U.S. airstrikes on Iran. Mr. Miller has done this translation work perhaps better than anyone. At times, he has exhibited the necessary flexibility, rolling with Mr. Trump’s contradictions and flip-flops. During the first Trump administration, Mr. Miller jettisoned his own protectionist stance once it became clear that the administration’s free-traders had the president’s ear. When I asked the third Trump adviser about the foreign policy views of Mr. Miller, who’s reportedly angling to become Mr. Trump’s national security adviser, the adviser said that they were consistent with whatever the president was currently thinking.

Mr. Miller is more obdurate when it comes to domestic policy, particularly immigration. For Mr. Trump’s second term, he has led the president to stake out a series of maximalist positions, from the ICE raids to the use of the Alien Enemies Act to raising the possibility of suspending habeas corpus for people suspected of being undocumented immigrants. Mr. Trump seems to enjoy having Mr. Miller play the heavy on immigration. During his first term, he jokingly told people who urged him to take more moderate stances on immigration that Mr. Miller would never go for them. Last year, he reportedly quipped during a campaign meeting that if it was up to Mr. Miller, the population of the United States would be only 100 million people and they’d all resemble Mr. Miller. The humor, however, underscores something serious: On immigration, Millerism is a more consistent ideology than Trumpism.

While Mr. Miller is an ardent restrictionist, seeking to reduce all immigration to the United States, Mr. Trump has at times backed H-1B visas for skilled foreign workers; created a wait-list for a proposed special visa, called a Trump Gold Card, that wealthy immigrants could buy for $5 million apiece; and expressed regret about the impact ICE raids were having on the agriculture and hospitality industries. Indeed, the backlash to the ICE raids was so great that in early June, Mr. Trump reversed himself and declared the agriculture and hospitality sectors off-limits to that sort of strict immigration enforcement — before, after intense lobbying from Mr. Miller, he reversed himself again. Still, the hiccup was enough to hint at a broader potential rupture, especially if Mr. Miller’s immigration policies continue to prove unpopular. A recent Quinnipiac poll found that 57 percent of Americans disapprove of Mr. Trump’s handling of immigration, once his greatest political strength.

For the moment, though, it seems Mr. Miller and Mr. Trump are aligned — and that means Mr. Miller has achieved a level of success, and satisfaction, that he didn’t dream of during Mr. Trump’s first term. Last year, in another podcast interview with Mr. Travis and Mr. Sexton, Mr. Miller told the two hosts what to expect if Mr. Trump returned to the White House. “You will wake up every morning so excited to get out of bed to see what’s happening on the border, to see what’s happening with immigration enforcement, you’ll set your alarm clock two hours earlier every morning just to get two more hours of daylight to watch the deportation flights happen,” he said. “That’s how excited you’ll be. That’s how wonderful this will be.”

the new york times  

 

Jim Shooter, Editor Who ‘Saved the Comics Industry,’ Dies at 73

 

 

 He stands, both arms extended, on a roof with an unusual-looking brick structure behind him. He wears a gray sports jacket, dark pants and a tie.

 

Jim Shooter, a hard-driving giant of a comic-book editor who took the helm at Marvel at the tender age of 27, then spent nearly a decade revolutionizing the way superhero stories are written, drawn and sold, died on Monday at his home in Nyack, N.Y. He was 73.

His son, Ben, confirmed the death but did not specify a cause. Mr. Shooter was diagnosed with esophageal cancer last year.

Powerfully built, with a looming 6-foot 7-inch frame, Mr. Shooter dominated the comic-book world for much of the 1980s, reinvigorating an art form that had been in decline by finding new markets and new readers.

Though he was not yet 30 when he took over at Marvel in 1978, he was already an industry veteran. He sold his first comic story, to DC, Marvel’s rival, when he was just 14, and he worked for both companies while still a teenager.

Wearing a plaid jacket, he stands in front of a Radio City Music Hall poster with his hands behind his back and a serious expression on his face.
Mr. Shooter at age 14 in 1965, the year he sold his first comic-book story. He went on to write for both Marvel and DC Comics while still a teenager.Credit...via Jim Shooter

As editor in chief at Marvel, he rationalized what had been a chaotic operation, instituting a coherent editing process and driving his staff to meet deadlines. He pushed into the growing comic-store market, targeting dedicated fans over the casual reader.

And he drove the company further into licensing opportunities, signing the sort of deals for toy and film adaptations that went on to make comics a keystone of American popular culture.

“I honestly think he saved the comics industry,” Harry Broertjes, a journalist who once worked with Mr. Shooter, said in an interview.

Mr. Shooter could be imperious, but he could also be generous, and he welcomed new talent to the Marvel fold. Emerging voices like Frank Miller and Walter Simonson flourished under his watch, bringing a new, more sophisticated sensibility to the genre. He increased pay rates for writers and artists and gave them more control over their creative output.


The cover of “Marvel Super Heroes Secret Wars,” showing about a dozen superheroes in various poses.

“Marvel Super Heroes Secret Wars,” created during Mr. Shooter’s tenure at Marvel, was a 12-issue limited series published from May 1984 to April 1985.Credit...Marvel

Marvel prospered in the 1980s. Not only did its sales and profits soar, but it also experienced a long run of landmark releases, among them Mr. Simonson’s work on Thor; Mr. Miller’s work with Klaus Janson on Daredevil; and Chris Claremont and John Byrne’s on X-Men.

At the same time, Mr. Shooter brought a traditional vision to comic-book writing, insisting on simple, straightforward narratives. Among his many aphorisms was “Every comic book could be a reader’s first comic book,” and he made his writers find a way to introduce their main characters in each issue.

His changes were divisive, especially among those who had enjoyed free rein under previous editors, above all Stan Lee, who put Marvel on the map with a new line of superhero titles in the 1960s. Several Marvel veterans left for DC.

“Some people swear by him, and other people swear at him,” Bill Sienkiewicz, an artist at Marvel during Mr. Shooter’s tenure, said in an interview.

In 1986, New World Entertainment bought Marvel’s parent company, Marvel Entertainment Group, and a year later the new owners fired Mr. Shooter. The feelings about his time at Marvel were so passionate that even years later his critics spoke of him in brutal terms.

“From a creative standpoint, Jim Shooter’s Marvel was, by and large, a wasteland of formulaic self-imitation and blatant profit-seeking,” Jordan Raphael and Tom Spurgeon wrote in their book “Stan Lee and the Rise and Fall of the American Comic Book” (2003).

But he was equally beloved by many artists and fans, who saw the Jim Shooter era at Marvel as the foundation for the efflorescence of comic-book storytelling in the decades that followed.

“Every bad thing you’ve heard about Jim Shooter has a bit of truth to it,” Danny Fingeroth, another Marvel writer under Mr. Shooter, said. “But so does every good thing you’ve heard.”

Image
He sits at a desk, his arms crossed and his elbows on the surface, holding a pen in his right hand. Sketches can be seen on the top of the desk. He wears a white shirt and a dark tie but no jacket.
Mr. Shooter in 1993. He started a number of independent comic-book companies in the post-Marvel years, but they all eventually closed shop.Credit...JayJay Jackson

James Charles Shooter was born on Sept. 27, 1951, in Pittsburgh. His father, Ken, was a steelworker, and his mother, Eleanor, managed the home.

Jim’s mother used children’s comics to teach him to read, but he hadn’t perused a comic book in years when, in 1963, he found himself in the hospital for minor surgery with a stack of Marvel and DC books to read.

He loved what he saw in Marvel, but he found DC boring. As a challenge, he pulled out the narrative and artistic elements that he admired in Marvel and applied them to stories he wrote using DC characters.

On a whim, he sent them to DC headquarters in New York. The editors liked them so much that they not only published them (with new art), but also hired him to write the company’s Legion of Super-Heroes series.

It was good timing: Union strikes and job-site injuries had left his father unable to work, and his family needed the money.

While still in high school, Jim wrote for DC’s Superman and Supergirl titles, created several new members of the Legion of Superheroes, and, in 1967 with the artist Curt Swan, created a story pitting Superman and the Flash in a race. It became a hugely popular issue.

Image
A cover showing Superman and the Flash racing side by side, with Batman, Wonder Woman and other superheroes cheering in the background.
Working with the artist Curt Swan, Mr. Shooter created a hugely popular story in 1967 pitting Superman and the Flash in a race. It was republished in 1976.Credit...DC

After being accepted at New York University and offered a job at Marvel, Mr. Shooter moved to New York in 1969. He passed on school to take the job, but he quit after a few weeks because the pay was so low.

He returned to Pittsburgh, got a job in advertising and completely dropped out of the comic-book world for several years.

About five years later, a group of fans tracked him down and encouraged him to return to New York. Offered jobs at both DC and Marvel, he briefly worked for DC before choosing Marvel in 1976. Two years later, he was in charge.

He married Michele Minor in 1995. They later separated. A complete list of survivors in addition to his son was not immediately available.

After leaving Marvel, Mr. Shooter started a number of independent comic-book companies, including Valiant, Defiant and Broadway. Valiant met with some success, but all the companies eventually closed shop (though Valiant later reopened under new owners). He ended his career as creative editor for Illustrated Media, a company that creates customized comics.

He also became a fixture on the comic convention circuit, where he would give lectures about storytelling. He had a simple message, built around the nursery rhyme “Little Miss Muffet.”

In an economical 27 words and two sentences, he said, you have everything: a character, an action, a climax and a resolution.

“If you can remember ‘Little Miss Muffet,’” he wrote in an essay on his website, “you can remember everything you need to know about the basic unit of entertainment, which is a story.”

 THE NEW YORK TIMES 

June 27, 2025

The Beach Boys - Heroes and Villains (in memoriam)



Once at night Catillian squared the fight
And she was right in the rain of the bullets that eventually
Brought her down
But she's still dancing in the night
Unafraid of what a dude'll do in a town full of heroes and
Villains

I

June 22, 2025

Sly & The Family Stone - Everyday People (in memoriam)



There is a blue one who can't accept
The green one for living with
A fat one tryin' to be a skinny one
Different strokes for different folks
And so on and so on and scooby dooby dooby

Ooh sha sha
We gotta live together

Diane Arbus, Everything Everywhere All at Once

 

 Diane Arbus, Everything Everywhere All at Once

 

 

Born to the wealthy Nemerov family in New York in 1923, the photographer Diane Arbus married young and got her start helping her husband, Allan, shoot ads for her family’s department store. After ending the collaboration — and her marriage — she turned to a unique kind of candid portraiture, shooting insightful, evasive, disquieting photographs, both of people she met on the street and of more unusual people, like circus performers, whom she sought out.

Her work got her magazine commissions and artistic acclaim, including a central role in the 1967 Museum of Modern Art show “New Documents.” But she made relatively few exhibition-quality prints, sold only four copies of her now iconic portfolio “A Box of Ten Photographs” — which includes “Identical Twins, Roselle, N.J.” and a Jewish giant at home in the Bronx — and in 1971, at the age of 48, she took her own life.

Arthur Lubow, author of a biography of Arbus, wrote in 2003 that she was “fearless, tenacious, vulnerable,” and people opened up to her. But as she said herself in Artforum in 1971: “A photograph is a secret about a secret. The more it tells you the less you know.”

A view of an art gallery with many black-and-white paintings hung on the walls and metal grids.
An installation view of “Diane Arbus: Constellation” at the Park Avenue Armory.Credit...The Estate of Diane Arbus Collection Maja Hoffmann/LUMA Foundation; George Etheredge for The New York Times

So it’s no surprise that “Diane Arbus: Constellation,” the largest show of Arbus’s startling and mesmerizing photographs ever mounted, was unnerving, or that my first reflex was to search for something familiar. Now at the Park Avenue Armory, the exhibition includes every black-and-white silver gelatin print that the photographer Neil Selkirk has made from Arbus’s negatives since her death in 1971.

Arbus’s companion, Marvin Israel, chose Selkirk to help prepare a monograph in the wake of her suicide, and he remains the only person Arbus’s estate has ever allowed to print her photographs. Over five and a half decades this has amounted to 454 of the eerie and obsessive photographs that made her so famous: the twins, triplets, children in masks, nudists, men with tattoos or pins through their cheeks, sword swallowers, dancing couples and awkward celebrities.


Identical twin girls stand side by side, both dressed in dark dresses and wearing white headbands.
Diane Arbus, “Identical Twins, Roselle, N.J.” (1967).Credit...Estate of Diane Arbus

Confronting all these people at once would be overwhelming even without the show’s slightly over-the-top spotlights and shadows. The design, which the curator Matthieu Humery also used when showing these photos at the Luma Foundation at Arles, France, in 2023, is otherwise lucid and inventive, but I still felt an initial rush of panic.

He has arranged the photos in thoughtful but deliberately unsystematic groups on free-standing metal lattices peppered with cloudy mirrors. (The pictures are numbered for easy reference to a checklist, but the list itself is in random order and bears no relation to the layout.) Still, I was grateful to find those identical twins from Roselle in their identical black dresses, the adorable moppet carrying a toy hand grenade around Central Park, the “Triplets in their bedroom, N.J.”


As I wandered around the exhibit, though, the familiar images came to feel less like touchstones and more like launchpads into the deep. I tried to hold onto the more obvious repetitions and similarities, like Arbus’s taste for arranging people in groups that don’t quite cohere, or the consistently disillusioned expression she found in her subjects’ eyes. (When you discover a real smile, as in “Mr. and Mrs. Herbert von Karajan, N.Y.C.” or “A Jewish couple dancing, N.Y.C.,” it’s disconcerting.)

Arbus produced some incredible photographs in Coney Island, at Hubert’s Freak Museum in Times Square and in assorted nudist colonies: “A husband and wife in the woods at a nudist camp, N.J.” has the eerie eternity of a Dutch medieval painting, while “Tattooed man at a carnival, Md.” somehow looks like a statue, a ship’s prow and a giant all at once.

But her people, assembled in such quantity, began to swim before my eyes, and I started thinking that Arbus’s real subject as a photographer may have been simply the color black. In the matte cloaks and jackets of her early “Nuns and their charges,” the tone is emotionally neutral, even friendly, and in a portrait of Bertold Brecht’s widow, the black background has the inky grandeur of outer space.

Arbus printed her photos so dark, and shot so many people outdoors, that the forests of New Jersey and foliage of Central Park inevitably take on a fraught psychological resonance, like so many stand-ins for some unnameable part of the human character, or of her own. In “James Brown backstage at the Apollo Theater, N.Y.C.,” the singer, smiling mischievously in a featureless tuxedo, looks like a supernatural shadow come to life.

A black-and-white photo of a woman in a wheelchair, holding a mask that obscures her face.
Diane Arbus, “Masked woman in a wheelchair, Pa.,” (1970-1972). “Every Arbus portrait,” our critic said, “is its own primordial encounter with otherness.”Credit...The Estate of Diane Arbus

However I approached it, though, I couldn’t find a way to grasp the exhibit as a whole. Every Arbus portrait — or at least every one Arbus shot after exchanging her 35-millimeter camera for a medium format camera with square, 6-by-6 negatives — is its own primordial encounter with otherness, and before long I decided that the only viable way to engage with her work, even in this thrilling cacophony of examples, would be to focus on one photograph at a time. For me, the one that spoke most clearly was “Masked woman in a wheelchair, Pa.,” 1970-1972.

Stretched out in her chair, the woman could be posing, but the photo could also be a candid. Holding an exaggerated witch mask in front of her face, she seems, paradoxically, to be revealing her real self rather than hiding it, as if authenticity can only be found through artifice, or vulnerability made safe only by evasion.

Selkirk was first brought in because it seemed too risky to count on a book printer not losing or damaging the prints that Arbus had made herself. He started by duplicating the images in “A box of ten photographs,” clearly finished the way Arbus had wanted them. He quickly discovered something about how she worked.

Image
A large art gallery filled with metal grids, on which hundreds of black-and-white photographs are hung.
“A photograph is a secret about a secret,” Arbus said in ArtForum in 1971. “The more it tells you, the less you know.”Credit...The Estate of Diane Arbus Collection Maja Hoffmann/LUMA Foundation; George Etheredge for The New York Times

“Everybody else shoots a photograph and then goes into the darkroom and starts manipulating the image to optimize it,” he told me. “She did not. Diane Arbus understood that the world of people out there, every one of them who had the benefit of sight, looked at pictures all the time. They got their snapshots back from the drugstore, and they looked at pictures in the newspaper, and both of those types of image had absolute credibility. No one doubted them.”

While other photographers shine more or less light on a developing photograph to make certain areas brighter than others, “it became evident that the only way to duplicate her prints was to keep your hands out of the way of the goddamn enlarger.”

The vast majority of the images in “Diane Arbus: Constellation” were printed at least once, in some form, by Arbus herself, but many haven’t been seen before. (The exhibition organizers wouldn’t provide an exact number but noted that “Diane Arbus Revelations,” the largest show before this one and largest publication to date, includes only 200.)

By keeping his hands, as he says, out of the way of the enlarger as he pressed on from the “Box of 10 photos” to negatives for which her intentions were less clear, Selkirk created a consistent aesthetic that has as good a claim as any to represent Arbus’s own.


The matter-of-fact newsiness that he describes, in combination with unusual subjects and subtly uncanny poses, give the viewer an inimitable sense of witnessing something occult, of confronting something at once omnipresent and unspeakable. It’s the mirror and dark floor in “Russian midget friends in a living room on 100th Street, N.Y.C.,” the shadows in “Four people at a gallery opening, N.Y.C.,” the patient defiance of “Seated man in a bra and stockings, N.Y.C.”: There’s always something to tip you off that this is no ordinary occasion.

Of course, there’s no way to know how Arbus’s art might have developed if she had lived longer or sold more during her lifetime, or what she would want to happen with it now. There’s no getting around the fact that this exhibition, like every print or exhibition made afer her death, is a collaboration among Arbus; Selkirk; the estate, led by her daughter, Doon; and the galleries that represent the estate, Fraenkel Gallery and David Zwirner.

But that’s always true after artists die, and in this case, the questions that come up happen to mirror those raised by Arbus herself: What is real? What is true? Is there anything really stable in human experience? Who are we?


The exhibition includes every black-and-white silver gelatin print that the photographer Neil Selkirk has made from Arbus’s negatives since her death in 1971.Credit...The Estate of Diane Arbus Collection Maja Hoffmann/LUMA Foundation; George Etheredge for The New York Times

June 21, 2025

A vida em PRETO E BRANCO

 

  


por Julinho Bittencourt


Quem para diante de uma das inúmeras
imagens de Sebastião Salgado nunca
mais é o mesmo. A não ser, é claro, que
não tenha o menor apreço pela raça humana e
pelo planeta que habita.


Há ali o enquadramento perfeito, a
composição definitiva. Há também a
preferência por nos mostrar as coisas em preto
e branco. Ele mesmo explicou a razão, em
entrevista à RFI Brasil:
Meu mundo é preto e branco, eu vejo
em preto e branco, eu transformo todas
essas gamas maravilhosas de cores – e
eu acho a cor muito bonita – em gamas
maravilhosas de cinza, o preto e branco
é uma abstração, é uma forma que eu
tenho de sair de um mundo e entrar em
outro para poder trabalhar o meu sujeito
fotográfico, poder dedicar tempo à 

dignidade das pessoas. Isso eu consigo
em preto e branco, acho que em cores eu
não conseguiria”, disse ele.


Há inúmeras outras e enormes razões que
fazem de Sebastião Salgado um gênio das
imagens. Certo dia me arvorei pela fotografia
e, diante de suas fotos, me senti um menino,
estudante de ukulele ouvindo Beethoven pela
primeira vez. O que explode de suas texturas
e visões vertiginosas é algo que parte de outra
dimensão e nos coloca diante de nós mesmos,
nosso papel no futuro.


A menina sem-terra eternizada
por Sebastião Salgado se chama
Joceli Borges. A foto foi feita em
1992 e virou capa do livro Terra.


Os olhos de aflição da menina sem-terra,
retratada por ele no emblemático projeto Terra,
nos sacode pelos ombros com força tamanha.
É intimidante, seco, dorido. Ela encara o
cidadão de bem no fundo da alma. Tente, caro
leitor, manter os olhos nos olhos da criança por
mais tempo. Tente não retesar os músculos,
tente se manter ileso.


Antes que os incautos digam algo que o
desabone, é importante lembrar que Sebastião
Salgado cedeu os direitos autorais do livro Terra
ao MST. O projeto, lançado em 1997 e que
integra textos do prêmio Nobel José Saramago
e um disco com canções do prêmio Camões
Chico Buarque, foi todo para o movimento.

 

Doenças da alma

 
A extensa obra de Sebastião Salgado é
totalmente voltada a denunciar injustiças,
devastações, fome. Enfim, todo o pesadelo e
a desventura dos homens em sua incessante
obsessão por destruir e espoliar sua própria
casa e seus semelhantes.


Após décadas, possuído por doenças da
alma, o fotógrafo resolveu ir atrás do que
restava do planeta e de seus habitantes.
Fez, então, seu canto do cisne: a obra-prima
Gênesis, iniciada em 2004, concluída em 2012
e publicada em 2013.


Nela, o fotógrafo registrou lugares e povos
que ainda estavam intocados. E, para sua

surpresa e otimismo, o que encontrou era muito
maior do que jamais imaginou um dia.


Sebastião Salgado nos deixou na sexta-feira,
23 de maio de 2025, aos 81 anos, com uma
obra imensa, irretocável. Foi, sem sombra de
dúvidas, o maior fotógrafo brasileiro de todos os
tempos e um dos grandes do planeta.
Que a sua inquietação e genialidade nos
inspirem a reconstruir nossa casa e nosso tempo.

FORUM 

 






 

(clique nas imagens para ve-las em tamanho maior)

Golpistas Bufões : Lapsos de memória

 

 


O SHOW DE GAFES, OMISSÕES E MENTIRAS
PROTAGONIZADO POR BOLSONARO E SEUS COMPARSAS
DURANTE OS DEPOIMENTOS AO STF 

RODR IGO M A RTINS 

 Quem acredita na existência de uma ditadura judicial no Brasil provavelmente
decepcionou-se com o depoimento de Jair Bolsonaro à Primeira Turma do
Supremo Tribunal Federal. O ministro Alexandre de Moraes conduziu o interrogatório
com serenidade, evitou confrontar o réu diretamente e permitiu que o ex-presidente se expressasse livremente, inclusive quando se desviava do tema paraenaltecer sua própria gestão, como se ainda estivesse em campanha.

 Bolsonaro, por
sua vez, pediu desculpas a Moraes, a quem
costumava chamar de “ditador”, e admitiu
não haver qualquer prova de que o magistrado
tivesse recebido 50 milhões de dólares
para fraudar as eleições, acusação lançada
por ele em um encontro ministerial
de 5 de julho de 2022, no qual fez a mesma
ilação contra os juízes Edson Fachin
e Luís Roberto Barroso. “Não tem indício

nenhum, senhor ministro. Era uma reunião
para não ser gravada. Foi um desabafo,
uma retórica que eu usei. Se fossem outros
três ocupando (as cadeiras doTribunal
Superior Eleitoral), teria falado a mesma
coisa. Então, me desculpe, não tinha
intenção de acusar de qualquer desvio de
conduta dos senhores.”


“Bolsonaro always chickens out”, diriam
os analistas do Financial Times ao
constatar a impressionante semelhança
de conduta do brasileiro com o presidente
dos Estados Unidos, habituado a bravatear
em sua guerra comercial, mas que invariavelmente
amarela. Em um momento
de descontração durante o interrogatório
de duas horas, o cover brasileiro chegou a
perguntar a Moraes se poderia fazer uma
piada. “Eu perguntaria ao meu advogado”,
respondeu o magistrado. Bolsonaro ignorou
o conselho: “Eu gostaria de convidá-lo
a ser meu vice em 2026”. O convite foi “declinado”
aos risos – que vantagem Maria
leva ao ser vice de um candidato inelegível?


O gesto parece ter sido calculado para
aliviar a tensão e conquistar alguma simpatia,
senão condescendência, dos magistrados
que vão julgá-lo por chefiar uma
organização criminosa, atentar contra
o Estado Democrático de Direito, tentar
um golpe de Estado, depredar patrimônio
da União e deteriorar bem tombado –
crimes cujas penas, somadas, podem
chegar a 39 anos de prisão.


O clima amistoso da audiência não
apenas deixou a claque bolsonarista atônita
nas redes sociais diante da amarelada
do “Mito”, como também expôs Eduardo
Bolsonaro na Trumplândia. O filho
Zero Três, convém lembrar, “exilou-se”
nos EUA para denunciar a suposta “dita-

dura brasileira”. Se os ruidosos atos públicos
e os passeios de jet ski do pai pela
orla soavam pouco compatíveis com a
fantasia de perseguido político, o que dizer
agora, depois de vê-lo trocando afagos
com o “ditador de toga”?


Durante o depoimento, Bolsonaro fez
uma confissão parcial: admitiu ter se
reunido com os comandantes das Forças
Armadas para discutir “possibilidades”
após a derrota nas eleições de 2022. “Nós
buscamos alguma alternativa na Constituição
e achamos que não procedia, e foi
encerrado”, despistou. Dentre as “alternativas”
cogitadas estavam a realização
de uma operação de Garantia da Lei e da
Ordem ou até mesmo a decretação de estado
de sítio, medida extrema prevista na
Constituição que autoriza o presidente a
suspender garantias fundamentais, co-

mo o sigilo de comunicações e a liberdade
de reunião, mas que depende de aval
do Congresso e de consulta aos Conselhos
da República e de Defesa Nacional.
Segundo Bolsonaro, as reuniões com
os comandantes militares só foram convocadas
após o TSE multar o PL, seu partido,
em 22,9 milhões de reais por litigância
de má-fé, na enésima tentativa de
desacreditar as urnas eletrônicas. “Essa
multa nos abalou e, no nosso entendimento,
se viéssemos a recorrer ou fazer
uma petição, ela poderia ser agravada”,
balbuciou. Foi um dos raros momentos
em que Moraes contraditou o réu: Bolsonaro
chegou a pedir a devolução do dinheiro,
alegando que o valor fazia “muita
falta ao partido”, mas o ministro lembrou
que o PL apresentou um recurso à época,
julgado improcedente. Ou seja, não procedia
a esfarrapada justificativa usada
para cogitar medidas de exceção.


O magistrado ainda ofereceu
a chance de o réu apresentar
uma explicação mais plausível.
“O senhor está dizendo que
a cogitação, a conversa, o início
desta questão de estado de sítio,
estado de defesa, teria sido em
virtude da impossibilidade de
recurso eleitoral? É isso?”, perguntou
Moraes. O ex-presidente
confirmou: “Sim, senhor”.


Em outras passagens,
o capitão
sacou da algibeira
outra desculpa
esfarrapada
para decretar a GLO: a desmobilização
dos caminhoneiros
que bloquearam rodovias
em 26 estados e no Distrito
Federal por inconformismo
com o resultado das urnas.
Tratava-se de uma tarefa
que, segundo ele, a Polícia
Rodoviária Federal não teria
condições de resolver sozinha,
ainda mais depois do esforço

para impedir o deslocamento de eleitores
de Lula no Nordeste, como anotou a
Procuradoria-Geral da República na denúncia.


O próprio Bolsonaro vangloriou-
-se, porém, de que bastou gravar um vídeo
para os apoiadores nas boleias removerem
os obstáculos das pistas, outra tentativa
canhestra de negar as intenções 

golpistas do núcleo sob seu comando.
Curiosamente, os caminhoneiros servem,
ao mesmo tempo, como pretexto para
convocar os comandantes militares ao
Palácio do Alvorada e como “prova” de
que não havia intenção golpista. “Se eu
almejasse o caos no Brasil, era só ficar
quieto.” Bolsonaro não regurgitou, porém,
qualquer palavra para reconhecer
a derrota nas urnas ou para desmobilizar
os “malucos”, como ele próprio definiu,
acampados na porta de quartéis clamando
por intervenção militar. Mesmo
sem ser questionado, o “chefe da quadrilha”,
de acordo com a PGR, fez questão de
explicar por que se recusou a entregar a
faixa presidencial a Lula em 1º de janeiro
de 2023. “Eu não iria me submeter à
maior vaia da história do Brasil.” Singelo.


Como previsto, Bolsonaro negou ter
recebido ou alterado a “minuta do golpe”
preparada pelo assessor Felipe
Martins, segundo versão apresentada
pelo delator. O tenente-
coronel Mauro Cid, ex-ajudante
de ordens da Presidência,
afirmou em juízo, um dia
antes do depoimento do antigo
chefe, que o documento previa
a anulação do resultado eleitoral
e a prisão de várias autoridades
do Congresso e do Supremo
Tribunal Federal, lista
revisada e reduzida pelo então
presidente. “Somente o senhor
ficaria preso”, disse Cid a Moraes.
“O resto conseguiria um
habeas corpus”, respondeu ironicamente
o ministro.


“Não conversei sobre essa
minuta, não. Fui bater um papo
apenas”, desconversou Bolsonaro,
que também negou ter
recebido do general Marco Antônio
Freire Gomes, então comandante
do Exército, uma
ameaça de prisão caso tentasse
uma ruptura institucional,
como afirmou em juízo o ex-
-chefe da Aeronáutica, Carlos

de Almeida Baptista Júnior, testemunha
arrolada no processo. O próprio Freire
Gomes negou ter cogitado a prisão, mas
confirmou ter alertado Bolsonaro de que
o Exército não embarcaria em qualquer
aventura que “extrapolasse sua competência
constitucional”.


Quanto às recorrentes acusações de
fraude eleitoral, reiteradas em atos públicos,
reuniões ministeriais e no fatídico
encontro com embaixadores que motivou
sua condenação à inelegibilidade por
oito anos, Bolsonaro admitiu “exageros”
na “retórica” contra as urnas. O hábito de
falar o que lhe vem à cabeça, sem se preocupar
com as consequências, justificou,
seria fruto de sua atuação como deputado,
protegido pela imunidade parlamentar.
“Talvez esse vício eu tenha trazido
para o Poder Executivo.”


Se foi evasivo e teve dificuldade de
mobilizar argumentos mais convincentes
para justificar as reuniões conspiratórias
com chefes militares, ao menos

Bolsonaro não parece padecer da mesma
falta de memória de seus antigos auxiliares.
Braga Netto, ex-ministro da Casa
Civil e vice na chapa de 2022, disse não
se lembrar das mensagens em que orientou
colegas de farda a intensificar os ataques
nas redes sociais contra os comandantes
das Forças Armadas que se recusaram
a tomar parte no plano golpista.
Em uma conversa interceptada pela PF,
o capitão Aílton Barros perguntou ao general,
em 14 de dezembro daquele ano, se
poderia atirar Freire Gomes “aos leões”,
e Braga Netto assentiu: “Oferece a cabeça
dele. Cagão.” No dia seguinte, orientou
Barros a “sentar o pau” no chefe da Aeronáutica.
“Inferniza a vida dele e da família.
Elogia o Garnier e fode o BJ.”


BJ é a abreviação de Baptista Júnior.
Já Garnier se refere ao almirante Almir
Garnier, comandante da Marinha, que,
segundo relatou o colega da Aeronáutica

PF, teria colocado suas tropas à disposição
de Bolsonaro. Agora, Braga Netto sofreu
um lapso de memória em relação ao
diálogo com Barros. “Eu não me lembro
de ter enviado essa mensagem.” O general
afirma, no entanto, lembrar com clareza
do encontro em sua casa com o major
Rafael de Oliveira e o tenente-coronel
Hélio Ferreira Lima, integrantes das
Forças Especiais do Exército. E nega ter
discutido com os chamados kids pretos
o plano “Punhal Verde e Amarelo”, que
previa o monitoramento e o assassinato
de autoridades, entre elas o presidente
Lula, o vice Geraldo Alckmin e o ministro
Alexandre de Moraes. Foi um encontro
rápido, para tratar de amenidades,
descreveu. “O assunto foi genérico.
Eles não tinham intimidade para entrar
em assuntos delicados comigo.” Da mesma
forma, Braga Netto nega ter entregado
dinheiro em uma sacola de vinho, no
Palácio da Alvorada, para Mauro Cid repassar
a Oliveira. Segundo o delator, o valor
havia sido fornecido por empresários
do agronegócio e se destinava a financiar
a execução do plano golpista.


Outro com memória seletiva
é Garnier. Em juízo, o
almirante negou ter colocado
tropas à disposição
de Bolsonaro, mas disse
ter uma lembrança vaga da proposta
discutida na reunião de 7 de dezembro
de 2022. “O que eu me lembro é que foram
apresentadas considerações que deixaram
uma dificuldade na condução do
País. Afinal, o candidato derrotado Jair
Messias Bolsonaro ainda era o presidente,
e preocupava, a ele e aos demais ministros,
inclusive o da Defesa, que pudesse
descambar em algo não muito agradável.”
Anderson Torres, ex-ministro da Justiça
e secretário de Segurança Pública do
Distrito Federal à época dos atos golpistas
que devastaram Brasília, disse não se lembrar
da minuta apreendida em sua casa
pela Polícia Federal. Desconfia que o documento
tenha ido parar ali por uma “fatalidade"


Augusto Heleno esqueceu o roteiro ensaiado
com o defensor. Braga Netto disse não se
lembrar das mensagens nas quais orientou
ataques aos comandantes militares nas redes

talidade”, misturado a outros papéis que
circulavam misteriosamente por seu gabinete.


Empenhado em esconder a tornozeleira
eletrônica com as próprias meias,
o ex-ministro parecia constrangido com
a indigente redação da peça, um decreto
de Estado de Defesa para intervenção no
âmbito do TSE, que ele próprio apelidou
de “minuta do Google”. Ao tomar conhecimento
da prisão, durante um passeio pela
Disney, afirmou ter ficado tão “desorientado”
que acabou perdendo o celular.
Augusto Heleno, ex-
-chefe do Gabinete de
Segurança Institucional,
manteve a “fama de mau”.
Recusou-se a responder
às perguntas de Moraes, mas participou
de uma espécie de esquete de humor com
o próprio advogado, Matheus Milanez,
celebridade nas redes sociais depois de
se queixar do horário das audiências, que
o impedia de comer nos horários apropriados.


De todos os réus do “núcleo crucial”
da trama golpista, Heleno foi o único
a exercer o direito de permanecer em silêncio
no interrogatório. Mas não escapou
do vexame. “O senhor orientou a Abin para
que a agência produzisse relatórios e documentos
com informações falsas sobre
a eleição de 2022?”, perguntou Milanez.
“De maneira nenhuma. Não havia clima”,
respondeu o réu. “A pergunta é só ‘sim’ ou
‘não’”, advertiu o advogado. “Porra, desculpa”,
reagiu Heleno, arrancando gargalhadas
até mesmo de Moraes. “Não fui eu,
general Heleno. Que fique nos anais aqui
do Supremo: foi o seu advogado”.


A turma deveria mirar-se no exemplo
de Alexandre Ramagem, ex-chefe da
Agência Brasileira de Inteligência. Para
não cair nas armadilhas do esquecimento,
ele guardou no computador funcional
até os recados que jamais teria chegado a
enviar a Bolsonaro. “Por tudo que tenho
pesquisado, mantenho total certeza de
que houve fraude nas eleições de 2018,
com vitória do Sr. no primeiro turno. Todavia,
ocorrida na alteração de votos. O

proargumento na anulação de votos não teria
esse alcance todo”, registrou em um
arquivo do Word. “O senhor escrevia cartas
ao presidente e não enviava?”, insistiu
Moraes. “Eu escrevia textos privados que
me concatenavam a ideia para, se possível,
em algum momento, se ter algum debate”,
respondeu Ramagem. O detalhismo
do delegado não passou despercebi-

do. Apesar de guardar para si as missivas,
Ramagem não se esquecia de escrever
“bom dia, presidente” ou “boa sorte,
presidente”. Em juízo, o deputado federal
negou ter usado a estrutura da Abin
para comprovar as infundadas alegações
de fraude no sistema eleitoral.


Na tentativa de expor contradições no
depoimento do delator, a defesa de Bolsonaro
quase arrastou alguns aliados para
a fogueira. O advogado Celso Villardi pediu
autorização a Moraes para reproduzir
um áudio extraído do celular de Mauro
Cid, incluído nos autos do processo. Na
conversa com um general, Cid relata que
o presidente parecia inclinado a desistir
da tentativa de golpe, mas era incentivado
por aliados a continuar contestando o
processo eleitoral conduzido pelo TSE.


O militar menciona então um grupo
de empresários – Luciano Hang (Lojas
Havan), Meyer Nigri (Tecnisa), Afrânio
Barreira (Coco Bambu) e “o cara da
Centauro”, em provável referência a Sebastião
Bonfim – que teria pressionado
Bolsonaro a exigir do Ministério da Defesa
um relatório “mais duro, contundente,
para virar o jogo”. Moraes, irônico,
perguntou se o defensor estava pro

pondo um “aditamento da denúncia”, para
inclusão de novos investigados. Villardi
desconversou. Os empresários negam
qualquer iniciativa antidemocrática.


Curiosamente, as perguntas que deixaram
o delator mais desconcertado não
partiram da defesa, mas do ministro Luiz
Fux, único integrante do STF a acompanhar
presencialmente os depoimentos
conduzidos por Moraes, relator dos
processos sobre a tentativa de golpe. Fux
quis saber quem, no governo, teve contato
direto com os acampados diante dos
quartéis. “O miolo da Presidência nunca
manteve contato com nenhuma liderança,
nenhum financiador. A gente sabia o
que estava acontecendo pelas redes sociais”,
respondeu o tenente-coronel. Em
outra ocasião, o ministro perguntou se as
minutas golpistas chegaram a ser assinadas.
“Não, senhor. Em nenhum momento
foi assinado. Inclusive, era a grande preocupação
do comandante do Exército que
o presidente assinasse alguma coisa sem
consultar e sem falar com ele antes.”
As intervenções do juiz
foram celebradas por
Eduardo Bolsonaro.


“Fux desmontou o castelo
de areia com duas
perguntas”, comemorou Zero Três, em
vídeo divulgado nas redes sociais. No dia
seguinte, o próprio ex-presidente reforçou
esse ponto em seu depoimento: “Até
vi o ministro Fux questionando o coronel
Cid aqui se foi assinado ou não”, disse
Bolsonaro. “Sequer pensamos em fazer
algo ao arrepio da nossa Constituição.”
Fux, que criticou publicamente o “excesso
de depoimentos” prestados por Cid
à Polícia Federal, nove, no total, mais diligente
que os advogados de defesa, voltou
a perguntar a outros acusados sobre
detalhes formais, como a convocação dos
Conselhos da República e de Defesa Nacional,
uma das etapas para a decretação
de um estado de sítio, ou a existência de
assinaturas em documentos mencionados
durante os interrogatórios. A pergunta
mais espantosa veio na oitiva de
Braga Netto. “General, alguém assinou
esse plano Punhal Verde e Amarelo?” O
réu repetiu que desconhecia sua existência

mas, a julgar pela fixação do ministro
com rubricas, talvez seja o caso de a PF
fazer uma varredura nos cartórios. Dada
a obsessão dos golpistas em documentar
cada passo da intentona, não surpreenderia
se alguém tivesse tido o cuidado de
reconhecer firma na trama para assassinar
autoridades.


Espera-se que o apego a formalidades
não prejudique o juízo dos ministros
da Primeira Turma do Supremo
Tribunal Federal. Como o jurista Pedro
Serrano tem repetido nas páginas de
CartaCapital, o crime de golpe de Estado
não exige tanques nas ruas nem a consumação
do rompimento institucional.


“Não estamos diante de meros atos preparatórios,
mas de uma execução real, apenas

 interrompida por questões logísticas.
A execução foi iniciada, mas interrompida
por razões alheias à vontade dos
envolvidos. No caso de golpe de Estado, o
crime inicia-se pelo planejamento.”


Como os réus produziram fartas provas
contra si mesmos, os lapsos, negativas
e rodeios só tiveram o efeito de
demonstrar as limitações intelectuais,
morais e cognitivas do núcleo crucial do
golpe. Os aliados de Bolsonaro esperam
uma condenação até outubro. Os donos
do dinheiro que sonham – e trabalham
– por uma reorganização da extrema-direita,
sem o ex-presidente para atrapalhar,
não só esperam. Também torcem.

CARTA CAPITAL 

Brian Wilson Wrote the California Dream, but He Didn’t Live It

 

 An artist nearly synonymous with Los Angeles made his name crafting songs playing up his home state’s beachy vibes. His inner life, however, was anything but sunny.

 The Beach Boys pose on a beach, loaded into a yellow car with a surfboard on the side.

 

Even though Brian Wilson grew up only five miles from the Pacific Ocean, he rarely went to the beach. He’d felt scared by the size of the ocean on his first visit. Being light-skinned, he also feared sunburns. He tried surfing, but got hit on the head by his board and decided once was enough.

And yet, in songs like “Surfin’ U.S.A.,” “California Girls” and “Good Vibrations,” Wilson did as much as anyone to depict Los Angeles and California as a land of bikinis and warm, honey-colored sunsets. The songs he wrote about the West Coast, he said in “I Am Brian Wilson: A Memoir,” were “more about the idea of going in the ocean than they were about actually going in the ocean.” Wilson didn’t like waves, but realized how they could serve as a metaphor for life.

Wilson, whose death at 82 was announced by his family on Wednesday, was as closely associated with Los Angeles as anyone in music history. In 1988, The Los Angeles Times polled a passel of industry veterans and asked them to name the greatest L.A. band of all time; the Beach Boys came in second. (The Doors won, a dubious choice.) When Randy Newman wanted to mock the city in “I Love L.A.,” his covertly acerbic 1983 hit, he shouted, with almost-convincing enthusiasm, “Turn up the Beach Boys!”

Wilson’s fantasia of California — a Zion where everyone wore huarache sandals and drove deuce coupes — thrilled millions of people worldwide and aligned with a period in the state’s growth. Between 1962 and 1970, the Beach Boys’ heyday, the population of California increased by three million people. Wilson couldn’t claim credit for the boom, but no tourism board or corporate recruiter could design a better pitch. The songs were specific and local, but also universal. How else to explain “Surfin’ Safari” topping the singles chart in Sweden?

Brian, a classic “indoor kid,” wrote about those adventures from a position of voyeurism. In a 1965 interview with The Los Angeles Times, he mentioned “our West Coast sound, which we pioneered.” The songs, he added, tell stories about teenagers. “We base them on activities of healthy California kids who like to surf, hot rod, and engage in other outdoor fun.” He saw these activities the same way he saw the ocean — through a window.

A songwriter doesn’t need to have firsthand experience with his subject matter, only an inquisitive imagination, an emotional link to a topic and an eye for detail. As an observer, Wilson could write exuberant songs about teenage frolic. But he had deeper and sadder inspirations, too. Murry Wilson, a frustrated songwriter and father to the three Wilson boys, was a physically and verbally abusive bully. The darkness that eventually overtook him started early, at home.


A black-and-white photo of a bearded Brian Wilson at a patio table.
Brian Wilson in Los Angeles in the mid-1970s. His depression and anxiety led him to stop touring with the Beach Boys.Credit...Michael Ochs Archives/Getty Images

While Wilson was flying high as a successful (and envied) songwriter and performer, he suffered from depression and anxiety that led him to stop traveling by plane and touring; he made it worse by using cocaine and speed. “I was sinking,” he wrote.

He was shy and sensitive (music, he said, “was my only friend”), and mental illness pushed him deeper into solitude and contemplation. As much as his voyeuristic songs were fun fun fun, his personal songs about anxiety and rejection were gorgeous and troubled, with beautiful melodies and surprising vaults from major to minor keys.

He’d started by hitching his wagon to a trend, which showed a gift for marketing, then shifted his themes and creative ambitions once he had a foothold. The band toured without him, playing the hits and perpetuating the idea of the Beach Boys as a rock ’n’ roll clambake, even as Wilson struggled to contain his illness and wrote songs that transcended the group’s stature as the quintessential Los Angeles band.

Amid the palm trees, California has a darkness to match its brightness, as John Steinbeck, Nathanael West and James Ellroy have well documented. With his array of joyful, voyeuristic songs and pained, anxious ones, Wilson understood the two sides of the state, and human nature.

The decisive evidence of Wilson’s genius is his melancholy work: “In My Room,” “Don’t Worry Baby,” “I Just Wasn’t Made for These Times,” “’Til I Die” (written, Wilson said, while he was “depressed and preoccupied with death”), “Caroline, No,” “The Warmth of the Sun” (written the night John F. Kennedy was killed), the celestial “God Only Knows,” sung perfectly by Carl, and plenty more.

Robert Hilburn, a longtime Angeleno and the pop music critic of The Los Angeles Times for 35 years, recalled hearing the first Beach Boys hits when he was 21. “I thought they were cute and catchy, but too simple, too teen — they weren’t heavy like Bob Dylan was.” Then, as Wilson advanced as a writer, Hilburn noticed “the loneliness and sadness of Brian’s other songs, that came from his insecurity and paranoia. That dark side was the key. That’s what cements his legacy.”

 NEW YORK TIMES

 

 

June 18, 2025

Política é de ‘imobilidade social’

 



Lucianne Carneiro


Os dados recentes de queda de
desigualdade no Brasil em 2024 —
graças a mercado de trabalho
aquecido, programas sociais e reajuste
real do salário mínimo — são
comemorados pelo pesquisador
do Instituto de Pesquisa Econômica
Aplicada (Ipea) Marcos Hecksher,
estudioso de mercado de
trabalho e de desigualdades. Na
avaliação dele, o programa Pé-de-
Meia já contribuiu para esse movimento
e há sinais de que há maior
conclusão de ensino médio em
2025 entre os que foram beneficiados
pelo programa em 2024.



O Brasil permanece, no entanto,
lamenta, com uma estrutura
de Imposto de Renda para a pessoa
física em que ricos pagam
proporcionalmente menos impostos
que o resto da população,
no que ele chama de “política
de imobilidade social”.


“É como se fosse uma política
pública dizendo que ajuda
quem está no topo a permanecer
ali. E, para quem não está no topo,
cobra mais imposto para
atrapalhar a subida. É assim que
funciona atualmente nossa tabela
do Imposto de Renda. Corrigir
isso é fundamental”, defende.


Para Hecksher, os ajustes propostos
pelo Ministério da Fazenda,
após reunião com líderes do Congresso,
são cuidados no aspecto
distributivo e concentram o sacrifício
em rendas financeiras isentas
ou desoneradas e jogos de azar.


“Há quem prefira cortar em
benefícios aos mais pobres, mas
isso tornaria o ajuste injusto.
Nós, que temos aplicações isentas
com um dos juros mais altos
do mundo, devíamos aceitar algum
sacrifício em vez de pedir
que ele se concentre nos mais
pobres”, diz.


Em 2024, a renda dos mais
pobres subiu mais que a dos
mais ricos, aponta o economista,
ao lembrar que “as desigualdades
caem” quando isso ocorre.


A renda da parcela dos 20%
mais pobres da população cresceu
em ritmo de dois dígitos no
ano passado, ante 2023, enquanto
o aumento entre os 10%
mais ricos ficou abaixo da média
nacional de 4,7%.


A Pesquisa Nacional por
Amostra de Domicílios (Pnad)
Contínua Rendimento de todas
as fontes 2024, do Instituto Brasileiro
de Geografia e Estatística
(IBGE), mostra que essa parcela
dos 10% de maior renda foi a única
entre os diferentes grupos de
rendimento com velocidade menor
de expansão que a da média.


Hecksher cita a expansão do
emprego e da renda, especialmente
no setor formal, como fator que
contribuiu para a redução da desigualdade,
assim como um melhor
foco das políticas sociais para os
brasileiros mais pobres. A parcela
do Bolsa Família recebida pelos
20% mais pobres da população tinha
diminuído de 64,4% em 2019
para 47,6% em 2022, por causa da
expansão da pandemia, que passou
a alcançar mais pessoas no
meio da distribuição. Entre 2022 e
2024, houve melhora no Cadastro
Único e criação de benefícios para
famílias com crianças, o que melhorou
a focalização, e agora novamente
mais da metade dos recursos
vai para esse grupo (51,7%), de
acordo com seus cálculos.


Perguntado sobre eventual
efeito da ampliação do Bolsa Família
na busca por trabalho e o
que chama de “efeito preguiça”
em seus textos, o pesquisador
do Ipea afirma que os sinais
mais gerais da economia — como
aumento do emprego formal
em todas as faixas de renda
e redução do desemprego, principalmente
entre os mais pobres
— apontam que a política social
“não está atrapalhando”, embora
reconheça que possam existir
casos pontuais.


Para tratar do tema, cita trabalho
de François Gerard, Joana Naritomi
e Joana Silva que será publicado
na revista “Econométrica”
e que mostra que municípios
onde houve maior expansão do
Bolsa Família tiveram aumento
maior do emprego formal.


Os dados, no entanto, avaliam
o programa de antes da pandemia
e Hecksher concorda que o
aumento do valor e a ampliação
da cobertura do benefício justificam
que se volte à questão,
mas que até agora os estudos sobre
o tema não “têm a mesma
qualidade”. Ao mesmo tempo, o
pesquisador critica a reincidência
desse debate: “É uma pergunta
recorrente. Sempre se pergunta
se o Bolsa Família deixa os
pobres mais preguiçosos, embora
não se pergunte muito se os
juros e as isenções fiscais deixam
os ricos preguiçosos.”


Dados da Declaração de Incentivos,
Renúncias, Benefícios e
Imunidades de Natureza Tributária

Tributária,
a DIRB, mostram um valor
de R$ 400 bilhões em isenções,
desonerações e renúncia fiscal
para empresas de janeiro de
2024 a fevereiro de 2025, dado
mais recente. “Isso dá mais de R$
4 milhões por empresa, sem necessariamente
reverter em desenvolvimento.
Não avaliamos
com o mesmo cuidado se isso
gera efeito preguiça nas empresas”,
diz.


Neste contexto, defende que o
esforço de ajuste fiscal se dê mais
por revisão de emendas parlamentares,
isenções e benefícios
tributários a empresas que pelos
gastos com políticas sociais.


“Há muito lugar para fazer
ajuste fiscal. Mas quem é beneficiado
pelas emendas e pelas
isenções é ouvido diretamente e
diariamente pelo Congresso, enquanto
quem recebe Bolsa Família
só é ouvido a cada dois ou
quatro anos, no voto. Isso é desequilibrado”,
afirma.


Ao tratar do controle da inflação,
o economista lembra que a
meta do país está mais ambiciosa
e que a Constituição prevê o controle
da inflação, mas também a
redução das desigualdades.


“A meta de inflação não é única
e não se pode perseguir uma
meta sacrificando outra. Deixar
os pobres mais pobres é a pior
maneira de gerar equilíbrio fiscal
e combater a inflação”, nota.
Para Hecksher, a desigualdade
de renda no Brasil “não é por acaso,
mas fruto de políticas adotadas
por anos seguidos”. Na visão dele,
é preciso que a redução das discrepâncias
entre os brasileiros também
venha por meio de tributação
mais justa, e não só por políticas
sociais voltadas aos mais pobres.

VALOR