The United States has a Jair Bolsonaro problem.

The far-right former Brazilian president flew to Florida two days before his term ended on Jan. 1, having challenged the results of the Oct. 30 runoff election that he narrowly lost to leftist rival Luiz Inacio Lula da Silva. On Sunday a violent movement of election-denying Bolsonaro supporters stormed Brazil’s presidential palace, Congress and Supreme Court.

After watching supporters of former U.S. leader Donald Trump invade the U.S. Capitol two years ago, Democratic President Joe Biden is now facing mounting pressure to remove Bolsonaro from his self-imposed exile in suburban Orlando.

“Bolsonaro should not be in Florida,” U.S. Representative Joaquin Castro, a Democratic lawmaker in Congress, said on CNN. “The United States should not be a refuge for this authoritarian who has inspired domestic terrorism in Brazil. He should be sent back to Brazil.”

Castro said Bolsonaro, a Trump acolyte now based in the former president’s home state, had “used the Trump playbook to inspire domestic terrorists.”

Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, another Democrat in the U.S. House of Representatives, echoed those views.

“The US must cease granting refuge to Bolsonaro in Florida,” she tweeted on Sunday.

Brazil’s O Globo reported on Monday that Bolsonaro had been admitted to a U.S. hospital with abdominal pain.

Their comments turn up the heat on Bolsonaro, and highlight Washington’s big decision about his future.

Bolsonaro had a fractious relationship with Biden, and was already on weaker ground back home in Brazil after losing broad protections from prosecution when he stepped down as president. Those probes could lead to his arrest or prevent him from running for office, Reuters reported last week.

In Washington, a person familiar with the matter said the Biden administration was still gathering information on what happened in Brasilia on Sunday and who may have been behind it. The source, speaking on condition of anonymity, said there would likely be no decision on Bolsonaro’s visa status until there is a clearer picture of what happened.

John Feeley, who was the U.S. ambassador to Panama from late 2015 to 2018 when the Central American nation sought the extradition of its former President Ricardo Martinelli, said the most immediate threat to Bolsonaro would come if his U.S. visa were revoked.

“The United States – or any sovereign nation for that matter – may remove a foreigner, even one who entered legally on a visa, for any reason,” Feeley said. “It’s a purely sovereign decision for which no legal justification is required.”

Martinelli was extradited from the United States back to Panama in 2018, three years after Panama’s Supreme Court issued an arrest warrant for him.

A U.S. consular official, speaking on condition of anonymity, said Bolsonaro had almost certainly entered on an A-1 visa, which are reserved for heads of state, diplomats and other government officials. A second source, a senior former U.S. diplomat, also believed it was almost certain that Bolsonaro had entered on an A-1.

Normally the A-1 is canceled after the recipient leaves office. But with Bolsonaro having left Brazil and entered the United States before his term ended, the official suspected his A-1 was still active.

The official, who has experience with the cancellation of visas for former heads of state, said there is no set time limit on how long someone can stay in the United States on an A-1.

“We’re in uncharted territory,” the official said. “Who knows how long he is going to stay?”

A State Department spokesperson said “visa records are confidential under U.S. law; therefore, we cannot discuss the details of individual visa cases.”

Bolsonaro may be in no hurry to return to Brazil, where he is accused of instigating a violent election denial movement with baseless claims of electoral fraud.

Lula, who pledged in his Jan. 1 inauguration speech to go after Bolsonaro if needed, blamed his predecessor for Sunday’s violence. Brazilian police

The former president “is encouraging this via social media from Miami,” Lula said on Sunday, a day before Brazilian soldiers backed by police dismantled the Bolsonaro supporters’ camp in the capital. “Everybody knows there are various speeches of the ex-president encouraging this.”

In a tweet on Sunday, Bolsonaro rejected Lula’s accusations and said the invasion had crossed the line of peaceful protest.

Bolsonaro was already under investigation in four Supreme Court criminal probes before stepping down as president.

In the wake of Sunday’s invasion, legal experts said Bolsonaro may find himself the target of a Supreme Court probe, led by crusading Justice Alexandre de Moraes, into anti-democratic protests, which has already yielded several arrests.

If Moraes were to sign an arrest warrant while Bolsonaro is in the United States, the former president would be technically required to fly back to Brazil and hand himself over to police. If he refused, Brazil could issue an Interpol Red Notice to prompt his arrest by U.S. federal agents.

If Bolsonaro were detained on U.S. soil, Brazil would then have to formally seek his extradition. Bolsonaro would be free to appeal in the U.S. courts, or he might attempt to seek asylum, although that offers no guarantee of preventing his eventual return to Brazil.

The United States has not received any official requests from the Brazilian government regarding Bolsonaro’s status, the White House said on Monday.

Related Galleries:

The Hollywood Foreign Press Association (HFPA) picked a fraught year to nominate Brendan Fraser for his first Golden Globe. In 2018, Fraser—nominated for best actor in a drama for his role in The Whale—told GQ that former HFPA president Philip Berk sexually assaulted him in 2003. In November, Fraser confirmed that if invited, he would not attend this year’s award ceremony, to be broadcast live on NBC on Jan. 10.

Last year, amid swirling controversy, the network declined to broadcast the Golden Globes. The decision followed an explosive report by the Los Angeles Times in February 2021, which confirmed rumors that had been circulating the industry for years: ethical and financial conflicts ran rampant among the HFPA. And the organization, which had billed itself as “diverse,” had no Black members. Now, however—nominally, at least—the HFPA is working to “eliminate ethical conflicts” and make its membership more diverse.

[time-brightcove not-tgx=”true”]

In mid-December, the same day it announced nominations, the HFPA sent out a press release that reported the increased diversity of its board of directors to include 40% people of color. (Three of the board’s current 15 members are Black.) The voting body itself doubled in size to 200 voters, 19.5% of whom are Latinx, 12% of whom are Asian, 10% of whom are Black, and 10% of whom are Middle Eastern. And the organization has been working closely with the NAACP to “increase diverse representation throughout the industry.”

But unlike the Oscars or the Emmys, the Globes have always represented the tastes of a small group who work adjacent to but outside of the industry. As TIME TV critic Judy Berman put it, “it’s worth considering not just whether the Globes have improved as an institution over the past two years, but also whether they ever merited our attention—or their outsize stature within the industry—in the first place.”

Here’s what to know about Fraser’s relationship with the HFPA.

Fraser’s allegations against Philip Berk

From the 1990s to the early 2000s, Fraser was a breakout Hollywood fixture, starring in films like School Ties (1992), George of the Jungle (1997), and The Mummy (1999). Eventually, though, he receded from view.

Fifteen years after the alleged incident, Fraser came forward to GQ journalist Zach Baron with an account of what he said happened at a luncheon held by the HFPA at the Beverly Hills Hotel in the summer of 2003.

Berk, Fraser told GQ, had sexually assaulted him. He went on to describe the alleged assault in detail. “I felt ill,” he continued. “I felt like a little kid. I felt like there was a ball in my throat. I thought I was going to cry. I felt like someone had thrown invisible paint on me.”

Berk has denied and disputed Fraser’s account, and he remained president of the HFPA after both the incident itself and the publication of the GQ article. It was only in April 2021, after 44 years at the helm, that Berk was fired. The expulsion happened two days after Berk emailed the HFPA membership an article that described Black Lives Matter as a “racist hate movement.”

The incident at the Beverly Hills Hotel was the last in a slew of reasons—including the death of his mother, a divorce, and physical health issues after years of stunt-heavy roles—that contributed to Fraser disappearing from the public eye shortly after the turn of the century. The actor said he was rarely invited back to the Golden Globes.

“I don’t know if this curried disfavor with the group, with the HFPA,” Fraser told GQ. “But the silence was deafening. In my mind, at least, something had been taken away from me.”

Separately, Scarlett Johansson has also said that questions and remarks by HFPA members at press conferences have “bordered on sexual harassment.”

Fraser’s nominated performance in The Whale

In mid-December, Fraser was nominated for best actor in a drama motion picture for his role as Charlie in The Whale. Directed by Darren Aronofsky and based on a 2012 play of the same name by Samuel D. Hunter (who also wrote the screenplay), The Whale follows Charlie—a gay, reclusive, obese English teacher—as he desperately tries to repair his relationship with his teenage daughter (Stranger Things’ Sadie Sink).

The film debuted at the Venice Film Festival at the end of summer, where Fraser received a six-minute standing ovation for his performance. He is now projected to be nominated for an Oscar for best actor—and favored to win the category.

“The film is at times incredibly moving, thanks to Fraser’s refined, mournful performance,” writes TIME film critic Stephanie Zacharek. “That’s Fraser at work, not telling us what to feel, but reassuring us that it’s OK to feel.”

Controversy persists, however, over the film and the character. Some, like Mean Girls’ Daniel Franzese, have pointed out that plenty of queer actors—especially larger ones—would have jumped at the chance to snag the role.

“I love Brendan Fraser, [so] I’m very conflicted,” Franzese told People. “Seeing him get up so modest in Venice and have that moment, I was very happy for him. But why? Why go up there and wear a fat suit to play a 400-lb. queer man?”

Fraser wore a fat suit—which at times weighed up to 300 pounds—to play Charlie, who weighs 600 pounds in the film. The use of fat suits alone has drawn criticism from those who question their necessity and the motives behind them—a debate that The Whale has reignited. Fat suits have historically been used to ostracize and ridicule the characters who wear them; The Whale attributes Charlie’s rapid, bleak decline to his obesity.

Fraser’s reaction to the nomination

In the wake of his performance’s warm critical reception—and his return to the spotlight—GQ followed up with Fraser in November. The actor would not attend the Golden Globes if he was invited, he confirmed.

“I have more history with the Hollywood Foreign Press Association than I have respect for the Hollywood Foreign Press Association,” Fraser said. “No, I will not participate.”

“It’s because of the history that I have with them,” he continued. “And my mother didn’t raise a hypocrite. You can call me a lot of things, but not that.”

Fraser also said that, at the moment, he did not believe in any of the HFPA’s announced reforms. (These include a new grievance process with a confidential reporting hotline and new bylaws that provide for sanctions such as suspension, expulsion, and termination.)

But the actor pointed out that it wasn’t just about him. There were others, he said, who shared his story. If the HFPA really was to change, Fraser wanted it to be meaningful for them, too.

It remains to be seen whether the lectern will be empty when the best actor in a drama winner is called—and whether Fraser’s history with the Globes will affect his chances. For now, though, pundits are giving a slight edge in the category to Elvis star Austin Butler.

Most people recognize that a nutritious diet promotes a healthy life, but navigating the wide range of options at your grocery store isn’t always straightforward—especially when so many foods are advertised as healthy (but aren’t).

A growing number of recent studies have raised health concerns about a certain type of food that most Americans eat: ultra-processed foods. One such study, published in November 2022 in the American Journal of Preventive Medicine, concluded that these foods likely contributed to about 10% of deaths among people 30 to 69 years old in Brazil in 2019. Other studies—including one published in Neurology in July 2022 finding that a 10% increase in ultra-processed food consumption raises the risk of dementia—have linked the food category to severe health outcomes.

[time-brightcove not-tgx=”true”]

Unlike minimally processed food or unprocessed foods—like eggs, for example, which travel from the farm to your kitchen looking pretty much the same—ultra-processed foods have been radically changed by manufacturers. By the time they hit your grocery shelf, they’ve likely been heated, pressed, and enhanced by additives designed to make them last longer, taste better, and appear more attractive, often to the detriment of your health. Here’s what you need to know about ultra-processed foods.

What are ultra-processed foods?

Ultra-processed foods are “made mostly or entirely from substances derived from foods and additives,” write the authors of a 2017 commentary published in the journal Public Health Nutrition. These additives are ingredients not usually used in home cooking, like preservatives, dyes, and non-sugar sweeteners.

This definition covers a wide range of foods in your local grocery store—from instant soup to packaged snacks to certain meat products, including sausages, burgers, and hot dogs. Such foods tend to have telltale signs, says Tim Spector, a professor in genetic epidemiology at King’s College London and author of Food for Life: The New Science of Eating Well. Typically, he says, they have a very long shelf life and 10 or more ingredients, which often include “products that you wouldn’t find in your kitchen or you can’t understand.”

They’re distinct from how some nutrition researchers define processed or minimally processed foods. These foods tend to contain just two or three ingredients— usually a whole food plus salt, oil, or sugar—and have often been preserved, cooked, or fermented. Some of these foods include canned fish, fruit in syrup, cheese, and fresh bread.

But not all ultra-processed foods are equally unhealthy. Fang Fang Zhang, chair of the division of nutrition epidemiology and data science at Tufts University, notes that whole grain, ultra-processed foods—like some packaged breads—are an important source of fiber for many people. “Even with ultra-processed food…whole grains are a better choice than refined grain,” says Zhang.

Researchers at Northeastern University have also created a tool for comparing packaged foods in the same category in order to choose the one with the least amount of processing. For instance, in the yogurt category, one plain organic yogurt scored a 4/100 (a favorable score indicating a low amount of processing), while Oui Petite by Yoplait received a maximally processed score of 100.

Why are ultra-processed foods so harmful?

Longitudinal studies in the Americas and Europe have linked eating more ultra-processed food to a number of health risks, including increases in obesity, high blood pressure, Type 2 diabetes, and even dementia. Other research, including a pair of studies in the BMJ by researchers in Spain and France, has linked consuming ultra-processed foods to an increased risk of early death.

Ultra-processed foods tend to be junk food: low in fiber and high in sugar and calories, says Zhang. But because ultra-processed foods are defined by the types of ingredients they contain, not by their nutrition content, this category can also include foods with beneficial nutrients, like breads high in fiber.

Scientists who research ultra-processed foods say that there seems to be something about the processing itself—not just the nutrition content—that makes them unhealthy. In one 2019 study that supports this idea, researchers split 20 people into two groups and controlled what they ate for two weeks. Each group ate meals with identical quantities of calories, sugar, fat, fiber, and micronutrients, but one group ate a diet of ultra-processed food, while the other ate unprocessed food. In the end, the people who ate ultra-processed food gained weight, while those who ate unprocessed food lost weight.

Researchers have raised several theories to explain this. One, says Eduardo A.F. Nilson, a researcher at the Center for Epidemiological Research in Nutrition and Public Health at the University of São Paulo who co-authored the Brazilian study, is that eating ultra-processed foods changes the way people eat overall: replacing homemade food with ready-to-eat, energy-dense foods that are easier to overeat. “They are made, by design, for overconsumption,” says Nilson. “They have hyper-palatability. We say they have ‘hyper-flavors’—they will be very sweet, very salty…and because they are ready to eat, they will replace traditional diets.”

Another idea, says Spector, is that ultra-processed food spurs people to eat too quickly. Spector and other scientists are also investigating whether the problems start after ultra-processed food reaches your gut. Spector says that in his research, he’s found that some of the chemicals in ultra-processed foods—especially emulsifiers, which are added to food to help mix substances—disrupt gut microbes, which scientists theorize send signals to the brain when you’ve had enough to eat. “Either it sends signals to the brain or to the gut microbes to eat more, or it’s simply that the food is so easy to eat that it gets into the system so fast that you don’t have time to get your fullness signals in the brain,” says Spector.

Not everyone agrees that all ultra-processed foods are dangerous

Critics, including Gibney, argue that the ultra-processed food category is too broad to be useful as a scientific concept. In Gibney’s view, the category of ultra-processed food incorporates too many different kinds of food, and villainizes too large a range of ingredients—including food additives, like preservatives, that public-health authorities have deemed to be safe. He argues that these problems undermine nutrition research, because it’s difficult to standardize which foods are included in studies.

Another problem, says Gibney, is that the concept of ultra-processed food discounts the importance of reformulating food, such as by making it whole grain or lower in sugar, which he says has helped to make processed food healthier. For many people, he adds, eliminating processed food just isn’t realistic, as it makes up too much of their diet, and they don’t have the time or money to cook every meal. “Ultra-processed food as a concept is providing a simple, popular answer to what is a very complex question,” says Gibney.

How do I cut back on ultra-processed foods?

Experts agree that reducing consumption of ultra-processed foods shouldn’t be the public’s responsibility alone. Many people don’t live in communities with access to healthy, minimally processed food, which tends to be more expensive than ultra-processed food, says Nilson. To reduce ultra-processed food, Nilson argues that the government will need to implement policies to expand access to healthy food, such as by limiting the availability of ultra-processed food in schools.

Another important policy, says Nilson, is for the government to warn the public about the dangers of ultra-processed food and to implement clear labeling. Some countries have already started to warn the public about ultra-processed foods. In 2022, for instance, Canada announced new labeling requirements for pre-packaged food, including labels when such products are high in sodium, sugars, or saturated fat, and Health Canada incorporated warnings about highly processed food into its online healthy food choices guide.

If you want to make your own diet healthier, Spector says a mindset change is key. “We just need to get people thinking about food not in a calorie way, and think about the quality,” he says. If you want to reduce the number of ultra-processed foods you eat, Spector suggests opting for other foods that are cheap and don’t take much preparation, like beans, lentils, and eggs. For snacks, he suggests nuts, seeds, and whole fruit. “Try going off [ultra-processed food] for a week,” he says, “and see what happens.”

After an embarrassing struggle to elect their Speaker, Republicans in the U.S. House must now turn their attention to governing. It’s clear they will need to regain the confidence of the American people and in the institution.

To do that, they should start by having a positive agenda, something they failed to do during the midterm elections, which caused them to have a such a dismal performance. I believe that Americans want their elected leaders to have positive ideas, principles and a forward-looking, optimistic agenda. Unfortunately, voters have been offered little of this from Republicans in recent years—and it shows.

[time-brightcove not-tgx=”true”]

Today’s Republican Party and its candidates are stuck in a trap of orthodoxy, a paralyzing fear of stepping out of line and doing or saying anything that might upset their noisy party mates who can’t see past Trumpian dogma. Unable to look at problems in a new way with constructive policies and solutions, they bring only anger, resentment and intolerance to the table. It’s a tiresome and ultimately losing platform based on being against anything the Democrats are for, mixed with intolerance of anyone different from themselves.

Solution-minded policies, once a staple of Republican leadership, grow out of time-honored principles. But today’s Trump-dominated party has no use for principle-based leadership, simply because it has no principles. Playing their zero-sum, win-at-all-costs game of situational ethics, the party has forgotten what it means to be a compassionate conservative or how to address issues by observing those underlying, faith-based values that once formed the core of what it means to be a Republican.

Think of the problems that cry out for solutions in today’s America, problems that a party freed from paralyzing orthodoxy would be able to find the principles, policies and energy to solve. A search for solutions is the perfect way for Republicans to flex problem-solving muscles they haven’t exercised in years.

It’s difficult to prioritize so many complex domestic and international issues demanding principled solutions, but for starters that list would have to include balancing the federal budget, rebuilding America’s faith in immigration, developing a stronger military, strengthening Social Security and Medicare, reducing community crime, investing in mental health and getting serious about climate change—each helping to build a more prosperous America.

Solutions to these and so many other difficult problems can only come from a party committed to a strong policy agenda, one that’s based on principles, compassion and human needs, not on anger and resentment. (Of course, this goes as well for Democrats, a party with problematic inflexibilities of its own.)

Whatever the issue, finding workable, cost-conscious and politically viable solutions in this new 50/50 Congress will require both parties to make daring breaks from their stubborn “my team vs. yours” mentality. Relearning how to talk together would unleash political skills not applied on Capitol Hill in years: bipartisan cooperation, negotiation, and compromise. Most important, it would give Republicans one last escape route from orthodoxy and a chance to jump off their party’s single-minded rush to oblivion.

Foto: Mateus Bonomi/Anadolu Agency via Getty Images

Este texto foi publicado originalmente na newsletter do Intercept. Assine. É de graça, direto na sua caixa de e-mails.

“Políticos, jornalistas e juízes se tornaram o pior pesadelo das forças policiais”, disparou Luiz Fernando Ramos Aguiar, major da Polícia Militar do Distrito Federal em 2021. Por escrito e assinado, ele ameaçou autoridades e toda uma classe profissional por terem reagido à maior chacina perpetrada pelas polícias do Rio de Janeiro, na favela do Jacarezinho, em maio passado.

Mesmo publicado num blog da esgotosfera policial, como foi o caso, o artigo deveria ter sido farejado pelos comandantes de Aguiar e lhe rendido uma punição exemplar. Não foi, e ainda ficou pior: a diatribe chamou a atenção dos editores do jornal paranaense Gazeta do Povo, que a reembalou e republicou para um público muito maior.

Ainda assim, nada ocorreu a Aguiar. Ao contrário –  ele segue com cargo de confiança na corporação. Recebe, limpos, mais de R$ 18 mil mensais, segundo o Portal da Transparência.

A leniência das autoridades com a radicalização à extrema direita das forças de segurança vai muito além do major, no entanto. O nome do Corpo de Bombeiros do Distrito Federal, por exemplo, vem sendo há 12 anos usado por um site para vender conteúdo fascista e politicamente enviesado – além de publicidade.

É por isso que surpreende a zero pessoas bem-informadas a facilidade com que terroristas invadiram e destruíram o Palácio do Planalto, o Congresso Nacional e o Supremo Tribunal Federal neste domingo, dia 7, em Brasília. Já sabemos que colegas do major Aguiar bebericavam água de coco enquanto assistiam aos terroristas destruírem a Praça dos Três Poderes.

O major Luiz Fernando Ramos Aguiar, da Polícia Militar do Distrito Federal.

Foto: Reprodução/Twitter

Claro, há alguns protagonistas entre os culpados óbvios pelo maior atentado terrorista já visto no Brasil. O primeiro é Ibaneis Rocha, um advogado ricaço e prepotente que resolveu brincar de político e torrou alguns milhões para se eleger e reeleger governador do Distrito Federal pelo MDB. Espécie de Bolsonaro que prefere vinhos caríssimos a frango com farofa, Ibaneis resolveu zombar do país todo ao renomear o delegado da Polícia Federal Anderson Torres como seu secretário da Segurança Pública.

Torres foi chefe de gabinete do deputado federal Fernando Francischini, do União Brasil paranaense, cassado por mentir sobre as urnas eletrônicas que o elegeram. Como prêmio, foi chamado por Ibaneis para comandar a Segurança do DF, mas deixou o cargo em março de 2021 para ser ministro da Justiça de Jair Bolsonaro. Sob o comando de Torres, a Polícia Rodoviária Federal matou Genivaldo de Jesus Santos numa câmara de gás improvisada no camburão de uma viatura no Sergipe.

O assassinato não custou o cargo a Torres, que ficou à vontade para tentar roubar a eleição para o chefe Bolsonaro – usando, novamente, a PRF – e ficar de braços cruzados quando golpistas resolveram tocar o terror em Brasília em 12 de dezembro, dia da diplomação de Luiz Inácio Lula da Silva e Geraldo Alckmin no Tribunal Superior Eleitoral.

Nada disso fez Ibaneis desistir de devolver-lhe a Secretaria da Segurança Pública. O governador tentou salvar o próprio pescoço demitindo Torres no auge da barbárie do domingo – àquela altura, já se sabia que o Batalhão de Choque da PM do Distrito Federal só fora acionado quando golpistas já depredavam os prédios públicos mais importantes do país. Tarde demais, Ibaneis: se houver um resto de institucionalidade no Brasil, você e Torres serão escorraçados da vida pública. E, talvez, presos por prevaricar.

A lista de honra das tchutchucas de terroristas também tem lugar para o ministro da Defesa José Múcio Monteiro, que puxava o saco dos militares nos anos 1970 e inexplicavelmente foi chamado por Lula para seguir fazendo a mesma coisa. Na semana passada, Múcio riu no Salão Nobre do Palácio do Planalto quando precisou falar sobre os amigos e parentes que dizia ter nos acampamentos golpistas protegidos pelo infame Exército brasileiro.

“Não sabia que iam levar isso tão a sério”, divertiu-se o ex-arenista. Neste domingo, perguntei à assessoria de Múcio se ele seguia achando o golpismo bolsonarista “democrático” – e se algum amigo ou parente dele lhe mandou selfies destruindo prédios públicos. Dessa vez, o outrora risonho ministro preferiu o silêncio – a essa altura, indecoroso como os atentados terroristas.

O governador do Distrito Federal Ibaneis Rocha, afastado do cargo por Alexandre de Moraes por 90 dias após os ataques de domingo, e seu ex-secretário de Segurança Pública, Anderson Torres, com Jair Bolsonaro.

Foto: Pedro Ladeira/Folhapress

A destruição é militar

O foda-se institucional, justiça seja feita, é obra militar. Eduardo Villas Bôas, Sérgio Etchegoyen, Hamilton Mourão, Walter Braga Netto, Luiz Eduardo Ramos, Paulo Sérgio Nogueira de Oliveira e Marco Antônio Freire Gomes, todos generais de quatro estrelas do Exército, sonharam reviver a ditadura de seus pares, mas passarão à história como cúmplices da destruição da capital federal. Terão a seu lado os ex-comandantes da Marinha, Almir Garnier Santos, e da Aeronáutica, Carlos Almeida Baptista Junior.

Tudo isso – a podridão institucional de toda uma geração de altos comandantes militares, as risadas cínicas de Múcio, a prepotência de Ibaneis e a cumplicidade aberta de Torres – se materializou, ontem, na tranquilidade com que PMs assistiram inertes à destruição de Brasília. Nisso, foram seguidos pelos militares do Regimento de Cavalaria de Guardas e do Batalhão da Guarda Presidencial, unidades do Exército cuja ÚNICA função (o grifo é necessário aqui) é proteger a sede do poder Executivo.

Mas só quem acordou ontem se surpreendeu. A fleuma com que fardados se sentem à vontade para atacar a democracia se exibe cotidianamente, por exemplo, nos esbirros golpistas de generais em redes sociais. Ou na tranquilidade com que o guarda da esquina – em nosso exemplo, o major da PM Luiz Fernando Ramos Aguiar – ataca de uma só vez a magistratura, a classe política e toda a imprensa sem temer retaliação e se fazendo cúmplice do terrorismo da extrema direita.

Os comandantes das Forças Armadas de Jair Bolsonaro: Paulo Sérgio Nogueira, do Exército, ao lado de Walter Braga Netto e do ex-presidente; Almir Garnier Santos, da Marinha; e Carlos Almeida Baptista Junior, da Aeronáutica.

Foto: Marcos Corrêa/PR

Cada qual dessas categorias profissionais, diga-se, tem seu quinhão de culpa na esbórnia institucional. Juízes – dos circunspectos Luiz Fux e Luís Roberto Barroso ao baixo clero da primeira instância – aplaudiram o vale-tudo jurídico-político da Lava Jato e se fizeram instrumentos da abjeta propaganda ideológica da extrema direita sem serem de fato enquadrados pelo Conselho Nacional de Justiça.

(Parêntese necessário: o Ministério Público tem como uma de suas funções fiscalizar e controlar a atividade policial. Mas, há alguns anos, o grosso dos promotores e procuradores passou a gostar da sensação de descer o cacete e prender sem provas, tal como fazem os policiais militares brutamontes da Rota paulista. O retrato de Dorian Gray do acanalhamento do parquet está visível para o mundo na cumplicidade franca do procurador-geral da República, Augusto Aras, e sua número dois, Lindôra Araújo, com a extrema direita.)

O quinhão de culpa da classe política é imenso e democraticamente distribuído, mas pode ser resumido em três tristes homens públicos paridos pelo Paraná. Ricardo Barros, deputado federal do PP, um sujeito sempre disposto a servir o governo de turno, tentou culpar Lula, empossado há uma semana, as urnas eletrônicas e o ministro Alexandre de Moraes pela balbúrdia em Brasília.

Se houver institucionalidade no Brasil, Ibaneis e Torres serão escorraçados da vida pública – e, talvez, presos.

Deltan Dallagnol, deputado federal do Podemos, acreditou que um Cristo que pertencia a Lula havia sido roubado por ele da Presidência e teve frêmitos de prazer ao imaginar-se lhe passando as algemas. Ontem, só foi balbuciar alguma crítica à depredação generalizada de um patrimônio público e histórico perpetrada por seus irmãos de extrema direita depois das 20h. Com muitos mas, contudos e poréns.

Sergio Moro, que como juiz foi alicerce fundamental da ascensão da extrema direita, foi ainda pior: atacou o governo Lula por “reprimir protestos”. Mais tarde, como a panela de pressão explodindo, disse que os terroristas “precisam se retirar dos prédios públicos antes que a situação se agrave” – sem pedir a prisão deles.

Por fim, é preciso haver uma autocrítica vinda de nós, jornalistas. Neste domingo, a principal coluna política do maior jornal brasileiro, a Folha de S.Paulo, assim arrematou uma nota sobre a chegada de ônibus com golpistas a Brasília: “Os manifestantes contam com uma rede de solidariedade para se manterem acampados”. Um par de horas depois, os “manifestantes”, amparados por sua “rede de solidariedade”, passaram a destruir a capital.

É espantoso que haja alguma surpresa ante o cenário desolador deste domingo. Quem quer que esteja disposto a enxergar as coisas como são já percebeu que as polícias, as Forças Armadas, parte do Ministério Público, do poder Judiciário e da classe política não estão à altura dos papéis institucionais que a Constituição e a sociedade lhes confiaram. Precisarão, todos, ser vigiados de perto pela parcela democrata da sociedade até que sejam devidamente saneados e reconstruídos. Uma tarefa que não é mais adiável – sob pena de sermos, todos, demolidos pelo talibã que veste farda ou camisas da CBF e age cada vez mais às claras no Brasil.

The post Ataques terroristas em Brasília têm culpados de sobra, mas são obra militar appeared first on The Intercept.

אויפֿן ניו־יאָרקער ייִדישן קינאָ־פֿעסטיוואַל, וואָס קומט פֿאָר צווישן דעם 12טן און דעם 23סטן יאַנואַר אין מאַנהעטן, וועט מען ווײַזן דרײַ פֿילמען אויף ייִדיש: אַ נײַעם פֿילם, SHTTL, רעזישיסירט פֿון וואָלטער אַדי; יוסף גרינס קלאַסישן פֿילם, „אַ בריוועלע דער מאַמען“ און אַ קורצן דאָקומענטאַר־פֿילם, „דאָס ייִדישע לעבן אין לעמבערג“.

אַלע פֿילמען וועט מען שפּילן אינעם „וואָלטער ריד“־קינאָ־זאַל, 165 וועסט 65סטע גאַס.

SHTTL האָט מען שוין געוויזן אויף עטלעכע פֿריִערדיקע קינאָ־פֿעסטיוואַלן, וווּ די קריטיקער האָבן אים שטאַרק געלויבט. ער שילדערט אַ טאָג אין אַ פֿיקטיוון שטעטל אין אוקראַיִנע אויף דער גרענעץ מיט פּוילן, פּונקט איידער די נאַציס האָבן אַרײַנמאַרשירט. דער גאַנצער דיאַלאָג קומט פֿאָר אויף ייִדיש און אוקראַיִניש. בײַ צוויי פֿון די אַקטיאָרן קען מען דערקענען אַז ייִדיש איז בײַ זיי אַ מוטערשפּראַך.

צו באַשטעלן בילעטן צו זען SHTTL דינסטיק, דעם 17טן יאַונאַר, 1:00 נאָך מיטאָג, גיט אַ קוועטש דאָ. מע וועט אויך ווײַזן דעם פֿילם מאָנטיק, דעם 16טן יאַנואַר, 5:00 אָבער יענע ווײַזונג איז שוין אויספֿאַרקויפֿט. פֿאַראינטערעסירטע קענען אָבער נאָך אפֿשר באַקומען אַ בילעט אויב זיי קומען צו דער קאַסע פֿאַר דער ווײַזונג.

„אַ בריוועלע דער מאַמען“ וועט מען ווײַזן זונטיק, דעם 15טן יאַנואַר, 12:00 מיטאָגצײַט. פּראָדוצירט אין פּוילן אין 1939, שילדערט ער אַ מאַמע פֿון דרײַ קינדער ערבֿ דער ערשטער וועלט־מלחמה. די מאַמע, דאָבריש, באַמיט זיך מיט אַלע כּוחות אויסצוהאַלטן איר משפּחה נאָך דעם ווי איר מאַן איז אָפּגעפֿאָרן קיין אַמעריקע.

איידער מע ווײַזט „אַ בריוועלע דער מאַמען“ וועט מען שפּילן אַ קורצן דאָקומענטאַר־פֿילם, „דאָס ייִדישע לעבן אין לעמבערג“, וואָס שילדערט דאָס טאָג־טעגלעכע לעבן פֿון די ייִדישע אײַנוווינער פֿון לעמבערג (הײַנט לוויוו, אוקראַיִנע) אין 1939. דער זעלטענער פֿילם, געשאַפֿן פֿון די וואַרשעווער פֿילמאָגראַפֿן שאול און יצחק גאָסקינד, איז פֿול מיט לעבעדיקע אימאַזשן פֿון מאָדיש־געקליידטע פֿרויען, רעשיקע מאַרקן, פּאַרקן און פּראָמענאַדן, האַרט פֿאַר דער דײַטשער אינוואַזיע.

צו באַשטעלן בילעטן צו „אַ בריוועלע דער מאַמען“ און „דאָס ייִדישע לעבן אין לעמבערג“, גיט אַ קוועטש דאָ.

נאָך אַ פֿילם אויפֿן פֿעסטיוואַל וווּ מע קען הערן ייִדיש איז אַ רעסטאַוורירטער נוסח פֿונעם 1997-פֿילם, A Life Apart (אַן אָפּגעזונדערט לעבן) — אַ דאָקומענטאַר־פֿילם וועגן די חסידישע קרײַזן אין דער שטאָט ניו־יאָרק. דער פֿילם, וואָס איז רעזשיסירט געוואָרן פֿון אורן רודאַווסקי און מנחם דאַום, מערקט הײַיאָר אָפּ זײַן 25סטן יוביליי, און וועט איצט ווערן אַ טייל פֿון אַן אַרכיוו אין ברוקלין־קאָלעדזש וואָס שילדערט ווי די חסידים האָבן זיך אַזוי הצלחהדיק אײַנגעפֿונדעוועט אין אַמעריקע נאָכן חורבן — אַ זאַך וואָס קיינער האָט דעמאָלט נישט פֿאָרויסגעזען.

דעם פֿילם, וואָס קומט פֿאָר אויף ענגליש, רוסיש און ייִדיש, וועט מען ווײַזן דאָנערשטיק, דעם 19טן יאַנואַר, 7:00 אין אָוונט. נאָך דעם וועט פֿאָרקומען אַ פּאַנעל־דיסקוסיע מיט רודאַווסקי, באַום און אַנדערע פֿיגורן פֿאַרבונדן מיטן פֿילם. צו באַשטעלן בילעטן צום פֿילם גיט אַ קוועטש דאָ.

The post Three Yiddish films at the New York Jewish Film Festival appeared first on The Forward.

One night seven years ago, movie producers Hank Hoffman and Jonathan Yunger spent a sleepless night creating a monster. 

It wasn’t Hoffman’s first time pulling an all-nighter — he used to work the spookiest shift in Judaism as a shomer, or guardian, at a Jewish morgue in Toronto.

“I used to hang out with the corpses when I was 18 from midnight to 6 in the morning by myself,” Hoffman said. 

A morgue is a central setting for Hoffman and Yunger’s new horror film The Offering, about a Hasidic funeral director in Borough Park, Brooklyn, who’s haunted by a demon called Abyzou.

The film, which opens in the U.S. and on streaming services Jan. 13, was made to be more than just a horror movie. Hoffman and Yunger wanted to accurately depict Hasidic life and, wherever possible, counter what they view as negative narratives about the community presented by other films and TV shows.

“With what’s out there today, it’s been misconstrued and unfortunately these types of shows don’t have any disclaimers or anything on the front of them,” said Yunger, co-president of Millennium Media, which produces The Expendables action franchise. ”We wanted to show people that there is a depth here and there is a respect and there is holiness in the women and there’s holiness in the men.”

Director Oliver Park, an English filmmaker who isn’t Jewish, brought Yunger and Hoffman’s script to life in Sofia, Bulgaria, during the peak of the COVID pandemic. The cast and crew formed a sort of coronavirus eruv, recreating Borough Park on Millennium’s backlot and peopling it with local Bulgarians dressed like frum Jews. Shows like Unorthodox have proved sets are no substitute for shooting exteriors on location, but that show helped create The Offering’s illusion of authenticity.

“We rented the pais from Unorthodox,” said Yunger. “They shipped it. It was the funniest package I’ve ever gotten in my life.”

On soundstages, production designer Phil Murphy and Park, who trained as an architect before directing the horror shorts Still and Vicious, constructed an attic strewn with melting candles and actual kabbalistic text. As Abyzou ramps up its attacks, the set itself begins to founder.

Central to The Offering’s story are three men: Yosille (Anton Trendafilov), who summons Abyzou while trying to resurrect his beloved wife; undertaker Saul (Allan Corduner) another widower; and Arthur (Nick Blood), Saul’s off-the-derech son who married outside the faith and is desperate to provide for his growing family. Hoffman and Yunger designed these plots to challenge the perception, which they say is common in media, that Hasidic men disrespect their wives. 

Paul Kaye in The Offering. Courtesy of Decal

Corduner, whose first feature film credit was as yeshiva student Shimmele in 1983’s Yentl, and last year appeared as Lydia Tár’s spurned assistant conductor in Tár, has a long career of playing observant Jews — notably alongside Al Pacino’s Shylock in Michael Radford’s film of Merchant of Venice. 

He didn’t need much coaching for a pivotal scene, where Saul sings “Aishet Chayil,” a tribute to the Jewish woman from the Book of Proverbs, to his departed wife. Corduner was drawn to what he called the “ritualistic Kabbalah gone berserk” in the script and the interfaith marriage at its center.

“One can relate very strongly to a man who had shut out his child — only to find that it was the mistake that haunted him,” said Corduner.

Cloaking these philosophical concerns are, of course, scares, for which Park drew inspiration from the German Expressionist film The Golem: How He Came Into the World, Caravaggio’s “Sacrifice of Isaac,” the Silent Hill video game series and his own nightmares.

“This is not my culture,” Park admitted, “although I would say my culture is horror. That’s one thing I can bring to the table in spades, I know how to scare people.”

To make sure the scares were rooted in credible mysticism, the dialect coach Michael Andron looked to the Talmud to find a spell.

“We just kind of twisted it and turned it so that we weren’t summoning any demons onto the set,” said Andron, who met Yunger while directing him in a Jewish theater company.

The Offering, which boasts an international cast, including Paul Kaye (Thoros of Myr on Game of Thrones) as a tooth-picking chewing mortician named Heimish, places a premium on storytelling and scares. Certain inaccuracies (a character wearing tefillin on the first day of a shiva, for instance) may leap out to a Jewish viewer. The film also has a similar conceit and the same Borough Park setting as 2019’s The Vigil, which featured a wealth of Yiddish dialogue and an actual Hasidic actor in Menashe Lustig.

But Hoffman, who grew up Modern Orthodox and used to teach Likutei Moharan, a central text of the Breslov Hasidic movement in Safed, said the crew was committed to authenticity. While Saul’s sect is intentionally left vague, Hoffman said there are “winks” to Breslov throughout, even in the form of street graffiti.

It was important for the filmmakers to capture an overall feel of the Hasidic community in an effort to humanize Hasidim for the world. But Hoffman and Yunger, while concerned with antisemitism, were also intrigued by what a Jewish horror movie might look like.

“The notion of evil in Christianity versus the notion of evil and Judaism is uniquely different, which allows you to have uniquely different horror tales,” said Hoffman, noting how in Christian exorcism stories give evil its own autonomy. The Jewish view, Hoffman said, stresses freedom of choice, in which evil arises when we substitute God’s will for our own.

“Only we determine how much good and evil enter the world,” Hoffman said. “If we don’t stay within our own moral circle and we step outside of it, then we invite it in. And evil you need to feed it to sustain it. If we stop feeding evil, it ceases to exist. We are the ones actually nourishing it and so that thematic idea is really the underlying Jewish ethos.”

For Yunger, the film is not just about the promise of Jewish horror — it’s also a challenge.

“The Offering is going to come out,” Yunger said. “What other young filmmaker is going to come out and try to top this thing?”

The post Do horror and Hasidim mix? A new film says yes appeared first on The Forward.

January 6, 2023, was a remarkable night for many reasons. For anyone who watched what went on on the house floor that evening, the hours must have seemed eternal. As minutes ticked away, many good people watching were riveted.

And they were not riveted by who would eventually become the speaker. That had virtually nothing to do with it. No, people were riveted by the unrelenting chaos on the House floor. It was sort of like eavesdropping on a private conversation. The incompetence and utter insanity of the GOP were laid bare on this longest night in politics. Everyone could see the truth.

And that truth? The GOP can’t govern. They can’t do much of anything. The whole thing was an extraordinary exercise in incompetence. You’d be forgiven for laughing as these idiots time and again gave away their dignity as the world watched.

It really was the longest night in politics in recent memory. But this night which was so maddening, so very long, and so unrestricted in deficiency, gave away a lot – and showed why we will win in 2024.

The GOP is a bunch of goofballs. That’s what we’re up against. If we stay calm and focused and unleash our activism as we have in the midterms, the 2020 presidential race, the special elections, we will be victorious.

Sometimes the longest nights are the most important nights because they tell us things. As time tucked away that night, the utter incapability of Republicans to lead bloomed. It bloomed and blossomed, showing artfully what a failure the Republican party is and what their running of the House will look like.

There will, of course, be other long nights coming up. There will be infighting and insanity, and total stupidity. But perhaps no night drew home the republican incompetence like that longest night of January 6 2023. It showed that Democrats got this. Democrats got this, and we will take back the House again in 2024. You can take that to the bank.

The post The longest night in politics appeared first on Palmer Report.

The victims were two women, a 50-year-old and a 60-year-old.