Questões de Vestibular: INSTITUTO AOCP

Texto 1

O poeta contemporâneo ainda tem com o que se espantar?

(Audrey de Mattos)

Falar da poesia contemporânea, esta que está aí, sendo produzida neste exato instante, é pensar nas mudanças que, de Aristóteles aos vanguardistas do século XX, transformaram a forma conhecida por poesia em território do heterogêneo: grotesco e sublime, temas elevados e temas cotidianos, linguagem polida e palavreado chulo, tudo convive na poesia contemporânea, nem de longe pacificamente, pois que o estranhamento e o (des)entendimento que assomam à alma de quem lê dão conta de que a atual poesia não veio para repousar (nem deixar repousar) em margens plácidas.

[...]

Trata-se então de ouvir o inaudível e ver o invisível, conforme a fórmula clássica baudelairiana. A linguagem poética, até então mero instrumento de reprodução da realidade, “reclamará uma maior autonomia em relação à normatividade do mundo, reivindicando assim algo que parecia impossível: a capacidade de transfigurar o real e integrar-se ao mundo como elemento constitutivo deste” (Tereza Cabañas, in “A poética da inversão”).

[...]

Do poema enterrado ao poema digital, a poesia incorporará tantas e tão variadas formas de expressão que levarão Antonio Cicero a afirmar, em fins da primeira década do século XXI: “Não há mais vanguarda”. “Qualquer fetichismo residual em relação a qualquer forma convencional da poesia” foi eliminado e “a consequente relativização de todas as formas tradicionais de poesia” afeta todos os poetas pós-vanguarda.

[...]

Adaptado de<http://lounge.obviousmag.org/conversa_de_botequim/2014/09/poesia-no-seculo-xxi-rumos.html#ixzz4ybiYJXfM. Acesso em: 10 nov. 2017.

A questão refere-se à obra As melhores histórias de Fernando Sabino.

O texto a seguir é um excerto da crônica O caso do charuto.

E o ascensorista inflexível. Que o homem guardasse o charuto no bolso, engolisse o charuto, fizesse o que melhor lhe parecesse. Sem o quê, ele não subiria. Distraído pelos próprios argumentos, o homem, em vez de se desfazer do charuto, tirou dele uma baforada. Foi o bastante para generalizar-se a confusão. A senhora do Bronx resolveu intervir, alegando raivosamente que ela não tinha nada com aquela história e queria subir. O panamenho, como se estivesse no mundo da lua, perguntava em vão e em mau inglês em que andar era o Consulado do Panamá. O gordinho gritava que aquilo era um desaforo etc. etc. E o elevador parado. O dono do charuto levou-o novamente à boca, para ter as mãos livres e poder se explicar, provocando indignação geral. Então o gordinho, fora de si, estendeu o braço para com uma tapa derrubar o charuto, resolvendo assim a questão. Acontece, porém, que seu gesto foi mal calculado e o que ele deu foi um bofetão na cara do homem. O charuto saltou no ar largando brasa para cima do panamenho, que até então não entendia coisa nenhuma.

SABINO, Fernando. As melhores histórias de Fernando Sabino. Rio de Janeiro: BestBolso, 2010. p. 61.

Brazil must legalise drugs – its existing policy just destroys lives

For decades, guns and imprisonment have been the hallmarks of Brazil’s war against the drug trafficking. But the only way to beat the gangs is to stop creating criminals, says a top Brazilian judge

“The war raging in Rocinha, Latin America’s largest favela, has already been lost. Rooted in a dispute between gangs for control of drug trafficking, it has disrupted the daily life of the community in Rio de Janeiro since mid-September. With the sound of shots coming from all sides, schools and shops are constantly forced to close. Recently, a stray bullet killed a Spanish tourist. The war is not the only thing being lost.

For decades, Brazil has had the same drug policy approach. Police, weapons and numerous arrests. It does not take an expert to conclude the obvious: the strategy has failed. Drug trafficking and consumption have only increased. […]

In a case still before the Brazilian supreme court, I voted for decriminalising the possession of marijuana for private consumption. […]

Drugs are an issue that has a profound impact on the criminal justice system, and it is legitimate for the supreme court to participate in the public debate. So here are the reasons for my views.

First, drugs are bad and it is therefore the role of the state and society to discourage consumption, treat dependents and repress trafficking. The rationale behind legalisation is rooted in the belief that it will help in achieving these goals.

Second, the war on drugs has failed. Since the 1970s, under the influence and leadership of the US, the world has tackled this problem with the use of police forces, armies, and armaments. The tragic reality is that 40 years, billions of dollars, hundreds of thousands of prisoners and thousands of deaths later, things are worse. At least in countries like Brazil.

Third, as the American economist Milton Friedman argued, the only result of criminalisation is ensuring the trafficker’s monopoly.

With these points in mind, what would legalisation achieve?

In most countries in North America and Europe, the greatest concern of the authorities is users and the impact drugs have on their lives and on society. These are all important considerations. In Brazil, however, the principal focus must be ending the dominance drug dealers exercise over poor communities. Gangs have become the main political and economic power in thousands of modest neighbourhoods in Brazil. This scenario prevents a family of honest and hard-working people from educating their children away from the influence of criminal factions, who intimidate, co-opt and exercise an unfair advantage over any lawful activity. Crucially, this power of trafficking comes from illegality.

Another benefit of legalisation would be to prevent the mass incarceration of impoverished young people with no criminal record who are arrested for trafficking because they are caught in possession of negligible amounts of marijuana. A third of detainees in Brazil are imprisoned for drug trafficking. Once arrested, young prisoners will have to join one of the factions that control the penitentiaries – and on that day, they become dangerous.

[…]

We cannot be certain that a progressive and cautious policy of decriminalisation and legalisation will be successful. What we can affirm is that the existing policy of criminalisation has failed. We must take chances; otherwise, we risk simply accepting a terrible situation. As the Brazilian navigator Amyr Klink said: “The worst shipwreck is not setting off at all.”

Disponível em:<https://www.theguardian.com/global-development/2017/nov/15/brazil-must-legalise-drugs-existing-policy-destroys-lives-luis-roberto-barroso-supreme-court-judge>. Acesso em: 14 nov. 2017.

Brazil must legalise drugs – its existing policy just destroys lives

For decades, guns and imprisonment have been the hallmarks of Brazil’s war against the drug trafficking. But the only way to beat the gangs is to stop creating criminals, says a top Brazilian judge

“The war raging in Rocinha, Latin America’s largest favela, has already been lost. Rooted in a dispute between gangs for control of drug trafficking, it has disrupted the daily life of the community in Rio de Janeiro since mid-September. With the sound of shots coming from all sides, schools and shops are constantly forced to close. Recently, a stray bullet killed a Spanish tourist. The war is not the only thing being lost.

For decades, Brazil has had the same drug policy approach. Police, weapons and numerous arrests. It does not take an expert to conclude the obvious: the strategy has failed. Drug trafficking and consumption have only increased. […]

In a case still before the Brazilian supreme court, I voted for decriminalising the possession of marijuana for private consumption. […]

Drugs are an issue that has a profound impact on the criminal justice system, and it is legitimate for the supreme court to participate in the public debate. So here are the reasons for my views.

First, drugs are bad and it is therefore the role of the state and society to discourage consumption, treat dependents and repress trafficking. The rationale behind legalisation is rooted in the belief that it will help in achieving these goals.

Second, the war on drugs has failed. Since the 1970s, under the influence and leadership of the US, the world has tackled this problem with the use of police forces, armies, and armaments. The tragic reality is that 40 years, billions of dollars, hundreds of thousands of prisoners and thousands of deaths later, things are worse. At least in countries like Brazil.

Third, as the American economist Milton Friedman argued, the only result of criminalisation is ensuring the trafficker’s monopoly.

With these points in mind, what would legalisation achieve?

In most countries in North America and Europe, the greatest concern of the authorities is users and the impact drugs have on their lives and on society. These are all important considerations. In Brazil, however, the principal focus must be ending the dominance drug dealers exercise over poor communities. Gangs have become the main political and economic power in thousands of modest neighbourhoods in Brazil. This scenario prevents a family of honest and hard-working people from educating their children away from the influence of criminal factions, who intimidate, co-opt and exercise an unfair advantage over any lawful activity. Crucially, this power of trafficking comes from illegality.

Another benefit of legalisation would be to prevent the mass incarceration of impoverished young people with no criminal record who are arrested for trafficking because they are caught in possession of negligible amounts of marijuana. A third of detainees in Brazil are imprisoned for drug trafficking. Once arrested, young prisoners will have to join one of the factions that control the penitentiaries – and on that day, they become dangerous.

[…]

We cannot be certain that a progressive and cautious policy of decriminalisation and legalisation will be successful. What we can affirm is that the existing policy of criminalisation has failed. We must take chances; otherwise, we risk simply accepting a terrible situation. As the Brazilian navigator Amyr Klink said: “The worst shipwreck is not setting off at all.”

Disponível em:<https://www.theguardian.com/global-development/2017/nov/15/brazil-must-legalise-drugs-existing-policy-destroys-lives-luis-roberto-barroso-supreme-court-judge>. Acesso em: 14 nov. 2017.

A questão refere-se à obra As melhores histórias de Fernando Sabino.

O texto a seguir é um excerto da crônica O caso do charuto.

E o ascensorista inflexível. Que o homem guardasse o charuto no bolso, engolisse o charuto, fizesse o que melhor lhe parecesse. Sem o quê, ele não subiria. Distraído pelos próprios argumentos, o homem, em vez de se desfazer do charuto, tirou dele uma baforada. Foi o bastante para generalizar-se a confusão. A senhora do Bronx resolveu intervir, alegando raivosamente que ela não tinha nada com aquela história e queria subir. O panamenho, como se estivesse no mundo da lua, perguntava em vão e em mau inglês em que andar era o Consulado do Panamá. O gordinho gritava que aquilo era um desaforo etc. etc. E o elevador parado. O dono do charuto levou-o novamente à boca, para ter as mãos livres e poder se explicar, provocando indignação geral. Então o gordinho, fora de si, estendeu o braço para com uma tapa derrubar o charuto, resolvendo assim a questão. Acontece, porém, que seu gesto foi mal calculado e o que ele deu foi um bofetão na cara do homem. O charuto saltou no ar largando brasa para cima do panamenho, que até então não entendia coisa nenhuma.

SABINO, Fernando. As melhores histórias de Fernando Sabino. Rio de Janeiro: BestBolso, 2010. p. 61.