I'm not into politics at all, but in the last couple of days I've been wondering about [
this article] that the correspondent from The New York Times in Brazil, Larry Rother published on May, 9. It says that Lula "has never hidden his fondness" for drinks, specially cachaça, our most famoust sugar-cane liquor and that in the "weekend barbecues at the presidential residence the liquor flows freely". It also says that there's a national concern about the drinking habits of president Lula and that it would be affecting his performance at work, but no one wanted to talk about it on the record. Although the spokemen of the president deny the truthfulness of it, The NY Times insists that the article is correct.
From what I could see, there has never been a national concern about that. We never blamed the president's "fondness" for beverages for the problems he might be having in the office as other people may have done with their presidents in other countries. That guy from The NY Times made that up. In fact, it wasn't fortunate for him to listen to Brizola. He doesn't seem to know that Brizola is always gossiping around about every president we have and we don't really have him as a realiable source of information.
Today, people are really talking about it all, but that because the reporter's visa was canceled, what everybody considered an expulsion. I know, that attitude wasn't what we can call a very democratic one. I am aware about the free speach and press rights. But let's just be honest here! If any person had made such a slanderous accusation about you in your own place, would've you kept serving her with your best wine? I don't think so.
The next step would be to sue them all!
