What does His Excellency JB mean when it comes to the samba circle?

JB in Brazil was once a whiskey brand, today he's a Supreme Court Justice. He looks quite like a candidate. For anything, who knows? But he's a different kind of Justice. He goes to samba circles, shakes his hips, uses amulets, and does the stingray tail dance. Well, if he doesn't go that far, it's our fault. Or is a samba circle not a place for people like that? (Of the highest quality!).

Journalist Ana Alakija, defending JB's attendance at a samba gathering, said: "samba is serious business." No, Ana, it's much more serious than your "serious" might suggest. Samba is for geniuses like Chico Buarque; admirable figures like Zeca Pagodinho; beloved figures like Beth Carvalho; and creative individuals like João Bosco. It's also for non-authoritarian figures like Cartola; non-dictatorial figures like Nelson Cavaquinho; and people who don't need to be called "doctor" like Neguinho da Beija Flor. Samba is love and kindness, not hate.

Samba is much more than a religion. It's a culture and a gift. There are those who are born knowing how to play the percussion and those who never manage to learn in their entire lives. When the world-renowned bassist Ron Carter recorded with Rosa Passos, it became evident that he wasn't a Brazilian musician. He lacked the swing, the rhythm. The handsome Ron Carter, so idolized by the entire musical class, doesn't do very well in samba. JB, as a good Brazilian, perhaps has that "musicality" inherent to samba.

So, his excellency was the samba circle? No problem. Samba is an easy and beautiful woman, adored by all of us. She accepts everyone from kings to slaves, from senators to bandits (forgive me, bandits). But samba exacts its price. No one enters or leaves a samba circle with impunity. JB didn't need this overtly political move to appear more pop. Or populist.

Of course, JB is free to go wherever he wants and do whatever he pleases. "Is he really?", perhaps Moreira Alves, a veteran Supreme Court Justice, would ask. A Supreme Court of a different breed? Or a Justice of different ways? It doesn't matter. The Supreme Court has also become popular with its "Noble Wednesdays" on TV. There's no need to invoke the authoritarian rules of the judiciary to know what a Justice can or cannot do. JB goes wherever he wants, it's his business. A samba circle or a barbecue on a rooftop in Rio de Janeiro. There's only one problem: as a public figure, he grants observers the right to interpret him.

One problem is that JB has shown himself to be like a child who's gone down to the playground but doesn't know how to play very well. When he's bluntly interpreted by some journalist or observer on duty, he gets furious and promises furious revenge at the opportune time. This is ugly. If JB wants to launch himself into something, he should revisit the videos of Leonel Brizola, for example, the inventor of political marketing who conversed intimately with the voter on television, with his sleeves rolled up, and always had an answer for everything. Without losing his temper or getting angry. Many learned from old Brizola.

There's no problem with this pop JB who should start kissing children in public squares, eating mortadella sandwiches at bus stations, and abolishing the white suit shirt, as professional politicians do, especially those on the right. JB can do anything. Everyone can do anything. Don't we live in a democracy? JB just can't sulk when faced with interpretations he finds wicked and infamous. Let his defenders defend him. And if society wants an authoritarian in some position, JB has already shown this conservative and imperial side plenty of times. Practically a 70s general.

Ana Alakija says that JB suffers from "bullying and racial harassment" or that the press portrays him in that way. But it was he himself who said that he has anthropological biases that haunt him. This racial talk – in JB's specific case – has become a cunning smokescreen to hide Barbosa's biased and very visible, televised attitudes. Otherwise, so many intellectuals and jurists would not have spoken out against his actions. Never against any skin color.

From the blog General Observatory