Some reactions? Flatly, they got what they deserve. "Bush’s election merely confirms America’s continuing love affair with mediocrity. Democracy has been kidnapped by neo-conservative warmongers. Simpleton, arrogant, deceitful, criminal, myopic: these words define Bush and his skewed domestic and foreign policy vision. The election of Bush demonstrates that basing an entire campaign on division and fear can yield positive results. Let Bush harvest the poisoned crop he has planted in the economy, security and environment." Foreigners say: "I am amazed that a people as straight-forward, clear and honest as the Americans have elected this muppet, after four years of lies and incompetence." Republicans say: "Fortunately, the vast majority of Americans do not care one iota about foreigners’ opinions of the American elections or America generally. The American people understand that the man in the White House is committed to freedom and to the same democratic values for others which have served to make America great. I know that President Bush is not the brightest firefly in the woods but instinctively we know that he is a better man.." (here)

Clinton concludes rightly "Most Americans don't live by rationality" (here)

Radio-Canada added: The American civil war ended, and it is the south and the southern values that won.

The FT questions what it means when those leaving the booths had "moral values" uppermost in their mind when they voted to return a born-again Christian to office. "As far as the Enlightenment programme of progress towards secular liberalism is concerned, the US has disengaged forward drive and shifted into reverse." (here)

Luckily, more cosmopolitan and less concerned with the brute exercise of power, Europe and Canada are actively "rebuking the vision of unlimited material progress, questionning market capitalism, state socialism as well as nation-state ideology", pioneering the development of a new vision based on "sustainable development, quality of life and multilateralism". (Read "The European Dream" by Jeremy Rifkin)

How to fight American power politics? Can art help? Did you know September 21st is an official international peace day signed by all UN member countries? (Get the documentary Peace One Day) Did you know advertisement billboards in Cuba say "Consume only what is necessary", while 20% of the planet, in its destructive and sometimes completely absurd consumer society, is sucking up 80% of our natural resources? (See SURPLUS with references to AdBusters). We can all make a difference by taking responsability for global justice and acting accordingly.

"The Corporation" sums it up best by pointing the finger at the flawed framework in our society: in the mid-1800s, the corporation succeeded to gain the status of a "legal person", but it has a personality of pure self interest. Its owners cannot be held responsible for the consequences of its transactions: illness, death, poverty, pollution or exploitation of society are "externals", or collateral damage if you prefer. Can water, a public good, really be sold for profit by a few private owners? Corporations have no social or moral responsability: did you know both Maersk and IBM sold to Hitler well into World War II? Making the corporation democratic can only be done by collective ownership. (Get it here).

Check out CPH:DOX, Copenhagen Documentary festival from Nov 5 to 14.
"Revolutionaries are never opportunists"

America is polarized, while the world is holding its breath
At least everyone has an opinion: from Eminem anti-Bush new song and video Mosh where "we see a woman opening an eviction notice while her children watch Bush talking about 'tax cuts' on television" (The Nation), the MoveOn.org initiatives "He Just Doesn't Get It, Give Bush the Boot" or simply the Drunk Against Bush site: "Some people demonstrate, some make movies and others terrorize when they are unhappy with something. We canalize our anger into something constructive - drinking. Have you been drinking against Bush during the last 24 hours?!"

Everything has been analysed and said, but here are some important conclusions. "If true voter equality is not a powerful enough reason to implement direct popular election of the president, avoiding scandalously contested outcomes every four years should be. Americans must ensure that their president is actually the candidate who receives the most votes." (The electoral college must go). With the current system, the final decision for electing the president of the world's most powerful nation lies in the hand of the undecided housewife in the developing country-side of Ohio: "I would think that we would want people to like us. I don't think Bush was being totally honest, but Kerry, on the other hand, does not inspire confidence. I'm probably swayed more towards Bush. It is a hard choice. The lesser of two evils? Saying that, I'm not sure it is Bush. I am swaying once again". (The undecided voter)

So why is everyone holding their breath? Because it matters to the world and to America: "In a hyperdemocratic age - when a rural Italian can watch a presidential press conference live on the internet and then complain to his elected representatives about it - it is part of the president's job description to appeal not just to foreign governments but to world opinion as well.. In the light of the Iraq war, America's role in the world has come to revolve around its legitimacy. Europe in particular has a vital role to play in determining how the US asserts itself, the kind of checking and balancing that a parliament gives to an executive.. For the first time, voters in every country have been polled about how they would vote if they could - as if the office in question were not president of the US but president of the world.. In broad terms, the old regime of international political authority is weakening in the face of globalisation, and no concrete political structures are yet in place to supplement or to supplant it." (Christopher Caldwell: Citizens of the world unite) Getting closer to giving stakeholders from all countries a percentage of other countries votes? Yes please..

Luckily, America will choose Kerry. "When they come to look in the mirror next Tuesday, most Americans will prefer light over darkness - tough-minded realism abroad and tolerance at home over faith-based fundamentalism. (Philip Stephens: Why America will choose Kerry)

Hey Americans, turn your brain on before voting! 'Think' as this black democrat American said on TV to a Bush supporter. And beware that the world will not simply sit back and relax if you actually do elect this self-proclaimed god-inspired war-monger this time. Doing so, with full knowledge of the consequences for justice and peace, is an uniquevocal message to the world that indeed the US has become the strong, but selfish and dangerous one in our world of nations.

The essence: by leading an illegal war and refusing to subject its forces to international jurisprudence (ICC), Bush has "transformed the multilateralist vision of globalization into an explicit plan for American military hegemony in the world that involved preemptive and preventive warfare, emphasized American national economic interest, and embraced unilateral action if efforts at international cooperation failed." (For insightful world news analysis, turn off BBC (don't even thing of CNN), and read the Power and Interest News Report).

Bush said the US was safer from terrorism than before the 2001 attacks. In truth, the U.S. aggressive tactics and strategy in Irak is aleniating the occupied populations and "producing more terrorists than we will ever be able to kill" (said George Soros, the Financier backing Kerry, read his book "Open Society, reforming Global Capitalism"). The war on terror is a political fantasy making the world a much more dangerous place than any time since the second world war.

The net result is that the US has "severely impaired its diplomatic resources", it has lost credibility. And so have Americans. So be prepared for more harassment when travelling in "friendly" countries, and more terror from unfriendly ones. I will travel to Montreal with Czech Airlines rather than with United. A minor step, but if everyone acts responsibly, the world can become a better place..

The goal of WWII was stopping Japan, Germany and Italy's militaristic and imperialistic ambitions. Maybe it is time to stop America's. "The Fiscal Year 2004 U.S. budget is $782 billion, $399 billion of which will go to the military. This "National Defense" category accounts for over half (51.0 percent) of all spending (next is Education: $55 billion. Health? $49 billion..see here) It is also more than the total sum spent by the next 22 countries: Russia $65b, China $47b, Japan $43b, UK $38b, France $30b, Germany $25b, Saudi Arabia $21b, Italy $19b, India $15b, .. Israel $11b, Canada $8b, Turkey $6b.. (Center for Defense Information U.S. Military Budget Still the World's Largest, and Growing)

Inclusive vs Exclusive
I have been bemused by this right-wing left-wing model all summer. Reading the news, following the Canadian miserable political system, following the US election debate, travelling to war-torned countries in the Baltics and the Balkans, and reading various crazy books . I have been trying to make some sense of the big 'why'. I devote quite a bit of time to this, I feel it is hard to go ahead without understanding the underlying issues. By lifting the rocks I often uncovered more questions than answers. I also faced my own limits: lack of education in history, philosophy, psychology, and lack of time. I tried different paths, and almost even convinced myself along the way that right-wing people must simply be dummer. Though Bush' looks and remarks tend to reinforce that case, I cannot run a worldwide IQ test and match it to political aspirations and it probably won't help anyway.

In Denmark, this oh-so-well organised and socialist country, it is easy to take pity for the poor and the hopeless. Chances are, you will meet the same ones often; the Chinese guy who picks up the empty bottles at Nyhavn, the guy without an arm who asks for change in the train, the old man with his big dog and his caddy covered with Danish flags, or the black guy playing piano (yes a real piano). I meet them once a week. In Rome, I felt there were so many I stopped caring and voluntarily turned a blind eye.

Fundamentally, I think this is what makes the difference. Do you prefer to live in an inclusive society or do you agree to live in an exclusive one? Is it okay to turn a blind eye? Is it ok to defend a system simply because we benefit from it? Is it ok to become much richer than others at their own expense? Should we give anything to the poor and the "hopeless"? Or should we
1) let them die in the streets (India?)
2) give them the chance to risk their life for their country in exchange for food and education (US)
3) pay some charities to distribute free food - but still let them die outside in the winter (Canada)
4) give them money and support to make them feel part of society and allow them some human dignity (Denmark)?

Unfortunately, the rich are always sold to the institution that makes them rich. Morality and humanity often disappears with wealth.

After Moore's law, here is Moore's effect. What else is there to say, since even conservatives go out see the movie. Americans seem to be taking it like a "needed cold shower". That can only be good. Even in Denmark Farenheit 9/11 is watched and praised: the critics commented it as "what the mass media has been denying for the last 4 years".

Only two comments for those agreeing with the cause but disagreeing with the means: the first is from Moore. "Every single fact I state in "Fahrenheit 9/11" is the absolute and irrefutable truth. This movie is perhaps the most thoroughly researched and vetted documentary of our time. No fewer than a dozen people, including three teams of lawyers and the venerable one-time fact-checkers from The New Yorker went through this movie with a fine-tooth comb so that we can make this guarantee to you. Do not let anyone say this or that isn't true. If they say that, they are lying. Let them know that the OPINIONS in the film are mine, and anyone certainly has a right to disagree with them. And the questions I pose in the movie, based on these irrefutable facts, are also mine. And I have a right to ask them. And I will continue to ask them until they are answered." (Jul 4 "My first wild week with F9/11")

The second: of course, some would have preferred a more balanced documentary. But who are the real targets of this movie? Not us! Yes it ties up all those doubts we have had from the start, and it even surprises us in its breath and depth. But the real targets are the conservative republicans who have been bombarded by one-sidedness for the last years. Yes, Moore goes right in, drills a hole in their brain and pours the doubt so deep that they won't remain unshaken. That is the objective. It is working in the cities: "In California, effigies of the president are sold in tourist shops, apparently to be burnt on the beach. Bush punchbags are doing brisk trade: "Anyone but Bush" stickers are on cars. Bush-hating has become a national sport." It remains to be seen if "church-going, gun-owning populations of Arkansas and Arizona" will change their "God bless America" sticker. This is why "Mr Kerry knows he must be as conservative as possible to win". (FT Aug 18 - "Bush-hating becomes a way of American life")

Moore, by the way, won the Palme D'Or for his movie at Cannes this year with a 15-min standing ovation. Even Fox News give the movie a good critic: "But, really, in the end, not seeing "F9/11" would be like allowing your First Amendment rights to be abrogated, no matter whether you're a Republican or a Democrat."

So by the way, why is it again that Denmark joined the US in the war? Is the leap to that question so huge?

Why save Christiania? Simply because it is an alternative. A viable and truly free alternative to the other neighbourhoods of Copenhagen where more often than ever it is money that dictates the lives of the people. Christiania is an example - the most successful example to date - of a free society based on tolerance, cultural initiatives, collective ownership and self-management. What does it mean in practice? From a consumerist point of view, it means that people are happy to serve you because they chose to be there for the pleasure, not for the money. They close when they feel like closing, not because it is time to close. This is a subtle, but very beautiful difference.

Copenhagen and Christiania actually complement each other: on one side, the slick, clean, organised, chic design of a bustling european capital and on the other the humble, environmentally-friendly, visionary and artistic Christiania. But to me there is no doubt about which is the most sustainable in the long term..

Last weekend was yet-another high moment in Christiania with the HalfMachine interactive art installations: the "Grey Hall has transformed into a weather machine - objects and dancers are suspended in a giant mobile - robots, video art and live concerts in water and light - a crazy and surreal eco system in the midst of an electronic playground."

It is sad that people who devote their time and energy to arts should be harassed. Let not freedom be about greed, but about creativity.

(do read http://www.forsvarchristiania.dk/index.php?id=38)

In response to "Kjærsgaard urges more foreigners to leave"
It is the role of our public servants and representatives to show direction and leadership for the long term viability of our society. I expect them to be wise and courageous, to show respect for all their citizens and to encourage mutual understanding and appreciation. Pia is only courageous in daring to express her selfish and racist views. More dangerously, she encourages mistrust and hatred. Germans or Serbs were not uneducated or predisposed in any way to commit their respective atrocities in history. They were encouraged into mistrust and hatred by a handful of selfish and racist leaders. As far as I am concerned, Pia is the only burden in Denmark today - and a dangerous one at that.
Yann

Notes on Nationalism (George Orwell 1945): "I mean [by nationalism] the habit of identifying oneself with a single nation or other unit, placing it beyond good and evil and recognizing no other duty than that of advancing its interests.... The abiding purpose of every nationalist is to secure more power and more prestige, not for himself but for the nation or other unit in which he has chosen to sink his own individuality.

A nationalist is one who thinks solely, or mainly, in terms of competitive prestige ... his thoughts always turn on victories, defeats, triumphs, and humiliations.... But finally, it important not to confuse nationalism with mere worship of success. The nationalist does not go on the principle of simply ganging up with the strongest side. On the contrary, having picked his side, he persuades himself that it is the strongest, and is able to stick to his belief even when the facts are overwhelmingly against him....

Interesting that we can strongly feel attached to our country and culture, and feel superior, claiming that we belong to this or that specific cultural group. "I am this or
that; I am Danish or Irish or Québecois, that is what I am!" Isn't it a proof of being nothing really? That makes us only what other people around us are. That is the most easy thing to be! How do we know we are what we claim? Did we bother trying to find out? On the contrary, some people who refuse to belong to anything in particular are often classified as rootless or even superficial. On the contrary, I believe these people
are more deeply rooted: they actually bothered looking outside the box. They confronted themselves to the world and its differences, its diversity. They can put themselves in other people's shoes. First and before everything, we are human beings. We are all earthlings. Now what kind of earthling? An earthling is not defined in terms of nation or states, it is defined in terms of values. What do you value? Life, harmony, happiness, family, creativity, peers, freedom ..?

Nationalism is just being what other people around us are. It is the most easy thing to be, and it is nothing to be proud of. One must think for oneself.

Happy 1st year anniversary Iraq! Civilian deaths in "noble" Iraq invasion pass 10000. Misguided and still unjustified, "the war and its aftermath have aggravated global divisions between Muslim and Christian, rich and poor, north and south, and between allies" (Quentin Peel FT Mar18). The world is not closer to living free from fear today, quite the contrary.

Thank you Spain for ousting mediocrity and opportunism from your management, it is a great first step to living really free from fear. "European public opinion was always overwhelmingly against the Iraq war" (Lionel Barber FT Mar20). Luckily, "Spain is anxious to play a more constructive and friendly role" says the new socialist leader Zapatero.

On the other side of the Atlantic, Bush is struggling to keep his "coalition of the willing" really willing, with Poland Kwasniewski reporting to feel "mislead". Thanks to Democracy - or at least our poor little version of it - governments pay an electoral price for siding with the US, finally. Hopefully Bush, Blair, Berlusconi and Rasmussen will suffer the same fate. Osama might be right when he claims there is not fundamental difference between Bush and Kerry, but for the world community there is one: "Kerry would return to 'multilateral when it can, unilateral when it must', rather than Bush's multilateralism 'a la carte'." (Deborah McGregor FT Mar 12). Reelecting Bush can only convince him of the case for the aggressive use of US power to change the world.

So what next now? The world does not need more "wars on terror"! We do not need to unite against "terrorism". Terrorism only thrives because US and other countries foreign policies fail to give priority to human rights and global justice. More dangerously, wars against terrorism provide excuses for measures erroding our civil rights and liberties in the name of so-called "security", undermining the very values we claim to protect: democracy and freedom (book: The Changing Face of Justice - and Why It Matters to Us All by Helena Kennedy). "It is not terrorism that really threatens democracy, it is the danger of overreaction to it". Neo-conservatives are ideologically far from justice and human rights, they prefer simple solutions and concrete actions: law, order and self-interest. We must follow the Spanish example.

And about Iraq? Though the US is ultimately responsible, as a world community we are all responsible for the mess, whoever created it. Though it will not admit its mistakes, the US is paying for them, largely in loss of credibility. Spain's withdrawal must be used to force the return of ALL powers to the community of Nations, then to the Iraqis. The US should submit itself to the UN and pay its debt to the world. Maybe some claimed goals were fair, but the means were certainly wrong.

And Denmark? Maersk - the huge Danish shipping company - made money from this war and probably convinced the current right-wing government of its case for US support. Xenophobia towards Muslims helped make Denmark the only European country with more than 50% popular support for the war up until November 2003. A somewhat nationalistic but trusting mentality help the Danes feel remote and safe, while boarding a plane in Copenhagen is done without ever showing a passport. Denmark is an easy target and that makes me uneasy.. Again, Danes must proactively follow the Spanish example.

And the longer term? By our blunteness we are aleniating the very people we are claiming to be freeing. People are dying in vain and for the wrong reasons, and worse of all, it could have been prevented by our own governments if, in time, the right issues had been properly addressed in a fair and just way. Many issues are yet to be solved. We can, like Bush&Co, decide to protect the status quo at any cost and refuse to address the problems (rich and poor divide, international justice, the israelo-palestinian conflict, and numerous still simmering environmental issues affecting the world at large). We can attack those who criticize and gain control of what is needed to change nothing - and generate more and more very useful terrorism to focus on. Isn't terrorism the perfect scape-goat to create a never-ending state of fear and control? Or we can, courageously, open our minds, take a look at the world, find the issues that are the source of the biggest discontempt, and address them. Terrorists are NOT the source of the problem, they are the SYMPTOM of a problem. Governments and citizens need to cure the disease, not just pop the zid.

yann

Boycott America? Not yet. We have seen the consequences of electing wrong presidents: rhetorics of fear, unjustified and dangerous preemptive wars, huge financing of friend's army industries at the expense of global agreements and institutions (the foundation for peace in the last 50 years) and the environment. It is time to make sure the right ones get onboard.

In an ideal world, ~30% of the votes in any country should be given to the world population. After all, citizens of other countries are directly affected by one country's foreign policy, which makes them stakeholders in elections. This probably will not happen for a while, but as the current US administration proved it can be a danger to the world, it is everyone responsability to help countries elect officials that will care for their population as well as for the good of the global civil society in the longer term.

The internet makes this more possible. Watch and buy:

Child's pay
What are we teaching our children
What I have been up to..


(MoveOn has become a major contributor in Democrat financing. CBS banned the ads, but CNN will air them. Buy the full DVD here)

Proud to be modest; arrogance camouflaged behind modesty? Denmark.

What is it that makes Denmark so special? "Go home to your own country" :-)

Not that Denmark is not great. European standard social system. High quality, frequent, and efficient public transportation that targets not-only the poor or the old but all classes. 150% to 180% of taxes when buying a car. Decriminalized marijuana and gay marriages are already far behind. Traditional and modern architecture bloom in cities with bicycle paths opened even in the winter. Team-work and humanistic in the workplace ..

So why close it down? Is a reason to send away all foreigners? To give up on social ideals like Europe or the UN?

It is normal to have failed social encounters in any society. People get angry because you moved first in a bus line, because you suddenly turned right at the light, or because you arrived one minute after the movie started when the barmaid was so slow and your seat was already taken. Fine, it happens. What is not normal is that people pick on you because you are a foreigner: "all the problems here are because of foreigners, go home to your own country". Quite unfortunately, I heard this twice in one week. I am a canadian engineer, nothing too extraordinary. Actually to many standards, quite a boring status. What a hard life they must have, muslim refugees, in Denmark.

So what is that makes Denmark so great? What makes some Danes so proud that they should wish all foreigners to leave? Why is it, that foreigners suddenly became a burden? Where did it come from, this nationalistic pride? Are we sure we want to live closed off in our little nation-states? Are we sure that is sustainable and beautiful? Some Danes want to prevent "foreigners" to come in? How about in exchange "foreigners" prevent Danes to go out? How would one feel to be forced to remain in Denmark?

The truth is: all nations are great. All have something interesting to share. But I sure do not want to eat Poelser all my life; the same way I do not want to eat mapple syrop pancakes all my life. Being told by some nationalist to go home to my own country is simply unacceptable. I truly hope this to be a meaningless minority in a world capital like Copenhagen.

Every society must be capable of making foreigners feel welcome. That is the key here, making one feel welcome. Be willing to learn from each other and to create a new culture that embraces the old and the new.

And for those of you who think: "well go then". Shame, of course. You, as much as I, are responsible for the well-being of every human being on this planet. In fact, we have no more rights to the land under our feet than any other human being. We can either enjoy and benefit from each other, or, well in the end, kill each other. But the bottom line is, we all live together on the same planet. Invent all the rules and borders you want, when disrespect and inequalities become too great, it blows up.

Nazis proved that nationalism is dangerous. Do we need to open history books again?

yann