More electric cars in Copenhagen

Published with Blogger-droid v1.6.5

First Electric Cars in Copenhagen

Published with Blogger-droid v1.6.5

In response to: "Mini adventure: how far can an electric car go?"

I love the initiative. In order to go beyond the early adopters, real-life use cases must be proven to work. Such high profile testing is a good stepping stone to show just that and encourage adoption.

What I would like to see more however from the media is some explanations of the science behind. We have all somewhat accepted that electric cars will save us from global warming and our addiction to oil. But will it? Will our lifestyle be sustainable after we all buy an electric car?

Electric cars do solve one thing for sure: on-the-spot CO2 emissions. No more smelly streets, headaches in the traffic or smoggy city-centers. But where is the electricity used to charge the car come from? Is it produced sustainably? Here in self-acclaimed green Denmark, still 80% of electricity comes from burning coal or oil. Mining and burning fossil fuels to produce electricity to run our cars still increase concentrations of CO2 in our atmosphere with the consequences we know from the IPCC reports. So unless we take a larger perspective and solve the full cycle, we are only solving the most visible but unfortunately superficial part of the problem.

Furthermore, if we rate the electrical car solution against all sustainability principles, it is also important to recognize that 1) we still require more mining of natural resources and fossil fuels to actually produce the cars (eventually producing more waste) 2) batteries require that we extract rare metals like lithium and create compounds not naturally present in nature, eventually increasing concentrations in the biosphere of those metals and compounds as they find their way into nature as waste (with unknown consequences on life).

One solution at least, if we must create those cars and batteries, is keeping the metals and chemical compounds in closed loops. Recycle. Not satisfying our needs for mobility with such wasteful solution as the private car is of course ideal. Simply put, is it really that efficient to use a 2,496 lb (1,132 kg) device to move my humble 165 lb (75 kg) self?

I still believe that the private car is not a sustainable solution for transporting 7 billion people. Investing all this money into creating a real sustainable public transportation system would be more efficient.. and sustainable. What happened to all those electric tramways??!

All this being said, have a good trip, Brian, looking forward to hear how it goes!

Refs.
Four principles of sustainability
IPCC causes of climate change

Green roofs are good for:

1) BIODIVERSITY - provide new semi-natural habitats for different birds and invertebrates
2) AIR POLLUTION MITIGATION - roofs with shrubs and grass have the largest impact on reducing the amounts of particulate matter, ozone nitrogen dioxide and sulphur dioxide during day time and in-leaf season
3) ENERGY EFFICIENCY FOR BUILDINGS - green roofs have delivered savings of about 25% in energy bills
4) STORM WATER MANAGEMENT - effective way of storing rainwater because of the plants and growing medium absorbing capacities
5) AESTHETIC - views of a natural setting reduce stress levels and decrease heart rate
6) USE OF RECYCLED MATERIALS - recycled materials such as crushed bricks are used for membranes and drainage mats; the growing media could contain also compost from recycled households, agricultural and horticultural waste
7) PROPERTY VALUES - proper design and planning since the early stages of a new building or in an existing building (retro-fitting) will be beneficial to the overall property value

See master thesis from CEU. See more pictures from Faroese green roofs

What is the big deal with Tibet? Every country has its minorities and fare of separatists. And every country, western or not, democracy or not, is more often than usual mistreating its minorities. Macedonians and Turks in Greece, Armenians and Kurds in Turkey, Basques and Catalonia in Spain, native Indians in Canada, the Aboriginals in Australia, Gypsies in the whole of Eastern Europe, even Hawaii has its own indigenous people who were never Americans in the first place. Why would one support a "Free Tibet" more than a "Quebec Libre" or a real "Kurdistan" state?

The root issue at stake here is really China's answer. How to encourage China and all other countries to engage constructively with their minorities? Obviously patriotic classes and muzzling of the press is the childish answer, and this is where China can really show whether it has reached the maturity level of a world actor - not just economically or militarily, but also in terms of mindset.

What is the big deal with China hosting the Olympics? This was approved some years ago and China's track record in human rights was already known then. Now that the Olympics were given to them, isn't it somewhat unfair to contest it? By the way America's track record of human rights is not exactly a beacon of humanity. Can we use the Olympics to stop pointing fingers at others and all take our responsibilities as countries and address together the real humanitarian problems we all face?

...Many people confuse the statement "almost all terrorists are Moslems" with "almost all Moslems are terrorists." Assume that the first statement is true, that 99 percent of terrorists are Moslems. This would mean that only about .001 percent of Moslems are terrorists, since there are more than 1 billion and only, say, ten thousand terrorists, one in a hundred thousand. So the logical mistake makes you (unconsciously) overestimate the odds of a randomly drawn individual Moslem person (between the age of, say, fifteen and fifty) being a terrorist by close to fifty thousand times!

The reader might see in this round-trip fallacy the unfairness of stereotypes - minorities in urban areas in the United States have suffered from the same confusion: even if most criminals come from their ethnic subgroup, most of their ethnic subgroup are not criminals, but they still suffer from discrimination by people who should know better.

"I never meant to say that the Conservatives are generally stupid. I meant to say that stupid people are generally Conservative," John Stuart Mill once complained...

(Excerpt from Nassim N. Taleb "The Black Swan". For more on presidential IQs: http://www.lovenstein.org/report/)

"They brought it upon themselves". It was taboo for more than five years to take any critical stance about 9/11 in the US. And it still is. What can be so sensitive about acknowledging that "what goes around comes around"? That "for every action, there is an equal an opposite reaction"? Freedom of speech is not very useful if not accompanied by the freedom to think and be self-critical. Watching "Fear and Loathing in Las Vegas" the other night somehow reminded me of what is wrong with the foundations of American thinking: it is the constant and simplistic reference to the good and the bad. The black and white belief that there are good people and bad people. Rooted in fundamentalist christian religion or not, this lens is applied to all sauces: NY governor (Eliot Spitzer) tasted it with his prostitution ring "scandal" (I write scandal in brackets to highlight just how we tend to be "naturally shallow and superficial", prefering the sensational to the relevant). Of course politicians are not models of virtue, no less than we are. It is hypocritical to expect examplary virtue when we all know we can hardly abide by them. I dont want to excuse corrupt politicians, but I want to remind to focus on the relevant.

If we start with the fact that we are all fundamentally both good and bad, and that we can all act good and bad, what matters is whether the bad is actually relevant. For the American public Eliot is now banned and bad so he agreed to resign - showing by the way that he himself believes in this simplistic way of judging. Same model with Jeremiah Wright (Obama's pastor): it took some rhetorics from Obama to go beyond the "scandal" (which was only about Wright stating the above somewhat obvious statements about 9/11 really) and touch the relevant ("challenging Americans' intelligence rather than insulting it" - see the Economist March 22nd "The trouble wih uncles").

Anyway where are we? Oh yes, that in the end I bet Americans are capable to put John McCain in power - they proved that well enough by reelecting Bush. McCain best strategy is to keep quiet and gain from the benefit of the doubt, while others struggle to painstakingly justify every corner of their thoughts. At least Obama has done so and continues to do so (do read his book). Unfortunately, massive American ego wont go away in a snap. Obama is too smart, sophisticated, self-critical and "leftish" to be elected. If he was, he would probably get shot (as one of my American friend put it). To officialize the odds, I went to betfair.com and place a 70% bet against Obama to win (2.34 odds). I hope to loose my money.

Why war?

Visiting the Freud museum in Vienna I found an open letter from Albert Einstein to Sigmund Freud dated 1932. Einstein's question to the specialist of the human mind was: "Is there any way of delivering mankind from the menace of war?". In his letter, Einstein suggests the "setting up, by international consent, of a legislative and judicial body to settle every conflict arising between nations" and concludes by this axiom: "The quest of international security involves the unconditional surrender by every nation, in a certain measure, of its liberty of action - its sovereignty that is to say - and it is clear beyond all doubt that no other road can lead to such security".

Freud analyses rightly that "Conflicts of interest between man and man are resolved, in principle, by the recourse to violence. It is the same in the animal kingdom, from which man cannot claim exclusion." He agrees with Eisntein "There is but one sure way of ending war and that is the establishment, by common consent, of a central control which shall have the last word in every conflict of interests. On the subject of warfare paving the way to peace, Freud - with history on his side - is categorical: "there can be no true cohesion between the parts that violence has welded".

But Freud continues "there is no likelihood of our being able to suppress humanity's aggressive tendencies. Musing on the atrocities recorded on history's page, we feel that the ideal motive has often served as a camouflage for the dust of destruction; sometimes, as with the cruelties of the Inquisition, it seems that, while the ideal motives occupied the foreground of consciousness, they drew their strength from the destructive instincts submerged in the unconscious. Both interpretationsare feasible."

Freud later concludes "The ideal conditions would obviously be found in a community where every man subordinated his instinctive life to the dictates of reason. Nothing less than this could bring about so thorough and so durable a union between men. But surely such a hope is utterly utopian, as things are. Meanwhile we may rest on the assurance that whatever makes for cultural development is working also against war."

"How long have we to wait before the rest of men turn pacifist?" A question for evolutionary biotechnologists..

Read the annotated full correspondance (or the internet original)

Non-violent Strategies and Methods

"Reagan's determination to boost American pride and self-confidence to his own cheery level was accompanied by an equal determination to reduce taxes. Since his way to pride was papered with unprecedently costly expenditure on weapons of war his term of office was marked by massive borrowing and the neglect of social services. His promise on entering the White House to balance the budget was even rasher than such promises usually are. He seemed to believe that the gap between spending and revenue would evaporate because lower taxes, in association with monetarist controls, would produce higher profits and so higher tax yields to bridge the gap. But low taxes and tight money did not lay these golden eggs, deficits grew both absolutely and as a percentage of GNP. When Reagan left office in 1989 the United States had swung in less than a decade from being the world's biggest creditor to being its biggest debtor; half the population was worse off in real terms than it had been in 1980; personal savings had fallen below 15%; higher education in technology and science was in decline; the economic infrastructure was in decay and so were the inner cities where housing and infant mortality approximated to the black spots of the Thrid World and crime and drugs were alarmingly prevalent; corruption in the public sector was widespread.."

From this history book account, replace Reagan by Bush and you have the consistently ineffective track record of right-wing governments.

London Terror: Bush vs Bin Laden speeches

Mr Bush stood solemnly behind his close ally in the war on terrorism Mr Bush, looking severe, as Mr Blair pledged to defeat the terrorists. "We shall prevail and they shall not." (FT) Bush's speeches always begin by frightening the audience to death with terrorism and finishes triumphantly by rousing them to patriotic confidence in their country's future victory - his June 28 speech use the words terror and terrorism 33 times! (see Fisk's commentary)

As long as we sanction arrogant and presumptuous attitudes from our leaders, rather than expecting them to address the root causes of terrorism, we can expect more violence. Ironically, it is true that the G8 agenda this time is one of the most humanitarian seen in a long time: African debt and global warming. But selling freedom with one hand and enslaving for petrol with the other will continue generating violence.

Solution: listen and address Bin Laden's concerns, which are not so unrealistic: "..neither America nor the people who live in it will dream of security before we live it in Palestine, and not before all the infidel armies leave the land of Muhammad". Make Palestine a reality; stop supporting authoritarian regimes of the Middle East for petrol. (full text) He concludes "Your security is in your own hands. And every state that doesn't play with our security has automatically guaranteed its own security." (full text)

On this, Denmark had its warning..

WikiTerror

Terror and terrorism are loaded words which officials and newspapers often abuse. This polarizes and deceives people, undermining at the same time the credibility of the messenger and turning the message into propaganda. From both Politiken and the Copenhagen Post covering Bush's birthday visit to Copenhagen today: "4000 Danish police will be assigned to protect the president. The increased protection is the result of the threat of terror attacks." (City braces for Bush)

If the increased security is to protect "random targets of opportunity" in the civilian population, then the term "terror threat" is applicable. If the increased security is solely to protect the president - which is undoubtly the case - then it is an "assassination threat".

There is debate around the definition of "terrorism". Though Bush and some governments tend to lump together all resistance to established authority as "terrorism", there is a general concensus around the UN academic consensus definition: "Terrorism is an anxiety-inspiring method of repeated violent action, employed by (semi-) clandestine individual, group or state actors, for idiosyncratic, criminal or political reasons, whereby — in contrast to assassination — the direct targets of violence are not the main targets."

For a comprehensive definition and debate on terrorism, read on Wikipedia (Article:Talk) (This by the way is an online dictionnary editable by all. One can be surprised by the breath and quality of a global and open dictionary. If laws could be written so openly and democratically, the world would be a much fairer place..)

So, now that the world's number one terrorist is indeed one and in town, why demonstrate? The US military budget ($441.6 billion for 2006) represents more than half the discretionary US budget (the money the adminitration has control over and must decide to spend each year). The US spends almost as much as the rest of the world’s (totalling almost $1000 billion). It is an obvious waste and misuse of resources compared to: $6b for basic education for everyone in the world, $9b for water and sanitation, and the mere $10b all UN agencies and funds spend each year (more under the excellent Global Issues, article World Military Spending).



Preserving the 'Pax Americana' at the point of a unilateralist gun will only create more tension in the long run. It is a flawed and dangerous strategy (the full strategy at the New American Century (sigh).

Équilibre entre liberté et équité, équilibre entre libéralisme économique et société solidaire, union de citoyens et d'états, démocratie transnationale oscillant entre association d'états et état fédéral, économie sociale de marché, social-démocratie, progrès internationaliste, défrontiérisation, égalitarisme, bureaucratie titanesque, égoïsmes nationaux, populisme brutal, capitalisme sauvage, ultra-libéralisme..

How to define the EU and isolate its problems? Consolidating current treaties into a single foundation, clarifying the Union goals and values around humanism, reviewing EU institutions, streamlining decision-making and creating a foreign affairs ministry, is necessary for the new Europe of 25. To gain the legitimacy from "us, the people of Europe", establishing a constitution by consensus through referendum is both admirable and necessary. But it failed.

Europe is loosing its focus. The European dream is derailed, if not dead. The clear winner is the right-wing spectrum: extremists who are expectedly nationalists clinging to the dangerous concept of territorial nation-state, and the liberals, led by the U.K., who prefer an economic union without political union. The French socialists were courageous to voice their concerns: too centralized, too diluted, too market oriented, too long… But will we ever have a chance to get any better?

France, you fucked up.

It was surreal to watch the referendum results and the following debate this weekend in Brussels, while Grand-Mother was retelling her war stories - her fleeing to Bordeaux during the German occupation and Grand-Father being deported to work in East-German factories.. That was 50 years ago, are the dangers of nationalism already forgotten?

Solutions: 1. Visionary and courageous politicians that encourage and sell Europe, rather than use it as a cash cow or a scapegoat. 2. A new treaty to enable the most urgent and essential reforms needed for the Europe of 25 - much needed to give international weight to the EU and to insure a more secure and diverse multi-polar world, countering the dangerous American hegemony 3. A new, simplified and correctly scoped constitution for the people of Europe preceded by proper public debates and enacted by referendums.

A new American directive to militarize space is on the way..

"I don't think the United States would find it very comforting if China were to develop a death star, a 24/7 on-orbit weapon that could strike at targets on the ground anywhere in 90 minutes." Despite this obvious statement, history continues to be written today, as the US military confirms "space supremacy is our vision for the future" and aims to "expand the choices that we might be able to offer to the president in crisis". A safer world, the American way?

One Air Force program, neo-conveniently nicknamed "Rods From God", aims to "hurl cylinders of tungsten, titanium or uranium from the edge of space to destroy targets on the ground, striking with the force of a small nuclear weapon". Or how about "bouncing laser beams off mirrors hung from space satellites redirecting the lethal rays down to targets around the world"? Or let us be more reasonable and create a "military space plane carrying precision-guided weapons armed with a half-ton of munitions that can strike from halfway around the world in 45 minutes". (That'll teach 'em)

The new directive would replace a 1996 Clinton administration policy that emphasized a more pacific use of space. With little public debate, the Pentagon has already spent billions of dollars developing space weapons and preparing plans to deploy them. (Air Force Seeks Bush's Approval for Space Weapons Programs New York Times)

Solution? A global public debate and a UN resolution: space must be sanctified and no weapons ever put in space. Oh yes, and a continuing boycott on the US until it brings its 'defense' budget down to reasonable levels (now more than 50%) and submits fully to democratic principles and institutions on a global scale.

English it must be

This is an attempt at stating the obvious and making the courageous conclusion that International English must be the common language of Europe.

The problem with Europe today is that it remains an intergovernmental organization of member states stuck in their monolingual narrowness: most states face the same economic and social problems, yet there is no collaboration on solutions due to language barriers. Insightful editorials by locally renowned intellectuals are of no value to the outside world because they are published in the local language only. Denmark has no clue what Germans are up to, whom really know nothing about how Danes deal with their own immigration or traffic issues.

There is a lot of potential for creating synergy between European countries. To enable this from grassroots level, Europeans need to embrace and encourage the teaching of a common language, spoken and understood by all. If this common language was chosen to be Esperanto, all governmental services and publications at all levels must be offered in Esperanto as well as local languages, all products must be labelled accordingly, all public spaces must be minimally bilingual, and most importantly all newspapers must publish in Esperanto as well as in their usual language of publication.

Outside Europe, since hardly anybody speaks Danish or German or Esperanto, the only view on Europe is through the British prism.. in English. However the UK is "frequently not in the mainstream of European thinking but rather the odd one out": the world was surprised that the EURO was successfully launched given the tone of the euro sceptic British media (See 'World has a distorted view of Europe').

This leaves only one option to improve both intra-Europe cross-communication and international communication: International English.

The problem with languages is that they represent both cultural identity and a mean to communicate. Europeans must embrace English as a mean to communicate, and their own mother tongue as a mean to express their unique identity. Which to use primarily depends on the audience, usually the public versus the private sphere.

Measures to 'protect' or encourage linguistic diversity are also necessary as long as they are linked to linguistic groups, not territorial space or historical antecedents, and that the measures are rooted in respect and understanding, not ethnocentricity (see the Universal Declaration of Linguistic Rights).

Under this, public spaces, product and services, and civil services would always be available in English, as well as in any other local languages; a local language being the language spoken by linguistic communities in a given area, independently of the Nation State tradition.

Two interesting events in 2005 to be concerned about: 1) the new european constitution 2) the start of the kyoto protocol.

Read the constitution and judge for yourself if it is truly a visionary and sound foundation for the values it claims to defend: "The Union is founded on the values of respect for human dignity, freedom, democracy, equality, the rule of law and respect for human rights, including the rights of persons belonging to minorities. These values are common to the Member States in a society in which pluralism, non-discrimination, tolerance, justice, solidarity and equality between women and men prevail."

This is more a 'statu-quo' document, a picture of Europe today, united in its diversity, rather than a true visionary and founding document. It lacks courage, but it is better than nothing; by making all parties from the political spectrum unhappy, it might prove to strike the right consensus. It is non-democratic however that freedom of residence does not give the right to vote in the country one lives and pays taxes. After 5 years in Denmark, I can only vote at municipal level and european level, not - and according to the constitution, never in the future - at national level. Why?

Whatever the conclusion, Denmark has already adopted provisions and exemptions, as it is typical for "Danes to believe Denmark is the best country in the world and that anything they do is better than anywhere else in the world" (Economic provisions, position of Denmark, acquisition of property in Denmark. Quote is from a Dane quite Danish-sceptic). How to convince normally socialist and cooperative Danes to expand their vision outside their little border?

Kyoto: in effect from February 16th, the protocol binds 37 industrialised countries to collectively reduce their greenhouse gas emissions (CO2, CH4, N2O, O3, CFCs) by 5% of the 1990 emission levels by 2012. A tough bet considering Canada now emits 20% more than in 1990, that Canadians emit as much as the whole of the African continent (30m versus 800m inhabitants!), more per capita than any other country! (Lisez le dossier complet sur Radio-Canada).

What to do? The federal government asks every canadian to contribute by reducing their gas emissions by 1ton each by 2010. At 2.5kg of emissions per litre of petrol burned, that means burning 250l less in the next 5 years, 50l less per year, just 2 small fill-ups less. At this pace, the planet will have ample time to warm up!

Scientits agree that taking measures today is far less costly than dealing with the environmental, health and economic consequences of climate change in the future. The climate is expected to warm by 0.5C every 10 year and the seas to raise 50cm by 2050.

Aiding the American economy aids the American war machine. "Bush continues his endless virtuous talk of spreading democracy and freedom the world over. Admirable sentiments, yes, but what do they mean coming from a man who refuses to recognise the authority of the International Criminal Court? Or who side-steps international humanitarian law by euphemistically referring to detainee’s as “illegal combatants”? Or who sanctions the strategic use of torture in places like Abu Ghraib, and then punishes a few lowly thugs when everyone finds out? This much is clear: through it all, George W. Bush’s high-minded respect for human life, great and small, only extends so far as U.S. soil. And without universality, morality is only moral in the most zombified, most perverse sense." (AdBusters)

Another call for global democracy, yet from another light in the prism

Terrorism is wrong. It is wrong because it is not working and it is only destructive. Whatever the cause, indiscriminate killings can only alleniate potential supporters, jeopardising the success of the mission. For any work there are two approaches: the smart way or the botched way. Terrorist acts are botched: that is the revolutionaries have not done their homework.

For lack of communication, organization, cohesion, agreement on a common mission statement, and financial backing, terrorism only succeeds in creating a stalemate between insecurity and status quo, moving further into the future any potential positive change, leaving all parties on the defensive in the meantime.

The smart way is to play the chess game: settle and publish a clarified mission with detailed justifications, explore all potential solutions, create political arms to address the issues within the frame of the law, and create a more radical arm for those issues the current frame of law or order will not bulge on - the Ganghi-style civil disobedience.

As for terror acts themselves: a large bus killing can help drag attention to a cause, but it will never solve the problem, on the contrary. Radicals must target the strong pieces, the ones pulling the strings, people or infrastructure - without resorting to physical violence. Most importantly, like a game of chess, one must analyse the consequences of any action: who and what will come next and will that help the cause?

Terrorism in general is the result of cumulated frustration. Out of despair and feelings of powerlessness, one can be dragged into suicide or public vengeful acts, both extreme, destructive, egotistic, easy and useless acts. Feeling powerless and abused only happens when one did not have the chance to voice his opinion and participate in the decision-making process, when one - or one group - becomes the passive bearer of others' decisions. Promoting democracy within states is fine, as it should and will diminish tensions between different interest groups at the national level if decisions are given the time to reach a matured and unbiased consensus.

The problem remains wide open between states and with transnational interest groups. Hence the need for a global democracy.

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

China to adopt a green GDP index to measure economic growth:

"Development should be balanced and sustainable. It should pursue harmony between cities and rural areas; between regions; between society and the economy; between man and nature; and between domestic and external economies" (Wen Jiabao, China premier).

At 8% GDP growth per year for the past 25 years, the environmental cost of expansion in China has been huge. The Yellow River often runs dry, 90% of cities suffer serious water pollution, the atmosphere is often choked with smog, wildlife is scarce and the desert is advancing. Adopting a green GDP index is a step toward sustainable development: the index would be calculated by subtracting values for resource depletion and pollution from gross domestic product. "We might end up with a green GDP figure that is negative" (Financial Times)

"Communication is a universal right, not a priviledge" says the chairman of Nokia at the opening of the World Summit on the Information Society (WSIS) in Geneva. The WSIS, hosted under the auspices of the United Nations, brings together Heads of State, United Nations agencies, NGOs, civil society entities, industry leaders and media representatives to promote the urgently needed access of all countries to information, knowledge and communication technologies for development. A good reason to work for a socially responsible Finnish company .. :-)

From the "Iraq and peace in the world" European Comission poll (full pdf)
Europeans were asked if the following countries presented a threat to peace in the world and .. Israel and the US rank as high, even higher, than Iran and North Korea.

Israel	United States North Korea Iran	Afghanistan	Pakistan	Syria Libya Arabia	China	India Russia	Somalia	EU
59%	53%	50%	48%	36%	30%	21%	16%	8%

Denmark is the only country where a majority of respondents (57%) believe that military intervention in Iraq was justified. EU countries as a whole believe that the war was not justified (68%). Read some reaction from the Jewish press, the Arab press, and an analysis from the World Socialist Web Site.

U.S. government: a "source of evil"
Why Afghanistan? "It was about the Taliban being very, very bad people and that they treated women very badly, you see." Well, that's not what it was about. What it was really about: an imperial grab for energy resources.

"The Taliban -- whom the US installed at the time of the Russian occupation -- were getting too flaky and because Unocal, the California corporation, had made a deal with the Taliban for a pipeline to get the Caspian-area oil, which is the richest oil reserve on Earth. They wanted to get that oil by pipeline through Afghanistan to Pakistan to Karachi and from there to ship it off to China, which would be enormously profitable. Whichever big company could cash in would make a fortune. And you'll see that all these companies go back to Bush or Cheney or to Rumsfeld or someone else on the Gas and Oil Junta, which, along with the Pentagon, governs the United States."

"After 9/11 the country was really shocked and terrified. Bush does a little war dance and talks about evil axis and all the countries he's going to go after. And how long it is all going to take, he says with a happy smile, because it means billions and trillions for the Pentagon and for his oil friends. And it means curtailing our liberties, so this is all very thrilling for him. He's right out there reacting, bombing Afghanistan. Well, he might as well have been bombing Denmark. Denmark had nothing to do with 9/11. And neither did Afghanistan."

(It might as well have been Michael Moore.. Gore Vidal.)

Real success in Iraq, the American way: "I like grease and I need the weight". Believe it or not, the former Saddam International Airport now houses Iraq's first Burger King! (Courrier International, Washington Post)

U.S. Republican presidents of the past 50 years had an average IQ of 115.5, with President Nixon having the highest IQ, at 155. President G. W. Bush was rated the lowest of all the Republicans with an IQ of 91.

Democrat presidents had IQs with an average of 156, with President Clinton having the highest IQ, at 182. President Lyndon B. Johnson was rated the lowest of all the Democrats with an IQ of 126.

(Lovenstein Institute think tank)

A rule-based system of international cooperation is one of the conditions for global peace and security. As Kofi Annan reminded us this week "unilateral preemptive attacks on nations is illogical and unsustainable". "Might makes right" is out of step with our modern democratic beliefs. Only a global institution representing the balance of world opinion can provide legitimacy for interventions. Improving the UN should also be on the agenda: how can the total exclusion of Latin America, Africa and the Middle East from the Security Council make sense?

The UN position on terrorists: "We must never, in the fight against terrorism, lower our standards to theirs. The promotion and protection of human rights - the deep respect for the dignity of each person - , as well as the strict observance of international humanitarian law, should be at the centre of anti-terrorism strategies.." (UN Press Release)

Sustainable and efficient urban transport? 40% of the transport sector's CO2 emissions are produced by the use of private cars in cities.. September 22nd was a Car Free Day accross the world. (check out earthday, carfreeday and 22september)

Who decides beauty?

The International Art Exhibition in Venice is a must .. every two year as its name indicates. The exhibition is set in the unusual and fascinating spaces of the Arsenale, in old shipyards and warehouses that used to build and fit the fleets of the Venetian Republic..

"Neoliberalism's unreserved endorsement of market-orientated global capitalism shows how far it draws from a narrow economic liberalism that is uninterested in other matters. Neoliberals are not concerned by the implications for democracy of the growing power of transnational corporations, the difficulty of reconciling unbridled consumerism and competitive individualism with any meaningful notion of human flourishing, or the threat posed to economic and cultural diversity by the emergence of global goods, the trend towards merger and monopoly, and the impact on the environment. Neoliberalism amounts to a form of market fundamentalism." (Andrew Heywood, Political Ideologies - 2003 - an interesting read to gain valuable insight in various political possibilities shaping our world)

Patriotism breeds xenophobia.

No casus belli, no weapons of mass destruction, no legal case. "So what?" 33% of Americans believe weapons of mass destruction have been found and 22% are convinced Saddam used them during the war, but this is only due to patriotic TV channels that let rumors and suppositions make the news. In reality, the official reason for war was based on "forgeries and murky, inconsistent sources". The Peace of Westphalia (1648) guarantees absolute integrity to nation states, unless they present a "direct or imminent threat". "But Saddam was bad, he was killing his own people! It was our duty to 'liberate' them.." On these grounds, 3 million dead in D.R.Congo in the last 4 years should justify some kind of intervention, shouldn't it?

The truth is: the US under Bush has no commitment for global human rights, justice and democracy. Its sole interest is to protect its petrol and military industries and sustain its oil-guzzling lifestyle at any cost. No Kyoto. No International Criminal Court. No United Nations. No respect for the Geneva Convention. No respect even for its own constitution "Equal Justice under Law" for the Guantanamo detainees..

Occupation is terrorism.

yann (most info from FT July15-16th and for fun: Democratic Underground)

Illustrating May 20th post about integration.. (in french "Finally!")

1700 civilians (1482~2009) killed during the take-over of Baghdad alone. Today between 5500 and 7200 civilians casualties since the start of the war. That is twice the number of civilian casualties from 9/11. Is the revenge over yet? Talking about revenge: Dogville is a must see. Danish director Lars von Trier comments "I would love to start a “Free America” campaign, because we just had a “Free Iraq” campaign.."

What do Paris, New York and Cuba have in common? They are all candidate hosts for the 2012 Olympics

"What also concerns me is this new doctrine of preemptive strikes. I continue to believe that this policy of preemptive strikes is a dangerous policy that carries unintended consequences. When America acts unilaterally to enforce its will on other nations, without an imminent, direct threat to our security and without regard for the rest of the world or even our traditional allies, we endanger the peace of the world. America is the world's remaining superpower. But that unique status does not give America the right to impose its will whenever and wherever it chooses. We have a responsibility to lead, not to bully." (Unknown but wise American)

Canadian Justice Minister Martin Cauchon introduced a bill to decriminalize possession of small amounts of marijuana. The Canadian position considers the American 'Zero Tolerance' approach a failure as young Americans smoke more than young Dutch people. Canadian Senators recomment outright legalization: « Dans une société libre et démocratique qui reconnaît fondamentalement mais non exclusivement la primauté du droit comme source de règles normatives, et où la puissance publique doit le plus possible favoriser l'autonomie et conséquemment utiliser avec parcimonie les outils de contrainte, une politique publique sur les substances psychoactives doit s'articuler sur des principes directeurs respectant la vie, la santé, la sécurité et les droits et libertés de chaque individu qui, naturellement et légitimement, recherche son bien-être et son épanouissement, et a la capacité de reconnaître la présence, la différence et l'équivalence de l'autre. »
(Funnily, Radio-Canada in French presents the news as "Pot: Ottawa introduces Bill", but with more reluctance on english Radio-Canada "'No intention' to legalize pot: Cauchon" .. )

Hearing the blond Flemish pop star on BBC who chose to represent the right-wing VlaamsBlok in Belgium... we have heard her lines before in Austria, France, Holland and Denmark: "Immigrants coming to our country must adapt to our culture, learn our language and integrate to our society or they will be deported".

In this matter, Canada has a lot to teach to European countries.

This approach is wrong and vowed to fail, because it puts the burden of 'integration' entirely on the shoulder of the immigrant. It attempts to remove the need for residents to participate in this integration, promoting them to the role of not-to-be-disturbed spectators and all-powerful integration judges. But integration goes both ways! One cannot expect an Indian to become Flemish. He will never speak, act or think like a 'traditional' Flemish. Even if he eventually does - after 2 or 3 generations maybe - his skin will never become Flemishly white..

The only way for integration to succeed is to understand, accept and embrace each other's cultures. The Flemish (or Danish or French..) culture need not be static. The only way to go forward and integrate successfully is to recognize the benefits and shortcomings of both cultures and, together, build a new culture that will respect and integrate all its citizens. The harsh rules right-wing parties propose will only bring more hatred, misunderstanding and racism. For integration to be successful, we must make immigrants feel respected, welcomed and appreciated. The role of a government is to foster mutual interest and understanding between old and new residents.

An Indian arriving in Canada will not be asked to become Canadian. He will be asked, "How can you contribute to the Canadian culture". Being Canadian is primarily being you and participating in the flowering of the Canadian culture. I believe this model is the only way out for a Europe still entrenched in its past.

yann.

"Nationalism is dangerous, but the nationalism of the oppressed seeking freedom is far less dangerous than the nationalism of the oppressor"

Denmark is stepping up efforts to shut down Christiana, the alternative town in the southern part of Copenhagen. Christiana, also called the Freetown or, more officially, the 'social experiment', started in 1970 as a mixture of anarchy and love, endorsing an alternative life based on communal living and freedom (all details on history and self-governement here).

The current Danish governement, a nationalist and often racist, right-wing, EU-skeptic and Bush supporting party, is going ahead with its plan to make room for more revenue-generating constructions in this much sought-after area. It is unfortunate that the frustrated right-wingers fail to understand the importance of Christiana. Christiania has become a self-controlled safe-haven for all the marginality of society as well as a continuous source of inspiration for all forms of art. Without Christiania, Denmark would be negating its social tradition and culture of tolerance, already much under threats by the current government. Copenhagen would become a boring and uniform city at best, displacing the marginality and softdrug trade on everyone's doorstep instead of being beautifully contained in one known area..

To save Christiania, click and sign here

The International Criminal Court objective is to hold accountable and bring to justice individuals responsible for mass murder, genocide, crimes against humanity and war crimes (read more here). The court was created in July 1998 in Rome and entered into force in April 2002, taking seat in The Hague in the Netherlands. The US, in its neo-conservatist commitment to American global leadership, nullified its previous ratification and is now gathering support for impunity agreements, that is, Bush wants all US citizens to be exempted from prosecution in the court. Already 32 countries have been duped in agreeing on US immunity or agreed in exchange for reciprocity due to their own bad human rights record (ex. Israel, Rwanda, D.R.Congo, Siera Leone, Romania, Albania and maybe soon Latvia). On top of creating a dangerous precedent in 'unsigning' a previously signed international agreement, the US proves again it has no intention to support human rights justice and democracy on on global scale.. (Rome Statute, ICC)

"To end consumerism, we must reeducate ourselves on the separation of needs from desires. If capitalism emerged originally to fulfill a need, its offspring, consumerism, created and fed desires. Today so many of these desires have been exposed as artificial.. The craving for possessions, status and material wealth has become addictive and we feed our addictions by creating and consuming more of everything. But at the same time our desires have overtaken and eclipsed our needs. We seem to be trapped in a perpetual cycle of demand. The demise of competing ideologies allowed those living in capitalist societies a brief period of satisfaction before people began to ask: "Is this it?" (Richard.Donkin@ft.com, Financial Times, May 2)

It was about oil after all. Sir Jonathan Porritt, Tony Blair 's most Senior Environment Adviser, said Iraqi Oil was a "very strong factor" in going to war with Iraq. "There would not have been a war if Iraq didn't have the world's largest oil reserves". (In Danish) The US Energy Department forecast oil demand will climb 50% by 2025, indicating alternative energy sources were going to play a marginal role. Bush made the introduction of hydrogen cars a priority .. within the next 2 decades! A plan for no change, sure to please Bush&Co, car manufaturers and oil producers. CO2 emissions are projected to increase by 59%. (Financial Times May 2)

The first May Day, in 1886, was a call for eight-hour workdays by the workers in many American cities. During a labor rally in Chicago, a policeman was killed. The leaders of the local labor movement, eight anarchists, were put on trial and all were found guilty; four were hanged, one committed suicide in jail, and the remaining three were freed and officially granted pardon in 1893 as innocent and victims of hysteria, packed juries and a biased judge.

State, business leaders, and the media would want to hide the true history of May Day. The International Workers' Holiday is still described as a "commie" event in the US, and Labor Day was moved to September on a day devoid of any historical significance. Though not an official holiday in my american company, activities and concerts are taking place in the city - particularly grand in Rome!

"This is the first and only International Labor Day. It belongs to the working class and is dedicated to the revolution." (Wahington U., Anarchy.no)

Pure corporate propaganda II, the return? I have 6 weeks to take an internal training program about compliance with US export laws, boycott laws, and anti-boycott laws. "The company and all foreign affiliates must comply with export control and economic sanctions laws of the United States. All employees are required to comply with these laws without exception."

As a canadian working for a company registered in Denmark with a Danish employment contract, how can I be legally obliged to follow U.S.-specific export restrictions and laws? Neither Canada, the EU nor Denmark have export restrictions with Cuba. On what legal ground US laws should have precedence? This is confirmed by the European Commission which effectively neutralizes such extraterritorial laws.

The US anti-boycott law is even more controversial: it prohibits U.S. companies and their foreign affiliates from complying with economic boycotts in which the United States does not participate (The principal target being the Arab boycott of Israel). How can you ask an employee to break the laws of his country of residence? The EU is clearly against such laws: "It (the anti-boycott law) establishes the unwelcome principle that one country can dictate the foreign policy of others".

Already published on 6 Billion Brains, and an interesting read: America went to war to .. safeguard the American economy by returning the second largest oil reserve (Iraq) to trading oil in US dollars. Keeping the dollar as the exclusive oil currency is the only way "to protect the American way of life" in the most debt-ridden nation on earth.. (Not Oil, But Dollars vs. Euros, Geoffrey Heard, GlobalPolicy.org)

40 years in Politics for Jean Chrétien, Canada's Prime Minister. He is behind Canada's refusal to participate in a war without UN approval. "A question of principle: engaging Canada in a conflict cannot be decided based on economical considerations or friendship with another country."

Liberating Iraq.. for people passively absorbing mainstream news, one could almost feel content with the current situation: an easy win by the world's strongest army against .. well not much really, just the "weakest kid that nobody likes anyway". If defending oneself in Iraq is suicide and in the US unpatriotic, this doesn't make the whole issue any more justifiable. End result? All official reasons to go to war proved shaky: weapons of mass destruction? Where? Danger to the world? Far from it. Democracy? Far far far from it, both inside and outside America, both inside Iraq and on a world scale. So what is left? A religious war for petrol? A need to boost army morale to justify further army industry spending and further profits for the Bush cartel? A family sweet revenge for Bush padre? A stint at reviving patriotism in a country in disarray economically and above all, psychologically? All of the above, surely. Shame and sadness is all I can feel as a westerner.. Can't wait for that first lifeless and superficial shopping mall to open in Baghdad, it will be super! Let's get that global warming going!
yann.

Late evening Turkish humour! President BUSH went for a check up. His British doctor said: "Mr. President, I am your doctor; I am sorry to inform you, that you have a problem in your BRAIN. Your brain has two parts, one Left and one Right. The Left Part has nothing RIGHT in it, and the Right Part has nothing LEFT in it." :-)

This week the New York Stock Exchange (NYSE) bared the only independent broadcasting voice in the Arab world, the television station Al Jazeera, because 'insufficiently supportive of America and its war in Iraq'. Suprisingly, other countries to ban Al Jazeera are .. Lybia, Tunisia and Jordan, because the station gives too much time to opposition leaders and Israeli officials. Too objective? For the Arab world to enjoy a free, democratic life, shouldn't Al Jazeera be encouraged instead? (New York Times)

Frustrated with the United Nations' "consistent, blatant regard for the will of its 188 member nations," the U.S. announced Monday the formation of its own international governing body, the U.S.U.N. Read it all on the ONION !

Pure corporate propaganda? Officially in reaction to the fictitious security alerts issued by the U.S. Government, my company 'Security Command Center' (sigh) is sending 'Travel Advisory' (sigh) emails explicitly requesting all employees to avoid demonstrations. American friends have confirmed receiving such emails at school or work, leading to beleive the neo-conservatists are behind all this..

March 26th: "Travel security tends to focus on air transportation, but now there are other personal safety issues for travelers, most notably avoiding anti-American/Coalition demonstrations in many parts of the world. Inadvertent exposure to these events could result in animosity or violence, and travelers could become targets of individual or crowd reaction."

February 10th: "There is significant concern that the initiation of military operations against Iraq will generate notable animosity in many parts of the world. This animosity will likely take the form of protests, demonstrations and possible terrorist activity. Even demonstrations intended to be peaceful can turn into confrontational situations and possibly escalate into violence.. Avoid locations where demonstrations or large gatherings may occur." (see full mail here)

"The only thing we have to fear is fear itself."-- Franklin D. Roosevelt. A must read:"Bush has stampeded America into conflict" by the Chicago Tribune. (click here for local copy) "Bush is using fear as a weapon, not to build courage among Americans but to stampede them into endorsing a case for a war that has been built literally on a grab bag of possibilities, contingencies, ifs and maybes, of things that haven't happened but could happen, of bad guys who might hit us if we don't hit them first. Bush and his neoconservative advisers have manufactured an unneeded war, for reasons of their own, and are leading an America that, with its power and lack of restraint, is more dangerous to world order than Hussein ever could be. The thought that a Third World international pariah could multiply its strength and turn itself into a power sufficient to blackmail the most powerful nation in the history of the world is nothing but panic-mongering. National hysterias come and go, leaving a great deal of damage and creating a sense of communal shame when the panic wears off .."

Oh, civilian casualties update here. You can decide if they are 'heroes' or 'collateral damage'. ~300 as of today..

"Bombing for peace is like fucking for virginity"

.. which the Danish fail to understand with 54% supporting the war and rising ..

"September 11 an 'America-changing' event but not a 'world-changing' event. The rest of the world sees American arrogance as at least responsible for the atrocities." (Financial Times today) -> Will this ever resonate in the US? The WTC bombing was indeed an America-changing event, but not as the world anticipated: the US rejected all blame and self-criticism, and saw the event as "a justification - whether merited or not is arguable - for a much more assertive American foreign policy doctrine, one that included the explicit idea of military action to pre-empt attack." So, since 9/11 didn't make the US learn from their mistakes, what will humble them? Another Vietnam? Sad ..

"Fears make the world go round" (Louise Bourgois, in Louisiana until June). She also said (and proves!) that "Art is the guarantee of sanity" .. "Cell (Glass Spheres and Hands)" (below), is enacting in space the drama of human-beings prisoners of their own fragile 'bubble' (on the chairs), not communicating together despite the hope of the 'hands' (on the table). (Kofi Annan as the hands, Bush, Blair, Chirac, Saddam, Sharon .. as the bubbles?)

From fears to fear culture, Michael Moore won the Oscar for Best Documentary with Bowling for Columbine: "Shame on you and your fictitious reasons and fictitious orange alerts, Mr. Bush".

In today's Financial Times: World overwhelmingly opposed to war even in countries supporting the US: Italy and Spain 81%, Russia 87%, Turkey 86%, UK 61% are opposed. "Military power alone will never be enough to guarantee America's security. Without the friendship, respect and support of its allies, it will ever be vulnerable.. We are back to the world in which right is measured only by might. Frightening." Finally, "Paris has been made the scapegoat for US and British diplomatic failure. This risks leaving the west with deep and lasting divisions. France must resist the dangerous drift to react to american 'francophobia', and not resort to tit-for-tat anti-Americanism and anglophobia."

"It is always a simple matter to drag (the common) people along (in a war) whether it is a democracy, or a fascist dictatorship, or a parliament, or a communist dictatorship. All you have to do is to tell them they are being attacked, and denounce the pacifists for lack of patriotism"
(Nazi H.Goering after WWII)

A day of shame for the start of an illegal and illegitimate war: Kofi Annan and Hans Blix were sad and somber.. "Violating the norms of international behaviour" (China) - "Military action can in no way be justified." (Russia) - "I hope that all parties will scrupulously observe the requirements of international humanitarian law" (UN Kofi Annan) - "This is not an attack on Islam but an attack on humanity" (Asian Islamic leaders) - "This despicable war exposes the ugliness of America" (Malaysia) - "United Nations is the only legitimate framework to build peace in Iraq as elsewhere" (France). Meanwhile the US dares to call this "Operation Iraqi Freedom" (sigh). Now to start thinking about the best outcome for this for the world community: Mille Merci, président Bush (Paulo Coelho) (en Français)