Impactivism

Climbing Mountains

Let Iron and Wine take you from the prison floor to the top of the mountain...

The Promised Land?

The first black president of a Western country was just elected.

Whether Barrack Obama will be a conventionally liberal president or a transformational president remains to be seen. All signs point to the former. And he may win with the largest electoral vote majority since Lyndon Johnson in 1964.

Despite my skepticism, and the justifiable critique about America's imperial role in the world, this is a moment of hope. Even as the U.S. media gush about the historic nature of the United States electing a black president. But this change will have to be proven.

Nevertheless, I still believe in the hope of America, an opinion that many of my friends and colleagues reject. The important part is to remember that change only begins with an election, and requires the participation, active engagement and monitoring by ordinary people to succeed as the dream that Martin Luther King and many, many others have envisioned.

Chicago police estimated that 200,000 people waited for Obama's victory speech in Grant Park.

There you go again

As if non-Americans have any say in the U.S. elections. Al Jazeera is, now, from its Anti-American bunker (in Washington, D.C.), broadcasting Webcam videos of people from outside the United States commenting on the importance to the rest of the world of the U.S. elections.

Individuals from Russia, India, Germany, Mexico and other countries all voiced their opinions on Al Jazeera's coverage of the election, "U.S. '08: The World Watches," about why the American election is important to them and their countries. Hey, you know, if you don't like this country, you can always leave.

Oh, right.

Terrorism News Today

So I get home this evening, and turn on Al Jazeera (my prime source of English language TV news in Madrid other than CNN International) and to my shock, they have the nerve (not to mention terroristic tendencies) *not* to be reporting on the U.S. election, even though the first results are probably a mere eight hours away.

How else am I to understand the minutiae of exit polling methodology, and how unreliable it can be but that the TV networks will use it anyway to predict the outcome of the election, perhaps before polls close in some states? Plus I need the hours and hours of advance "analysis" from "experts" wishing people good luck in supressing their latent racism when they go to vote.

Instead, Al Jazeera, in its unpatriotic, anti-American ignorance of what's important in the world, has a report from Goma, Congo, (where, unlike most U.S. news organizations, they actually have a reporter on the ground) which is surrounded by rebel soldiers, as government soldiers plunder, rape and kill civilians in their retreat from the town. Meanwhile, one quarter of a million people have fled their homes in the region, while the international community wrings its hands.

It's as if Al Jazeera is intentially provoking charges of being a terrorist news organization.

Speaking of, does that make me a terrorist if I watch it while supporting Barack Obama for president? (I've also been known to watch The Daily Show with John Stewart.) If so, my future traveling experience may revert to the several years I was on the terrorist watch list because (I believe) I have the same name as an IRA member who was, incidentally, killed 10 years ago by the British Army in Northern Ireland.

Good to know that the government agencies who compile those up-to-date lists aren't monitoring the internets, becuase I have a plane to catch Friday.

You can thank me later for this post

So yesterday I went to see Radiohead play in Berlin.

Radiohead. In Berlin, people. It’s OK, you can thank me later. It’s all good.

And of course I made my newest best friend Berthold come with me six hours before the show started so we would get right into the mosh pit. Even if he hadn't just met me he would have done it because he’s German, you know. They might hate you on the inside but they’re loyal as terriers. And they know how to stand up for themselves when the going gets tough. (Except, you know, when the Red Army is approaching. Then it’s best not to have any cyanide capsules casually laying around.)

Annnywaaay. A loyal race the Germans, generally speaking.

So Berthold and I go down to the park at Wuhlheide, where the concert was, and we start drinking half liters of Warsteiner a tad too quickly, and a couple of hours later we were really rolling. But there was still three or four hours to go and they hadn’t even opened the arena yet. And then I said. “Let’s go look for the band’s tour bus. I just *have* to tell Thom Yorke how much he’s changed my life.” And Berthold rolled his eyes, but I pleaded and pleaded until finally he said yes. I think it was because I told him how hot he looked in his Miesbacher.

So we go to find the tour bus, but of course there’s about 300 crazed fans hanging around it. Who are these people? Freakin’ groupies. You’re like sheep. Don’t you have any individualism? And then Berthold said I should keep my voice down a little because some of the skinheads were starting to look invitingly in my direction. 

But at least the skins were authentic. Most of these people were college-educated, tofu-eating, art-loving, Mountain Hardware-wearing pretenders. Seriously.

I mean these people weren’t true Berliners. They didn’t know how it felt, really felt, to grow up in a divided city. They didn’t live in Kreuzberg in the ‘80s, with the DDR breathing their cold communist breath around the backs of our necks while we tried to keep the Turks and the punks from fighting each other all the time. It was all we could do to lure them to the May Day protests and get them to focus their anger on the police.

But these fantards knew nothing of the blood and the sweat and the tears from that world. These freaking people were just bio-loving, child-bearing yuppies who think that Radiohead is, like, “a cool band.” These are the same people who’ve helped suck all the beautiful anguish and torment out of Prenzlauer Berg and turn it into a playground for rich new moms and gourmet restaurant-goers.

So we just left. The prospect of actually seeing Thom Yorke in person had cast quite a beautiful light in my unfocused eyes. But at this point, it all looked hopeless, and I was feeling a little down again, what with the beer and all the tranquilizers Autumn-Nikita gave me the other night at the Basbaum opening at the Eigen+Art gallery. I know. I know. But seriously, I could almost feel the spirit of Documenta in my freaking liver. I never thought my body could respond that way to art. But it might have just been the medications.

Berthold and I kind of cut down this small side road through the park near the main arena. And I see this car, and I’m thinking cool car, but how did this asshole get through security with his car?

And then, and you’re not going to believe this, I totally saw him. Right. Freakin. In. Front. Of. Me.

Of course Thom was way too cool to be on the band bus! What were we, stupid?

Before our very eyes, Thom gets out of this black ’67 BMW cabriolet that he’s just parked right in the friggin’ middle of the road. How cool is that? And at first he doesn’t see us because it looked like either he was going to lie on the grass to drink in the oneness of the summer sky or take a piss behind a tree. I don’t know.

“Thom!” I shouted. I couldn’t freakin’ believe it. I was meeting Thom Yorke.

Thom raised an eyebrow as if to look uninteresting as I rushed up to him. As if.

“First I want to say I’m sorry for my friends always saying you have such a whiny, nasally, British voice that’s like listening to fingernails scratching on a blackboard,” I blurted.

And Thom says, “Yeah. I get that sometimes. No worries, mate. Plus you can’t control what other people think.”

“Yeah, totally. And I always told them, you know, Thom’s voice is like an instrument from the angels, dude. It’s not like he just opens his mouth and, like, sings. His vocal chords emanate love and light and pain and suffering and shit. Think Nigel Kennedy’s violin when he’s playing Brahms’ violin concerto. It clouds the soul and lifts the mind. Or maybe it’s the other way round. Or something.”

And Thom’s eyes softened a little, and he said, “Thank you man. But now I have to go do the show.”

Then, just as he turned away I totally lost it and started to follow him. “Thom, you’ve helped me see through the dark when I didn’t have enough energy to create my own life and focus on what was important--me,” I gushed. “You were there when I had to get through the pain of my cat’s death alone because everyone else was wrapped up in their own selfish lives. I can’t thank you enough. You matter to me.”

And at that point I think I sort of grabbed his shoulder because next thing I know, he’s just whirled around and punched me right in the face. “Why don’t you fuck off and get your own fuckin’ life,” he says. And then Berthold is pulling me away, apologizing, saying in his most polite German accent, “I’m sorry, he’s not usually like this. It must be the mushrooms. The whole day he’s either been gushing about how amazing Radiohead is or running to the bathroom complaining of stomach cramps.”

“Those were fucking bio ’shrooms,” I spluttered as my lip started to bleed. “Bio. Because this is freakin’ Berlin, man. And this man here is a god.”

And Thom just walks away, swearing.

And at that point I think I sort of just collapsed on the ground from the awe and inspiration of it all. Next thing I remember the concert was over and I couldn’t speak any more—the warm, shiny glow of my aura was just too overwhelming.

I heard the show rocked, the energy in the crowd was amazing and that Thom was totally fired up (Berthold took pictures). And it was gratifying to know that I had a just little something to do with that.

I know you’re all saying, “No way this happened.” But it did. It totally did.

(photo credits to original photographers)

It's alright Ma, I'm only crying

So the New York Times reported Sunday that Bob Dylan is the most-cited songwriter in judicial opinions in the United States. At least according to an analysis of the "uses and misuses" of song lyrics in legal writing.

Dylan has been quoted in 26 opinions in the lower U.S. courts. Paul Simon is next, with eight (12 if you count those attributed to Simon & Garfunkel). Bruce Springsteen has five, with The Beatles, The Rolling Stones, The Grateful Dead (dude) and Joni Mitchell trailing.

The latest cite, by U.S. Supreme Court Chief Justice John Roberts--and thought to be the first use of a rock lyric in a Supreme Court decision--was in a case about whether payphone companies could sue long-distance carriers:

“The absence of any right to the substantive recovery means that respondents cannot benefit from the judgment they seek and thus lack Article III standing,” Chief Justice Roberts wrote.“ ‘When you got nothing, you got nothing to lose.’ Bob Dylan, Like a Rolling Stone, on Highway 61 Revisited (Columbia Records 1965).”

As much as I love Dylan, I'm just not sure that Roberts' reliance on song lyrics instead of legal precedent is sound legal argument. Notwithstanding the obvious irony that the song lyric is about the feeling of freedom from not having possessions and not about who may sue a phone company. But hey, I'm neither a lawyer nor play one on TV.

Oh, and Roberts got the quote slightly wrong too. It's "When you ain't got nothing, you got nothing to lose."

The rise of the new right in Ireland?

There was a provocative piece in the Sunday Tribune by Justine McCarthy about the re-emergence of the right wing in Ireland. The profile of religious conservatives, among other elements of the right, was politically visible in the referendum campaign to defeat the Lisbon treaty. Much of the left also opposed the treaty.

McCarthy focuses on the right's conception of the role of women in Irish society. "The mood of conservatism is palpable," she writes. And since "feminism has lost its balls," how will this "wind of change" be reversed?

The Lisbon treaty debate is still raging, too. Many people in Ireland increasingly believe they will be asked, in a democracy-eroding sleight of hand, to vote again within a year on the same treaty. (Which would, of course, be a second repackaging of the latest effort to "streamline" the functioning of the EU--the failed European constitution was version 1.0, rejected by French and Dutch voters in 2005.)  In Ireland, a similar "those who know better didn't like the verdict of the people, please vote again" occurred in 2001 when the Nice treaty initially was rejected by Irish voters.

So get ready for next year's sequel: Lisbon II. Or as it might be colloquially referred to in Ireland, the "Ah Come On Stop Acting the Bollocks" treaty.

Apparently, here's how Irish Taoiseach (prime minister) Brian Cowen reacted to the No vote (thanks to Sarah Carey for the tips):

Are the Irish really "turning their backs" on Europe?

That's what the headline in Spain's leading daily El País said this afternoon. But is it true?

In case you haven't been following, Ireland is the only country in the European Union to hold a public referendum on the Lisbon treaty. This is required by the Irish constitution; every other European country will ratify the treaty (or not, although most seem likely to do so) in parliament.

Irish voters went to the polls yesterday, and the results were tallied today: the treaty was voted down by 53% to 47%. Turnout was moderate: 53%.

The Lisbon treaty is a slightly-scaled-back second attempt at a European constitution. It would make it easier to pass Europe-wide laws without consensus among countries. Critics see this as concentrating ever more power in Brussels-based institutions with little accountability to people in, say, Galway or Bilbao. Proponents say it will "streamline" decision-making. The treaty also shrinks the number of European commissioners, among other changes.

The treaty, meanwhile, also would give legal force to the Charter of Fundamental Rights, which includes such social and civil rights as the right to strike or the right to health care, although it is unclear how those would be enforced.

Much pressure was brought on the Irish government by other European leaders to secure a Yes vote. Almost all major political parties in Ireland supported the treaty, along with major business groups. (Sinn Féin, a left-nationalist party, is an exception.)

So why didn't it pass?

It is clear from multi-year opinion polls that Irish people are very pro-European and support the EU project in greater numbers than in many other countries. Indeed, according to the latest Eurobarometer poll, more people in Ireland (87%) than in any other EU country said their country had benefited from membership. But they didn't support this treaty.

As the Economist pointed out this week, the 26 other European governments, if they were honest, would admit that they would struggle to secure a Yes vote, too. And from reports I read from Ireland today, it is definitely emerging that more working class and rural voters voted no, with more wealthy constituencies voting yes.

Dublin MEP Mary Lou MacDonald said the strong No vote indicated that there was "a deep sense that the Government isn't serious about our position as a neutral state" and that people had declined to back the treaty because of a "sense of a loss of power."

Socialist Party leader Joe Higgins said the vote was a "huge rebuff to the political establishment" but a vindication of the rights of "tens of millions of workers" in the EU. Higgins said he believed the No side had "won the argument," despite the fact that the main political parties and "big business" supported the treaty.

"Certainly from the point of view of the Socialist Party, the key elements that we raised, of concern about public services, militarisation and worker rights and the race to the bottom, they got a key echo among working people and in working class areas, and that was shown quite clearly in the result.

"This is not a disaster, which they have been trying to make out. In fact, this can be a rallying call for workers throughout Europe who have been at the brunt of this neoliberal juggernaut from the EU in terms of privatisation of services, attacking their pension rights, attacking the idea of a decent wage and a proper job."

Even the Economist, hardly an opponent of neoliberalism or privitization, argued, "True friends do not become pariahs just because they disagree with you. If nobody can find more convincing arguments in favour of the Lisbon treaty, the EU as a whole may yet find itself whistling in the dark."

This is your brain on cell phones

Maybe you have a story to tell about the harm to people's health caused by radiation from electromagnetic fields from some electronic and electrical equipment.

You could tell your story, quite factually, like this:

Electromagnetic waves are a type of non-ionizing radiation, i.e., a type of low-frequency radiation without enough energy to break off electrons from their orbits around atoms and ionize (charge) the atoms. Microwaves, radio waves, radar and radiation produced by electrical transmission are examples of radiation sources that generate electromagnetic fields (EMF). Electric lighting generates electromagnetic fields. Fluorescent lighting and many types of low-voltage lighting produce fields that are particularly high compared to incandescent lighting. In addition, computers and many other types of wired and wireless electronic equipment (e.g., cell phones) all create electromagnetic fields of varying strengths.

The United Nations cancer agency has classified EMF as possible human carcinogens based on the scientific literature related to EMF and childhood leukemias. In 1998, a U.S. federal government EMF team recommended that low-frequency EMF, such as those from power lines and electrical appliances, be classified as possible human carcinogens, again primarily based on evidence related to childhood leukemias.

Etc.

Or you could show your story like this:

Even if this turns out to be a hoax (hidden microwave under the table?), it certainly gets your attention.