The Copenhagen Report

by Tim Anderson (timothyanderson2005@gmail.com)

Recently a number of advertisements for the Danish army have quietly appeared all over Copenhagen. They show a young, normal-looking man below the caption, ’there’s war in the world’. On the flip side is the same young man in a tank - he has obviously decided to join the army and fight the (good) fight. A few days after these ads appeared, I noticed that the street artists had not allowed this one to slip by them. ‘Kill4Maersk’ and ‘Kill4Bush’ stickers were quickly being pasted onto some of these ads. To gratuitously slip in a bit of pop-culture, we may not have started the fire, but we sure know how to keep it burning.

To the questions: should the army be recruiting in this manner? And is a response in the manner of the ad-hackers constructive in any way to the wider discussion?

All of this has proven to be a provocative subject for discussion amongst my friends, people who position themselves politically slightly left-of-centre, some less slight than others. Nonetheless, a couple of them have been surprised to discover that in spite of being self-labelled left-wingers, they found themselves arguing from the right to a greater extent than they would have believed themselves capable of or interested in doing.

Let me declare my position straight away. To me the army ads are not only highly visible, they are clearly one-dimensional and intentionally provocative. Imagery blatantly employed to call upon the Danish participation in the ongoing Iraq war is bound to be just that. Consequently, a reaction from those incensed that creating ads that effectively ignore the various controversies stemming from Denmark’s decision to join the Americans (and all that has occurred as a result) is not only to be expected, it is justifiable. Attempts to coax people towards a position without any discussion – as the army’s ads do - challenge my neutral instincts. These ads are advertisements for fighting, a crude recruitment tactic for the Danish army to take. The ad-hackers message is equally crude and unreasoned, but at least each and every person walking by the ads gets a short blast from both sides, rather than only one. I accept that most people probably don’t really care to think especially hard on the issue, so the ad-hackers tactics may not change anything. Ad-hacking should certainly not be the only means of reacting - more intelligent discussion is also clearly required.

To begin with let’s first consider the ads themselves placed by the Danish army. As a Canadian, I’ve have been brought up - some might claim indoctrinated - in a ‘peace-keeping’ culture. This is what Canadians pride themselves on when they speak of their global military role. The Canadian military, often under the guise of blue UN helmets, has for better or for worse offered its services in this way for decades to various hotspots around the world. The Danish army’s ads are not about peacekeeping. There is nothing wrong with this since not all countries use their armies precisely in the manner Canada does. But in its place I would expect some reference to the greater good that will come from joining the army. Peace and harmony - those things one perhaps idealistically hopes will spring from the aftermath of fighting are not at all the point in this ad. This disturbs me. I have a sense that the Danish army has far a far greater purpose and responsibility in recruiting than this ad suggests, but this ad could lead one to believe the army has all but abandoned that idea. I know it is only a single recruitment ad, but is this why people should want to join the army? Does Denmark really want an army full of those attracted by the chance to fight? I hope not.

Yet the ad-hackers message is equally controversial. I’m uncertain how many in Denmark would be overly offended by the ‘Kill4Bush’ suggestion, especially those like me still in disbelief that the Americans could pass up the chance to elect a thoughtful and dignified leader precisely when they needed one the most. It is debatable just how much ‘killing for Bush’ the Danish army has in fact done in Iraq, but their is a certain guilt by association that Denmark must be accepted in going along with the Americans – in particular that right wing 51.5% who voted for Bush again. The Danish army is ultimately subject to the whims of the Americans forces – the same force that has killed an awful lot of innocent Iraqi civilians (though the Americans have opted not to keep an official count of the numbers). So, I accept the ‘Kill4Bush’ signs. But ‘Kill4Maersk’? Bringing Maesk into the picture is something else. What does Maersk have to do with any of this? Should they shoulder any of the blame?

Well, perhaps.

Maersk was contracted by the American Department of Defence before the start of the current hostilities in Iraq to provide transportation and logistics for the troops, supplies, weapons and ammunitions. This is serious business, indeed. As arguably the most economically significant company in Denmark, Maersk’s influence is felt in many ways - just look at the not-exactly-inconspicuous Maesk-funded opera house in the Copenhagen harbour. Even if Carlsberg had managed to land a contract to supply almost every liquid substance in the desert, and Danfoss had quietly convinced the Americans that only fools would dare cross the hot sands of Iraq without a mountain of radiator dials for the liberated to regulate their heating systems, no Danish company stood to benefit from the war in Iraq from the outset more than Maersk. Is it possible that the Danish Prime Minister might have the loud and persistent whispering in his ear shortly before he opted to join the coalition of the willing? In any event could he have been influenced, or like Tony Blair, was his mind already made-up?

As one left-wing friend of mine rather indignantly argued, if war is inevitable and some will profit as a result – an old story - what does it matter if it happens to be Maersk getting some of the cash? A professional company like Maersk can presumably help the situation in Iraq, not hinder it, so their presence is probably a good thing. If Maersk wasn’t involved, somebody else would surely have taken their place. Nothing changes with or without Maersk.

Well, maybe, maybe not. Maersk has taken on a significant level of moral and ethical responsibility by participating directly or indirectly in the war. If a weapon they have shipped kills somebody, as was the case when they were supplying Nazi’s with weapons during the second world war (recently chronicled in a series of articles run in Berlinske Tidende), the company must accept their actions played some role in the killing – which is not to say that the killing may not have otherwise occurred. But where does their responsibility begin and end? And who are the people in Maersk specifically tagged with this responsibility? Is an open discussion about such sensitive matters not a necessity if there is any hope that conflicts of interest are avoided? The open question remains: are companies particularly well-suited for making sound moral and ethical judgements? What evidence exists to suggest they can be entrusted with issues that wider society in itself struggles to handle? Are governments any better? After years of business studies, culminating in a Masters Degree in Economics and Business Administration, the answers are not at all clear to me.

Clearly not all companies are evil, or destined to become so, but assessing this issue is a fuzzy matter. Google’s recent declaration in their shareholders prospectus that the company will strive to ‘not be evil’ does not prove if they are or not. Neither does it foreshadow an inevitable future lapse, nor guarantees the long-term saintliness of the company. It does acknowledge the issue, which is a start. Recent documentaries like ‘The Corporation’ conclude companies may even be psychopathic by nature. This is only one side of the issue. The Economist, in arguing that companies are not necessary doomed to spread evil, has consistently, convincingly and intelligently argued over the years that those governments who have set the strictest limits on private-business are also the ones who have most consistently ignored and violated their own citizens basic human rights. But The Economist is also cautious to sound a note of warning at any suggestion that private business should be handed the only set of keys to the car.

The moral implications of choices are most likely be considered by companies when they could have an obvious negative effect on short-term profitability. Just think of Nike taking fast action to improve the pathetic standards of many of its third-world sweatshops a few years back when the issue was a hot media topic. Yet today when buying an unbranded pair of shoes to avoid the ubiquitous Nike swoosh-thing, one is still left with no way of knowing what conditions those who made the shoes were under. But do we trust that Nike will in future not use its influence to argue against further regulation regarding their behaviour in the third-world countries in which they do so much business? How do we know that Maersk has behaved responsibly in the lead-up to the Iraq war when the issue of whether the Danish government should participate at all was still officially undecided? Did they quietly try to influence the government? It may have lead to an lot of uncomfortable questions if the largest company in a company formally against the war was making so much money from it. What has been Maersk’s role since? What assurance should their be that the delicate moral and ethical issues that surround a companies actions, tactics and influence are being appropriately considered and addressed? So we come to the heart of the issue.

Are we just to turn a blind eye to Maersk’s habit of wartime profiteering because they are (in this war) on the side of the 'good' guys? Is it too late to ask such questions? The silence from Maersk on such matters is hardly reassuring.

So we are back to the ad-hacking dragging Maersk into a criticism of the Danish army’s recruiting tactics. Are these constructive attacks to be making? Well, why not? Maersk is involved in the war, and the company is big and rich enough to take criticisms. There surely should be means for holding companies accountable for all their actions, and somebody might as well start somewhere. Not everybody can get the mainstream media to broadcast their questions and opinions and it’s not exactly easy to ring up to old Maersk himself to get his thoughts, as interesting as this might be.

In any event, I hardly expect to hear a reaction for Maersk the person or A.P. Moller the company on the matter. But if a few people see the ads and the ad-hacking, and think for a couple seconds about the moral and ethical implications of the actions of private business in wartime, that would be a good start. In the meantime, I sure hope those army ads disappear.

by Tim Anderson (timothyanderson2005@gmail.com)

I have been complaining to anyone who will listen for several years now (which usually means my girlfriend) about Denmark’s ridiculously antiquated Sunday shopping laws (‘lukkelovn’ in Danish). These laws are based on the most utterly nonsensical logic imaginable. The arguments for allowing shops to finally open on Sundays and later on weeknights are painfully obvious and compelling – yet they haven’t sunk in.

Outside of downtown Copenhagen, nearly all shops in Denmark close by two (!!) in the afternoon on Saturdays and six in the evening on Monday to Friday. Yes, this means that for the average working person in Denmark there is at best an hour after work on weekdays and five hours on Saturday at best for shopping – if one is willing and able to sacrifice the rare chance to sleep in on Saturday.

On the few Sundays each year when shops are allowed to open, the streets are buzzing with activity. Then there are the unbelievable weekly Sunday queues at the few grocery stores that can open on Sunday. To say there is a pent up demand for this kind of shopping flexibility could not be more dramatically underscored. Still, the government refuses to cede to the overwhelming evidence before it’s eyes.

In fact, with these ridiculously limited hours, getting out of the house on Saturday mornings to run around in a frenzy alongside the thousands of others facing these identical time constraints is the only real option most people have. The realities of life mean a certain amount of time is required each week for buying stuff, and there is only limited amount of time to buy it. The most grievously frustrating aspect of this state of affairs is that shortened shopping hours produce the polar opposite effects they are intended to.

Instead of leaving more time for the sort of loving, warm, fuzzy relationships the government has historically imagined are nurtured by closing shops early, people are forced to rush around hurriedly when they could most use a bit of time to relax – the day after a long work week. Under such time pressures, their worst sides often emerge: tempers become short, frustrations boil and resentment that previously didn’t exist appears – and all for the wrong reasons. Worse still, even when everybody agrees they would rather be doing something else, they are often forced by the necessity of their needs to go shopping nonetheless.

One wonders where exactly the benefits are in this perverse system of enforced madness?

It is an entirely unpleasant experience to run around trying to buy all those things that are best shopped for at a leisurely pace (clothes, furniture and so on) over a few inadequate hours. To imagine these pressures do not have unpleasant side-effects is outright delusional - they create some of the worst tensions that families and relationships are ritually forced to endure in Denmark.

Consider that the divorce rate in Denmark is currently running around 50% - and has been increasing for decades. While there are many factors behind this, what is certain is families have many demands placed on them, and they clearly do not always succeed in coping with them. It beggars belief to imagine that these short shopping hours make things any easier.

With an extra day of shopping on Sunday and longer weekday shopping hours, individuals and families could be flexible about how and when they wanted to spend time with their loved ones – some of which would include more leisurely shopping. Saturday may be the perfect day for a walk in the park, or a visit to a museum, or to simply spend time with the kids or a boyfriend or girlfriend doing whatever they would like to do. Currently, when one need new shoes, a new jacket and so on, for whatever reason, these become the overriding Saturday priorities – it is the only time to buy the stuff, so all else must wait. Even if these ‘other activities’ being put off are precisely the ones family relations could benefit most from. It is so patently obvious it should really not need to be said.

There are countless other points to be made. The fact that Danish ideal weather conditions for having ‘a family day’ are not always co-ordinated with Sundays is a significant point. While shopping can be done in most weather conditions, a walk in the park is most appealing on sunny days – which could be Saturday! Visitors to Copenhagen from around Denmark and tourists from other countries are a small but significant portion of the Copenhagen economy – these people can only walk around on Sundays with money to spend but nothing to buy. So forget the weather, forget the visitors, and forget flexibility - Saturday is designated ‘shopping day’ by the rationally-impaired Danish government. So it must be.

So here I sit on this Sunday typing this frustrated little rant – I’ve already been out for a pleasantly leisurely walk earlier with my girlfriend, the only real choice we had anyway. I’m home enjoying some of that lovely government-imposed family time. My girlfriend and I both agree it would be great to go shopping today for the new chair for the living room we have been intending to buy for ages now. What better day than Sunday to be able to leisurely visit a few furniture shops until we found what it was we were after? In fact, perhaps along the way we could stop at a cafe and have some lunch together…hmmm, this sounds suspiciously like the sort of quality-time together Sunday closings were supposed to facilitate in the first place? Funny that…

To continue to hold up the antiquated logic of Sunday closings benefiting society is simply unreasoned nonsense. Shopping hours in Denmark as they stand currently are a significant drag on a more smoothly functioning society. It is a shame, yet things could be so easily changed. And it can’t happen soon enough, if you ask me.

by: Tim Anderson (timothyanderson2005@gmail.com)


Christianshavn including Christiania - A bit of Copenhagen.

The vibe of Christiania - the 60’s hippy ghetto/cultural experiment located in the heart of Copenhagen now in its 4th decade of peaceful existence - is as strong as ever, I am delighted to be able to report, in spite of the political challenges it is currently facing (more on those shortly).

As a resident of Christianshavn (the area of Copenhagen where Christiania can be found), I have the good fortune of being able to regularly enjoy numerous aspects of the place without actually living there. From it’s restaurants, clubs, walking paths and even the sauna, I have spent a fair amount of time in Christiania over the years, so I do feel capable of voicing a reasonably informed opinion on the subject.

Christiania rarely disappoints. What is perhaps most astonishing is the enduring popularity of the various events Christiania hosts. Some of my most enjoyable moments in Copenhagen during recent months have been there.

Loppen is a place where, for most events, a small but enthusiastic crowd spends as much time sitting at the tables beside the stage in conversation and doffing back pints as on the dance floor itself. On the evening of the recent sold-out Vive La Fete show (one of Europes finest underground electro pop/Berliner trash bands, though virtually unknown by mainstream/commercial standards), the crowd was an overwhelming mass of people. The coat room may have run out of hangars, and the floor of the rickety building may have bounced dramatically up and down as the crowd danced, but then again, at Loppen it’s all been done before.

I have listened to numerous fantastic late-evening jazz-jam sessions Wednesday nights at the Børneteatret (aka The Children’s Theatre). At a recent session with some friends, the place was buzzing, as usual. Having not been to such an evening for several months, I was amazed to re-discover that even long-after midnight it was standing room only – this on a cold, dark midweek winter night. The rest of Copenhagen is largely tranquil weeknights at this hour with but a few cars and bicycles moving through the streets. Yet a small, word-of-mouth event such as this one manages to draw a determined crowd nonetheless.

On the more pedestrian end of things, a couple weeks back I passed an enormously relaxing hour in the largely anonymous Christiania Bath House, the fantastic communal sauna existing since the 70’s. This was my first introduced to the place thanks to a couple friends who themselves had stumbled upon it only by chance. Frequented by in large by the Christiania locals, it is an infinitely pleasant experience – and costing a laughably meagre 20 kroner.

Then there are the incidentals like the Christiania falafel that is arguably (though only by those who haven’t tasted them) the best Falafel to be found in Copenhagen and the delights of the 24-hour Christiania bakery like decent coissants (a rarity in Copenhagen) and chocolate brownies (made the North American way with soft chocolate cake and plenty of rich, fudge-chocolate icing that I like oh so much). A passing conversation with a police officer (a friend of a friend of a friend) who regularly patrols Christiania provided me with the warning that Christiania is a rat-infested place – he wouldn’t eat anything sold there – but I continue to take my chances.

When my parents visited Copenhagen some months back, our obligatory tour of Christiania was inevitably successful. Our dinner at Spiseloppen, the undisputed finest of Christiania’s restaurants, ultimately proved to be one of the culinary highlights of my parents visit to Denmark. They still happily speak of Christiania, inquiring regularly about the state the current political challenges facing the place. My parents have never been hippies, so their interest stems from a genuine enthusiasm for what they saw and experienced - not some idealistic 60’s shadow persona that lingers from their past.

So here we come to a real topic of discussion, the political issues.

My experiences over the years have lead me to conclude that opponents, including those within the current parliament who have voted for legislation proposing to ’normalise’ Christiania, would be well advised to spend some hours discovering what is actually going on there. Clearly, most critics simply haven’t a clue what it is they are in fact criticising. The claims of the current government seem to mirror the views of those who alarm themselves to hysteria at the thought that a place exists (happily and peacefully, by in large) that is organised in a manner differing from much of the society they know, comprehend and believe in (read: a society conservative in nature by comparison). They simply cannot fathom it. Rather than simply being green with envy, they turn red with outrage. It is a sorry state of affairs when one finds such people in positions of power within the government and creating legislation encapsulating this ignorance in poetic legal terms.

Why is it there is such a strong sediment against Christiania, at least from certain corners of Danish society? The Danish government has recently passed legislation that, if implemented as it reads, will lead to the ‘normalisation’ of Christiania. In practise, this means that collective ownership of the area by it’s residents (or non-ownership, if you prefer) will no longer be possible. Some would be able to afford to purchase their houses, apartments and properties, while others would not. This is not the heart of the problem that will be created if the legislation is enacted.

Inevitably, the end of collective ownership would spell and end to the collective-decision making that has created the spirit of community that exists in this diverse yet closely-knit society. This would be a tragic and unrecoverable loss for Copenhagen, but moreover for those people who have spent much of their lives living and breathing it. And with spectacular success.

It is no coincidence that that which makes Christiania so unique, is found specifically in Christiania.

Nobody is forced to live in Christiania against their will. There is no overriding, compelling argument for why those who voluntarily opt to accept a system of non-ownership and collective-decision (including those who may choose do so in the future) should suddenly be forced to accept just the opposite. The government can negotiate with Christiania as a collective with regards to property issues, just as easily as it can as a society of individuals owners. The proof is the fact they have be doing it for over thirty years already. What is really motivating them?

Currently, the only representatives of government one is likely to see around Christiania come in the form of (endless) patrols of policemen - armed with full riot gear every time. They love to make their intrusive presence felt around the place. Sadly, their actions are disruptive, provocative and unnecessary. This approach to passive policing is about as subtle and endearing as is enduring a group during a movie roaming the aisles with very bright lights they shine randomly but constantly into various faces in the audience, just to see how people are doing. It is hardly the most effective way for the police to demonstrate their general engagement in the Christiania situation, nor does it show an adequate level of respect and decency for others ones expects in a civilised society. Why is it the police feel the need to endlessly patrol Christiania in a manner distinct from the methods they deploy elsewhere in Copenhagen? Some would say the answer is drugs.

After countless visits of my own to Christiania both day and night over the years, I can unequivocally state that I have never once felt threatened – even back in the days not so long ago when Pusher Street was home to a thriving and peaceful soft-drug trade that the police were will aware existed. A community of underground but easily accessible hash clubs continues exist in Copenhagen, in any event.

Something beyond the soft-drug trade is motivating these police actions, in spite of claims to the contrary. What exactly is the real problem? Is it simply a feeling felt by the government, mirrored in the police behaviour, that their absolute authority is challenged by the very existence of this continuing successful four decade-old social experiment?

The truth is that there never has been a problem in Christiania that warranted the creation of the artificial one the government has chosen to depict - and then pass legislation to supposedly rectify. But thanks to the legislation, a real problem now subsequently has been provoked – the threatened future of Chistiania and its ‘alternative’ lifestyle.

So, I would like to make a small confession: I am one of those green with envy that a place with the sense community and togetherness that Christiania has confidently thrives while I don’t know a single person living in my own multi-building complex (even in spite of its ample shared garden out back). How many others in Copenhagen have a similar relation with their neighbours? Those of us in this situation simply do not have the right to criticise those who have found a way around this issue – and nor does the government.

So I would like to also offer a small challenge to those Danish Members of Parliament that have voted in favour of normalising Christiania:

Muster some courage to enter into the unknown, and go wandering around Christiania on a few occasions. Go to some of the restaurants and participate in some of the events and try to understand just what the place really is about, for yourself. Don’t be scared to try talking to a few people. Then you will have done a genuine public service you can be proud of.

by Tim Anderson (timothyanderson2005@gmail.com)

The Danes for Bush characters...

The genre of serious satire, of which Danes For Bush is a part, is a growing genre. It is satire that is lightly, if not cleverly, disguised - a part of pop culture found at some indefinite point where art, journalism and politics meet. If Michael Moore is the current king, Danes for Bush is an original derivative.

Danes for Bush hit the pavement in August 2004; just as the American Presidential campaign was beginning to heat up. The tour was timed to hit New York at the end of August at the same time as the Republican convention that would confirm George W. Bush as the Republican presidential candidate in 2004.

The two-man Danish road show of Jakob Boeskov and Mads Brugger plow their way across the United States in a camper van for a series of appointments with the right-wing grassroots of the American heartland during the weeks leading up to the Republican convention. With an air of determination they make continuous vows to do whatever they can to support the cause of making sure Bush and Cheney are around until 2008.

Their weapon of choice is a portrait of sincerity, a couple of over-the-top matching outfits, plenty of ‘Danes for Bush’ campaign paraphernalia, and a bizarre inflatable pork-sausage mascot wrapped in an American flag. Yet they steadfastly refuse to reveal that their fighting words should be taken at anything but their face value. It may all seem over the top, but so are the views espoused by hard-right republican after republican.

Ironically, Jakob and Mads’ very outrageousness and demeanour, if a dead-give away to fellow-Danes and others of a more moderate point of view, is the bait that catches and quickly convinces countless staunch Republicans. We witness a scattering of semi-formal speeches and informal discussion results where Jakob and Mads allow their mock-opinions to bubble out. Their comments regularly cross the line into what many would (hopefully) feel is outrageousness (Jakob: ‘Let’s face it, we need that fucking oil!’), before faithfully jumping back to (slightly) less outrageous territory, lest any of the less radical radicals in the crowd become disturbed and suspicious. The targets fail to register that it is pantomime and satire they are momentarily cast into. They believe in the sincerity of two passionate figures echoing their own warped thoughts!

This is the ticket into this surreal parallel world, and Jakob and Mads never give up the deep dark secret that they themselves are anything but genuine in their purported beliefs and stated intentions. Even on their website (www.danesforbush.org), they refuse to give up the gag. Their subjects remain unguarded and uninhibited. Free to speak candidly, they do. This is the source of the genius.

A district judge in Texas feels no shame in suggesting that dropping the bomb on Baghdad would save lives – his proof: it did in Japan. They create an award and give it to him – Americans love awards. There is no counterattack attack their targets face. No moment of revelation where the purpose is revealed to the unsuspecting. They will forever remain ignorant.

Yet it is the unexpected by-product of these countless encounters with hard right-wingers during their cross-country marathon that sets Danes for Bush apart in this genre of political satire.

While it is no surprise to find groups of radical right-ringers talking the talk one would expect of radical right-wingers, what is an eye-opener is the source of the feelings of uncertainty and paranoia their targets ultimately reveal.

The talk of the right-wingers they encounter is of the hopeless tragedy of friends and neighbours murdered by random gun-violence; Vietnam as a terrifying scar – one that we see lingering disturbingly on so many psyches; and of course the deep, oftentimes wildly fanatical, religious faith used to steady so many in the face of it all. The trauma of being hit by terrorists who, from the perspective of a small-timer in the heart of America, have emerged almost mystically from some unknown evil has been the final blow. These people are visibly shaken in many of the encounters. They have felt an enormous sense of betrayal of purpose over the years, and they are stunned by it. Unfortunately, they seem totally unarmed to deal with this deep bubbling well of conflict and contradiction that lays deep inside their country’s history, continuing to boil unrelentingly today.

The affects of violence, war and terrorism the Americans as individuals can see within their own homeland are dramatically at odds with the widely held belief in their own global superiority, domination and universal righteousness. These beliefs are deeply ingrained, and not easily displaced. They have been nurtured since age none, through their first steps as children; ritualistically pledged through a symbolic allegiance to the flag spoken each and every school day; hyperactively spoon-fed by a lifetime of not entirely coherent media; canonised by the deeply conservative judicial system; rubber-stamped by the various levels of government across the land and through the very words of the President himself. Mix in the symbolism, dogma and (oftentimes) fanaticism of the growing Christian right populating the heartlands in ever increasing numbers, and what is left is odd message of fearful hope amongst the senselessness.

Yet the air remains densely clouded with cynicism, confusion, tension, anger and repression because, spliced together, these disjointed fragments have become justification for policies of (pre-emptive) war and containment abroad, the curtailment civil liberties at home and few if any fundamental rights at all for those deemed as possible threats (evidence be damned). Only the hopeful language of universal freedom and peace on the march stands as the shaky premise buffering the reality of the madness they are supporting. So instead this premise has become the final nail in the coffin - what is a person to think? To imagine the issue is one extreme right-wing president and a misguided war is to miss the point.

What these people see surrounding them, all that is being told, all that has been taught, all they have learnt; it all purports to be the truth – yet not all of it can be. They themselves can sense that it all doesn’t add up, they can’t quite make sense of how this has come to be. The radicalisation of their views is the by-product, since countless friends, neighbours, colleagues and the rest would sooner part ways with them than accept a daring suggestion that another reasonable point of view may exist beyond the prevailing right-wing logic.

This is the point where surprisingly, the clouds begin to clear.

As we watch the Danes for Bush characters in full pantomime, Mads and Jacob meeting right-winger after right-winger, group after group; the puzzle pieces begin to fall into place. One now understands where it is the people they are meeting are coming from.

With this realisation, the disbelief that a group of such people and their radical viewpoints can exist mutates into a sort of momentary, if uneasy, forgiveness – which is not at all to say that one finds oneself agreeing with virtually anything being said.

The right-wingers are children stumbling through the unknown, ever fearful of what may lurk around the next corner, wishing for the impregnable protection they once imagined their parents to provide, a long time ago. Unsurprisingly, they opt to support the solutions that most closely mirror their childlike tendencies. Tough talk and unconditional support of those willing to accept war against an imaginary enemy, thereby subjecting others to the burden of their fears as they themselves cower defencelessly, waiting for the world to become the idealistic place they imagine it should be.

The enemy surely lurks somewhere in the Middle East, so attack, ATTACK! What better justification? There is no time to think about it, to debate. How can you put a price on comfort, reassurance? The violent and unpredictable world must be secured; perhaps a more manageable task than that of collectively coming to grips with ones own conflicted past.

In Bowling for Columbine, Michael Moore set out to convince anyone who cared to listen that America is a fearful nation, full of people scared silly, if not stupid. Danes for Bush has gone further still. In managing to communicate with the same group of people that John Kerry and the left wing of America were simply unable to touch, the Danes for Bush guys, if inadvertently, stumbled upon the reason why this very fear exists in the first place.

Sadly, dealing with this mess will preoccupy left-wing Americans for years to come. What can be said here and now at least, is that blended together with enough passion; politics, art and journalism certainly can reveal a lot.

Many who witnessed Groove Armada playing live in Copenhagen last night (Oct. 14) would be surprised to discover that what they were seeing was not precisely as it seemed.

Indeed, it was a fantastic and memorable performance, so much so that I have trouble recalling a live performance in Copenhagen that was filled with that much energy – and the audience responded appropriately. Most bands simply don’t have the repertoire Groove Armada has to call upon to get an audience jumping and dancing - and the band made liberal use of that last night.

The sound was pretty good, though not great. The primary complaint: the bass wasn’t particularly clear in the mix, a typical problem for less-experienced bands, though most bands with a bit of road experience manage to improve upon this over time. One might have expected a little more from an act with the road experience of Groove Armada and whose albums have always featured hallmark sound production clarity.

Or perhaps it was a consequence of something else, a small but troubling point:

Groove Armada consists of two people, Andy Cato and Tom Findlay. On their albums they feature a number of guest artists and for live performance (when not doing their DJ-thing) Andy and Tom arm themselves with a solid cast of musicians and put on what have long been acknowledge to be lively and innovative shows. Unfortunately, last night Mr. Cato and Mr. Findlay decided to give the show in Copenhagen a miss…yes, that’s right, they weren’t there! Groove Armada was not quite Groove Armada last night - it was a live band billed as Groove Armada and playing Groove Armada songs yet minus the (only) two actual band members! To say this is a new twist on live performance would be an understatement.

A quick investigation on the web reveals that this has been the case during this recent leg of their tour – including stops in Amsterdam and Vienna. Interesting, all of these recent stops (including Copenhagen) are not listed in the ‘Tour’ section of their official website – are Tom and Andy a bit sheepish to acknowledge a Groove Armada tour that is not quite a Groove Armada tour? Perhaps they’re a bit embarrassed to find themselves making such a blatant cash grab at the expense of their genuine fans? Nowhere in the concert promotion and advertising is the absence of the main band members indicated – the shows are faithfully billed as ‘Groove Armada’.

This is of course both a shame and a dilemma – on one hand, the show in Copenhagen was a fine performance, on the other the absence of the main performers leaves one with a bad taste - and feeling a bit cheated! (No wonder they opted not to perform their trademark, ‘At the River’ -featuring Andy’s trademark trombone playing!) What is a fan to think? Myself, I am at a loss for an explanation!

The important things in life!