No woman knows, or ever has known, or ever will know, what she does when she enters into association with a man.
Fact and fiction weave together with history and romance in this
Women and Wild Savages Cover
tragic yet inspiring tale of Lina Loos’ struggle for love, liberation and self-fulfillment during her years of marriage to the renowned architect, Adolf Loos. Women and Wild Savages takes readers on a journey deep into the heart of fin-de-siècle Vienna and introduces you to some of her most memorable figures such as Café Central’s infamous poet, Peter Altenberg, and women’s rights activist Marie Lang
“Our trade agreements should not just be for Wall Street, they should also be for Main Street. And the problems that we’ve had is that we’ve had corporate lobbyists often times involved in the negotiations of these trade agreements but in the end, AFL-CIO haven’t been involved, working ordinary people haven’t been involved and we’ve got to make sure that our agreements are good for everybody. Globalization is creating winners and losers but the problem is, it’s the same winners and the same losers each and every time.”– Barack Obama, pre-presidency, August 7, 2007 on MSNBC televised 2008 Democratic Primary Debate
Free trade agreement proponents will claim that they want to do away with restrictions that hinder the free flow of goods amongst nations. Yet now more than ever many of the restrictions serve to help keep the Davids and Donnas of this world competitive with Goliath. If we don’t give the “little” guys and girls the tools to compete, they are crushed before they even step one foot into the ring. Even the multi-million dollar corporate cronies, when they load down their caddies with bags of clubs and hop into their golf carts to set out for another fine day on the green teeing off for the next deal with politicians, military generals or business partners see the point of giving each other handicaps to keep the game fair and “allowing players of different proficiency to play against each other on somewhat equal terms.”
Free Trade Agreements are not allowing anyone into the game except those with access to the private club. The agreements are negotiated, drafted and implemented to maximize profits and advance the interests of international mega-conglomerates, not to benefit 2007 Obama’s ordinary, Main Street citizen as mentioned above.
HE WHO CONTROLS THE SOWING OF THE SEEDS WILL ENSURE THAT HE AND HIS WILL BE THE ONES TO FATTEN FROM THE HARVEST
The problem with the trade deals is who are behind them – corporations and lawyers, not you and me. The US President did not spend his days sitting on his throne, entertaining audiences of his troubled, out-of-work, in-debt constituents while his court scribes recorded their concerns and his court experts drafted them into an agreement to approach fellow rulers abroad in order to promote peace and prosperity at home. No. Only the concerns of those dining at the tables of the royal court feasts were heard. But somehow the rest of us should believe that these deals will nevertheless mean a betterment of our everyday lives. Not only is the normal public not included in the drafting of the agreements, interest groups aren’t either. So non-profit agencies, public organizations and experts cannot weigh in on things like environmental concerns, public health and safety issues and implications for workers rights.
The entire management of the free trade agreement talks has exposed the fact the leaders of democratic nations who have been elected to represent the people are simply not doing so. It is the 21st century version of taxation without representation. The public coughs up the millions of dollars needed to send politicians and government officials around the world to draft, negotiate and adopt a deal that the public is not even allowed to read or witness. Think about that for a moment. If your pre-nuptial agreement were like a free trade agreement, it would be like your future-spouse-to-be having you pay for the years it takes him/her and his golfing/spa and drinking buddies/girlfriends to draft a document you’re not allowed to look at it, share with your lawyers or have something to say about but “It’s okay, sweetheart, trust me, it’s for your benefit, not mine.”
In fact, the trade agreements have been shrouded in such secrecy that the representatives of the EU Parliament were not even permitted to have a copy, but were given two hours viewing time in a special room without advisers or professionals whose language and legal skills would help these politicians untangle the intentional or unintentional obfuscations woven into the agreement. Who comes up with such things and what are they smoking? Worse yet, who ducks their responsibilities to their electorates and allows themselves to be treated in such a way and why?
To be fair, the US government has now released parts of the agreement but it is not the full agreement itself and a very controlled release. So to return to the pre-nuptial comparison, wouldn’t you begin to suspect that the incriminating articles that allow your spouse-to-be unlimited viewing time of adult websites or wardrobe expenditures and liberation from all household duties are not going to be the ones he/she agrees to let you view beforehand?
If these agreements are being implemented on behalf of the well-being of Joe, Dick, Harry, Hans and Heidi, why all the secrecy? Shouldn’t politicians be bragging about and showing off all their sweat-ridden work? Shouldn’t the fruits of their efforts be plastered all over billboards along the highways to give drivers stuck in traffic with no WIFI something to look at and be publicly televised to offer ordinary citizens deprived of the Austrian Weather Panorama a channel they can tune into, glaze over to and fall asleep to after a stressful day at their second or third workplace? When something is as stellar as the politicians are touting it to be, you would think politicians especially would move heaven and earth to have framed versions displayed on every refrigerator and work cubicle from Bendar Seri Begawan to Birmingham, Alabama, rather than making efforts to hide it in some locked, stuffy room in Brussels with no admirers save a few tired, but dedicated EU reps and politically interested city mice.
Austria Label for Austrian Products
BYE BYE BUY LOCAL
The trend to buy local products seems to have gone global and for good reason. While friends of mine in the US in NYC and NC have joined local co-ops to receive fresh farm produce from local growers, Austrian friends and colleagues make efforts to heed little red stickers at their grocery stores indicating when products have come from Austria. The buy-local trend makes sense. When you buy products locally grown and produced you are helping the neighboring farms and businesses continue to grow, thrive and operate within the community. Your actions are also reducing the environmental footprint associated with goods that must be shipped over great distances using fuels and polluting the environment. Unfortunately, the trade agreements strive to restrict labeling currently used to promote local products.
Cow grazing on Alpine meadow in Alpbach, Austria
Austrians care about the traditions and culture of Austrian milk from Austrian cows who spend their summers lazily munching down sweet flowers and grass in the rolling fields of the Alpine meadows. Multi-national million-dollar diary corporations don’t.
ARE GENETICALLY MODIFIED ORGANISMS AND PRODUCTS HARMFUL?
Label showing product made without gene modification
Probably not. But it could also be just too early to know for sure. But maybe you’re someone who is still not convinced. You continue to suffer nightmares induced by images of a GMO-ridden future as portrayed in Paolo Bacigalupi’s excellent biopunk science fiction novel, The Windup Girl and have therefore found some sense of comfort in the control GMO-free labels have given you. You can make the decision for yourself whether it matters or not that your corn has been created in the test tubes of the chemical laboratories of multi-million dollar companies and not Mother Nature’s earth-authentic cradle. Under the trade agreements the labeling of Genetically Modified Organisms (GMO) as genetically-modified would be impermissible.
HEALTH CARE COSTS AND DRUG COMPANIES Patents on drugs would be extended so that it will take longer for generic drugs to be allowed into the market as competition. Such restrictions basically amount to government-granted monopolies for the drug producers. When only one company is offering the medication for an ailment of the population, that company can set whatever price they want for that product because there is no competition to drive the price downward. So prices and profits remain high and increase health care costs. Granting pharmaceutical companies such patent extensions constitutes a form of protectionism for a private company which is in blatant opposition to the principles of free trade and the promotion of public health.
Some recent examples of how such power can be (and is) blatantly abused by CEOs of pharmaceutical companies have come to light. The first one includes Turing Pharmaceuticals’s CEO Martin Shkreli raising the price of the company’s AIDs drug, Daraprim, 5000 % from 13.50 USD per pill to 750 USD per pill overnight and making himself, overnight, the “most hated man in America.” The second example is that of the activities of the drug company Mylan, which lobbied the US Congress to require EpiPens in all US schools. Then they hiked the price of those EpiPens over 400 % from 100 USD to 614 USD. The company’s CEO Heather Bresch sold 100,200 of her shares in the company and earned herself more than 5 million USD from the sale before the release of a report by David Maris of Well Fargo showing that Mylan had raised the prices of seven of its products by 100% or more and 24 products by 20% or more. And these are the profit-driven Dagoberts whose interests we should be protecting through our free trade agreements?! Seriously?!
See FDA website for information about the amount of money that can be saved in health care through the use of generic drugs.
GOOD-RIDDANCE TO THE PROMOTION OF INDEPENDENT ARTISTIC EFFORTS SUCH AS LOCAL FILMS AND ART IN LOCAL LANGUAGES CONCERNING LOCAL PEOPLE, HISTORY AND CULTURE THROUGH GOVERNMENT FUNDING PROGRAMS
Subsidies currently the norm in Europe (think of French films or Austria’s Bergdoktor!) would no longer be permitted.
USAGE OF PRIVATE INTERNATIONAL ARBITRATION COURTS IN PLACE OF PUBLIC COURTS
International arbitration courts were initially put into place to reduce costs of court cases by making a system in which the ruling is binding and cannot be appealed – thus shortening cases that could last years due to the ladder of appellate courts, and to allow corporations to solve disputes with corporations (two opponents of relatively equal economic standing) by allowing their cases to be heard in a forum that is more flexible than courts. In addition, there was the added bonus, as far as corporations are concerned, that the decisions are not public record and therefore damage amounts paid and culpability found, could be kept from the scrutinizing public eye and from possibly being used in similar cases in the future by additional damage victims in class action suits (which arbitration makes impossible). The problem however, is that this form of parallel justice system is not presided over by impartial judges paid by a neutral source. Judges are paid by the arbitration parties to the case and corporations can re-hire judges for future cases, of course, when their judgements appear to be pro-company. It is a complicated, messy, system that started off with good intentions but has been abused in a way to take away the rights of “ordinary, working men” (try signing an employment contract, retail agreement or patient release form in the US nowadays without an arbitration clause agreement). (see/listen to NPR’s report: Have We Lost Our Constitutional Right in the Fine Print: http://www.npr.org/2015/11/12/455749456/have-we-lost-a-constitutional-right-in-the-fine-print)
THE NEW EMPEROR – WHOSE RULES RULE?
A major problem opponents of the trade agreements have is that all signatories of the trade agreement are required to make their laws and regulations conform to this agreement. That means that national laws will subsequently be secondary to the laws of the agreements. That alone should be enough to make ordinary citizens lose sleep. Unfortunately, whereas many like to claim that Brexit was a protest to the status quo, I believe it was also a “yes” vote to taking back local power. And this is important. This is a lot of what is fueling Donald Trump’s campaign rhetoric. He is disingenuously claiming that he will empower the little guy. He won’t. But he has parroted his empty promise often enough that many believe he wants to.
GIVING THE POWERFUL EVEN MORE POWER
A relatively small number of mega corporations control many of the products the public consumes. These include familiar corporations like Procter and Gamble, JP Morgan Chase, Google and General Electric. Consolidation and monopoly is growing, not slowing. Americans of my generation who were raised on fears of an international communist domination should get their heads out of the sand and read Vladimir Lenin’s book from a century ago called “Imperialism: The Highest Stage of Capitalism.” Lenin predicted current trends and developments in which mega-corporations grow and grow, and as they grow, they become more powerful and wipe out smaller competitors, thus leaving in the end, only a few very powerful businesses dominating everything produced and consumed in the form of monopolies. “If it were necessary to give the briefest possible definition of imperialism, we should have to say that imperialism is the monopoly stage of capitalism.” And this concentration of all goods, he argued, is what in the end leads to communism (not the generically-imposed, government-induced, post-1945 Russian version).
If you believe competition promotes innovation and quality, then a continual destruction of competitors through the continual rise of a few, powerful mega-corporations that have higher revenue turnovers than the GDP of many smaller nations, should be raising some serious alarm bells. The state of free press is a prime example of a unsung heroic victim of this development. A little over 20 years ago, more than 50 media companies controlled our information flow in the US. Today? Just 6 companies control all US media. This gives six CEOs control of all the information that we receive about everything. A clear example of how we have let the private interest supersede the democracy-based interests of the public.
BUSINESS VS. PUBLIC INTERESTS
We have to stop pretending that the profit-driven interests of international companies, no matter where they are based, automatically coincide with the national security and welfare interests of the constituents of the home nation. They often do not. And for this reason it is a blatant conflict of interests to allow the agendas of private companies to dominate the content of international agreements concluded between and amongst nations. Interdependence is good and can be a tool in promoting peace and prosperity but it cannot be allowed to come at the expense of the ability and capability for self-reliance.
It’s like in North Carolina when the hurricane warnings are raised. Sure you have a BigWig’s around the corner but when the storm hits and the grocery store is suddenly closed for business until further notice, you better hope you’ve squirreled away an ample enough supply of bread, water, candles and Cocoa Puffs to weather you through the storm. The more we move industries and agriculture completely abroad (because it is more profitable for our companies to produce where labor is cheaper and workers’ rights weaker), the more we eradicate local industries, the greater the danger of positioning ourselves at the mercy of those we have come to depend on to supply us with our essential needs.
History abounds with examples in which the interests of international trade were explicitly at odds with the welfare of a nation’s populace. Look, for example, at Britain and Europe’s exporting opium to China in the 18th and 19th centuries in order to counter the trade imbalance between China and themselves. While the Western partners (particularly Britain) were eager to import Chinese goods such as teas, silks and porcelain, the largely peasant population of China had no need for Western goods. This made silver and gold the only possible trade currency (as opposed to goods) for Western traders to use to attain Chinese goods. Then comes opium. The West discovered they could send opium to China and receive the sought-after Chinese goods in return. As opium became more widely available and fell in price in China, the number of addicts shot up as well. Naturally the Qing dynasty grew alarmed and tried to restrict the import of foreign opium. This led to the First and Second Opium Wars.
While you could and should argue that we’ve since progressed, opting for trade battles to be fought in courts (even if they are imbalanced arbitration tribunals) rather than on the battlefields, that is not the point. The point is that a country’s responsibility for the well-being of its populace cannot be subjugated to the interests of private international corporations seeking nothing more than an increase in the bottom lines of their balance sheets. And disputes should be solved diplomatically by fair and impartial forums weighing more factors than loop-holes and fine print. But the current trade agreements aren’t setting out innovative plans that learn from the disturbing lessons of the past in order to achieve this. Similar to an International Court of Justice and Human Rights, maybe we need an International Court of Trade, Environment and Human Welfare.
Still not convinced that trade agreements are being made for corporations and not you and me? Allow recent historical examples of how free trade agreements are being used (abused) to promote corporate (as opposed to public) interest. While reading, keep in mind the economic consequences for some of these local, small-budget governments that have been sued by major, multinational companies with high revenues.
CORPORATE LAW $UITS FOR LOSS OF POTENTIAL PROFIT
This is an amazing phenomenon that has come from free trade agreements. Companies are suing governments over laws that they perceive disadvantageous to their businesses by making major claims for loss profits. The costs of these law suits can quickly escalate and become too costly for local governments to properly defend themselves. Trade agreements make governments liable if laws to protect consumers have negative consequences for businesses. If you are manufacturing CFCs and a law is passed that no longer allows you to sell aerosols powered by CFC chemicals because studies show that these eat away at the protective ozone layer around the earth and are therefore bad for the environment and public health, of course you will lose profits. And you should. And no one and nothing should be forced to pay you for those losses or allow you to overturn those laws. In fact, you should be required to pay something to humanity for blatantly ignoring the impact of you profit, greed-driven, ignorant business pursuits.
Should public servants who are working on the clock for public tax dollars, be facilitating measures that will subsequently put local, regional, state and national governments’ back against the walls as they have to invest hundreds of thousands of dollars (sometimes millions) to defend policies, measures and laws put into place to protect local environments, as well as the public health and safety of local communities?
Examples of such cases are as numerous as they are disturbing:
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION OF WATER: Metalclad is a US company that built a processing plant for toxic waste in Mexico. The local government refused to issue a building permit after an environmental impact report from a government engineer raised concerns about the project’s consequences for local ground water. When building didn’t stop, the local government declared the area an environmental refuge. Metalclad challenged the decision under NAFTA and was awarded 16.8 million USD (!).
In another case, under NAFTA, Methanex, a Canadian firm, challenged the state of California’s ban on the use of MTBE (a groundwater pollutant) in gasoline in a suit claiming a billion dollars in damages for good will, reputation and future profits. How is a state like California supposed to dish out a billion dollars to a private company?
DIGITAL AND INTERNET RESTRICTIONS
A short video from the Electronic Frontier Foundation (https://www.eff.org/issues/tpp) and Santiago Rocha (sound quality not the best) on the topic of free trade agreements and digital rights.
The winners? The lawyers and mega-corporations. The losers? Working, ordinary people as mentioned in Obama’s 2007 speech.
As a person who supported the Obama campaign(s) and believes in the ideals of a party that says it promotes “equal opportunity, consumer protection, and environmental protection,” I find several of the leading democratic party candidates stand on these free trade agreements, as they are being negotiated and drafted, mind-boggling. But then again, I have find many things mind-boggling concerning the democratic party in recent times. But what’s a girl to do?
DEMOCRATS AND THE SPLIT PERSONALITY REGARDING FREE TRADE
Both Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton have done complete U-Turns when it comes to free trade which gives the impression that aliens have inhabited their bodies and are using them to amuse themselves and confuse the American public. President Obama uses a pro-Free Trade Agreement jam on the popular show Jimmy Fallon to reverse campaign promises rather than fulfill them. Watch closely from 4:28 – 5:36 >> almost a fifth of President Obama’s cool, groovy rap is dedicated to the not-so-cool product-placement-promotion of the Free Trade Agreement. This can’t be the same man who gave the speech(es) further down below opposing NAFTA and vehemently denied reports that he had been secretly communicating with Canada during the campaign to ignore his anti-NAFTA campaign mumbo jumbo since it was just campaign rhetoric. Say it isn’t so.
OBAMA AND FREE TRADE
Obama as US President : Slow Jam on Jimmy Fallon
Below, Barack Obama as presidential candidate, speaking about free trade agreements in 2007 as quoted in the beginning of this blog post and claiming that we need to ensure we elect a president who “is not simply subject to the whims of corporate lobbyists.” A president who will ensure “we have a voice in Washington.” What happened between then and now? What??? It’s like we should be making an appeal to Obi Wan Kenobi to help us out because at the moment, he truly seems to be our only hope.
HILLARY CLINTON AND FREE TRADE
As Secretary State, Hillary Clinton traveled around the globe singing the praises of the exact same trade agreements she now is saying she would oppose if elected. However, her predecessor’s track record and her own topsy-turvy, two-faced relationship with the subject matter, raise serious concerns about the extent of the sincerity of this promise. Will she keep her promise, once elected, and stop these free trade agreements in their tracks, or as President Hillary Clinton will she suffer the same post-election amnesia as Barack Obama?
Collage from Anti-TTIP and TPP protests
Don’t get me wrong, I do not think the solution is to vote in a narcissistic, spotlight-hungry, lifelong-privileged Mr.-Heat-Miser-Lookalike. I think we have to hold those we elect accountable to their campaign promises and accountable to the public, “ordinary, working, Main Street man’s (and woman’s)” interests that they have taken oath to swear to uphold. Perhaps what we need is compensation. Not for loss of profit but for loss of credibility and democracy.
AFTER NOTE: Perhaps the real motivation for the urgency of these agreements and an explanation for the about-face many politicians have made with regards to them has more to do with remaining competitive in a world market with China as a player. But if so, this is not the way to go about it because it weakens the ability of regional and local businesses to compete on an international scale and takes away many of the democratic rights and safeguards of citizens in the process.
He walked onto stage and the applause swelled. I had never seen the Golden Hall of the Vienna Musikverein so jam-packed full of people. Every single one of the 1744 seats and 300 standing places was filled with the face of an adoring fan anxiously awaiting the warm greetings of a Musical Meister.
What we got was the ranting, reprimanding threat of a diva: “I will not play a single note until the two people who just took a photo leave this concert hall. If you’re sitting beside them, urge them to leave or I won’t play.” Like a toddler mid-tantrum, he stomped off the stage and the lights went back up.
A disturbed chatter arose from the crowd. The Viennese consensus? He’s nuts. And they weren’t referring to the photo-taker caper(s). Just enough time ticked by for us to begin to wonder what the Musikverein’s refund policy is on our not-too-cheap tickets when the artist throws a fit and refuses to perform. In the nick of time, a gentleman (hero?) in a dark t-shirt rose from the center of the audience, about 25 rows deep, from a section where tickets no doubt cost upwards of 120 € each, stood up, bumped his way past the stunned fellow concert-goers in his row and exited the auditorium with a shake of his head. Many of us harbored serious doubts whether the departed was the culprit but the ritual sacrifice being made, the self-chosen martyr offered up, the show could go on.
A man in a suit who we recognized from before Cellphone Gate as the gentleman who informed us that there’d be a live recording and we must refrain from extraneous noises reappeared on stage. In a more apologetic than admonishing tone, he reminded us of the “Künstler’s” need to concentrate. Finally Mr. Jarrett re-entered and I no longer know if anyone clapped at this point. Here and there I believe but the unbridled enthusiasm of his initial entrance was history. Why? Three reasons. First, stunned people can’t clap, they’re too shocked to move their hands (see photo of my stunned face included herein). Second, who could tell what might set him off again – perhaps clapping out of rhythm, for example. Third, we all just wanted to put the embarrassing moment behind us as quickly as possible and move on with things.
Mr. Jarrett sat before his grand piano and pounded the keys as if they too were personally involved in the photo-taking infraction. Disjointed chords of choppy scales torpedoed into the loges left and right. Irritated notes wrestled in an angry sea of quick, successive sounds.
Keith Jarrett Tickets to Vienna Musikverein, July 2016
He was angry. The music was angry. And I was angry.
But by the third piece, then there was light. Staccatos grew more and more interspersed with light, playful notes. By the fourth piece, I could bring myself to join the others and clap, now convinced that it would have been a grave mistake to march out of the hall with Mr. T-Shirt Man in a show of solidarity and a refusal to accept such treatment of us non-genius, musical-lover mortals (as a firm believer in the age-old advice: you are responsible for how you let others treat you). But the lesson was obvious: Keith Jarrett could clearly get away with mistreating his audience members because he truly is a musical genius. The epiphany made me sad for artists specifically and humankind in general.
For years Keith Jarrett’s Cologne Concert, Paris Concert and Vienna Concert from his 1991 appearance in the Vienna Opera House have been some of my most beloved, trusted accompaniments while writing. Sit down, crank it up and within 5 minutes you are in the “mood” and the words stream across the page like currents in a waterfall.
He isn’t hitting pre-prescribed notes. This is improvisation. He is sitting at his bench and coaxing the keys to come together in just the right manner to take his listeners on a magical journey of his making. His music elevates all present to a higher, better, otherworldly place.
By the end of his concert I enthusiastically joined the standing ovation. Not just one but three – or was it four? — encores. His final piece, a playful, soulful version of “Somewhere Over the Rainbow” seemed like the artist’s version of an apology of sorts. It was that moving. Then he said, “Thank you,” but couldn’t leave us for the night with happy, fuzzy feelings to accompany us home. No. He just had to add, “Now aren’t you glad you were strong? Aren’t you glad you were smart?”
To quote Homer Simpson: “D’Oh!” [slaps hand to forehead].
The concert was recorded live. Mr. Jarrett’s hyper-sensitive (compulsive?) tendencies made me wonder why he does live recordings. Wouldn’t a studio recording be easier to control all variables possible when you pack 2000 people in a room? It’s a contradiction, I suppose. The man who demands such utmost control and obedience of an audience of thousands chooses live recordings and improvisation.
At the same time, after intermission, it wasn’t an apology, don’t get me wrong, but perhaps a justification. Kind of. Mr. Jarrett said that all the picture-taking makes him feel like a caged animal. He also added: “People who think they can interfere with processes is what’s f—ed up the world today.” I get that. But what’s really f—ed up the world is a general lack of empathy. And when thousands of people from all over the world, all walks of life who could be mid-living all the tragedies and challenges life can throw at you, re-arrange their day-to-day existence, coordinate and pretty themselves up to join together at a certain time and place to spend precious, never-to-be-re-gained hours of their life, just to hear you play your music, to join you on a journey to a higher place blindly following nothing more than the next musical note – that is something rather extraordinary and the opposite of f—ed up. And if you give that a bitter after-taste (or before- and after-taste), then shame on you.
There is a synergy between an audience and artist that no studio can give. A synergy in a Golden Hall that has been home to such beauty and artistry of some of history’s and the world’s best talents for over 140 years. A synergy that lingers beyond the 2 seconds the notes are held suspended, a synergy that transcends space and time and I think you must know that, Mr. Jarrett, which is why you record live. So chill. You’re playing jazz, the chillest tunes of them all. Appreciate the joining together to experience a precious parenthesis in time.
I’d like to end with a bit of advice for future concerts:
* to potential Keith Jarrett concert-goers: go, the music will be amazing, but for God’s (Keith Jarrett’s and the concert’s) sakes, keep that trigger finger off the camera icon.
* to Mr. Jarrett: get a grip, chill and have some empathy. If the audience peeves you off, do like Bob Dylan did when he gave a concert in Burg Clam – don’t acknowledge the audience at all. Not one word. Not “Hello” “How are you” or “Thanks.” If they’re like me, sure, they’ll feel snubbed but better snubbed than down-right insulted.
* to concert organizers, you saints, you:
if tales from a Berlin concert are to be believed, be sure to have the piano tuned before the concert;
hang up plenty of signs politely advising that the diva “artist” requires utmost concentration and concert-goers who cannot refrain from taking photos kindly will be asked to leave
give that musical genius a Snickers bar. Or two. Or three. (supposedly they’re good at humanizing divas). And who knows? Maybe there’s a commercial spot in his future and you can turn lemons into lemonade.
When the final count was announced for the Brexit vote, perhaps none was more surprised than Britain itself. Except maybe Brussels.
But I was surprised too. Surprised by so much surprise. Especially after this weekend’s headline buried deep inside the paper. I guess if the news isn’t conducive to the current political agenda, it’s good to bury it. Who needs high blood pressure? Nevertheless the audacity of Jean-Claude (or is it Jean-Icarus?) Juncker so soon after Brexit is astounding. It truly is.
In case you missed it, basically the lost-touch-with-reality EU president stated that the EU would decide on Ceta, the very controversial trade agreement with Canada, without including the 27 remaining EU nations. The deal with Canada is largely considered to be the precursor to the TTIP deal with the US and Juncker’s true colors are suddenly showing. The man is threatening to simply barrel through a trade deal that will have major consequences for the environment, consumer safety and judicial processes for Europeans (and Canadians, and then Americans) without a democratic process that would allow the concerned citizens who will be most affected to weigh in. Seriously? Is there a large metal rock somewhere up in Brussels that thou hath been hiding under the past two weeks, Honorable Mr. Juncker?
But I’m not the only one indignant. Even the level-headed Germans were “riled up”. Though they aren’t worried about a very unpopular deal being made over the heads of their citizens, they are worried, according to Germany’s Economic Minister, Sigmar Gabriel, that such an “incredibly foolish” act could kill the even more unpopular agreement, TTIP with the US.
Holy smokes, Batman! Looks like we need a super hero to fly to Belgium and give these bureaucrats a good serious fire-poker pinch. They’re all living in a cave.
I’m not opposed to trade agreements, open borders or closer ties amongst nations. I’m all for it. But I am opposed to trade agreements drafted by lawyers of multinational enterprises under the guise of benefiting Jane, Dietrich and Jorge while taking away their rights and protections. Besides, I had always somehow been under the impression that public servants were put into office to serve the people. But if their mission is to serve the people, and deals like Ceta and TTIP do not serve the people, then no deal should be made. It’s not difficult. It’s not like the Austrian Math Matura. It’s easy in fact. And when bureaucrats from Brussels opt to pass dirty deals done dirt cheap nevertheless, it tends to really peeve people off. It tends to get them upset. It tends to make them lose faith about who or what they are serving. In fact, it gives the impression that the interests being served are as secretive and far removed as politicians helping multinational companies cut billions of dollars from tax bills. Deals kept under wraps until Mr. Ordinaryman with nothing to gain except renewed confidence in the fairness of the universe has the guts to reveal all in a leak – a LuxLeak, for example — and have himself rather than those scheming the system put on trial. In fact it kind makes the majority of us mere mortals have an idea of what the starving folks outside royal gates must feel like when they hear the words: “Let them eat cake” before they… Well… History, like Shakespeare and Greek mythology, has plenty of examples of what happens when a privileged few let hubris and greed get the best of them while overhearing the cries of the disenchanted people.
Days before the Brexit vote, none of my friends (some even from the UK) could fathom a future without Britain in the EU let alone the kind of person who could seriously consider Brexiting. But I could.
I am not anti-EU. I rallied behind Austria’s membership decades ago. As a college major in international relations while the EU was still in the infant stages of a EEC, I was a flag-waving EU supporter. I liked the idea of a borderless continent. I liked the idea of an ever-lasting inter-dependency that promotes peace. I liked the idea of folks from different nations getting along and cooperating to make life better for everyone. But as much as I absolutely love the idea of the EU, I hate seeing signs of cronyism. A lot has happened since my initial dreams for Europe. And I can relate to those who have become disillusioned with the brave new world a united Europe once promised.
But am I so disgruntled (or “batshit crazy”) that I think Britain is right to throw in the towel and hit the road? Definitely not.
Britain, have you looked at yourself in the mirror lately? Your hair is thinning, the royal luster is fading, and to be completely honest, as a good friend, I need to tell you that you’ve shrunk. Yep. Don’t take it wrong. You still got the odd sense of humor we all love, and Shakespeare will always be yours but you’re no longer the tough guy you used to be. So when Russia or China or – yes, even my homeland — come knocking and want to talk business, it can be quite an advantage to have 27 others by your side, showing a united front.
But you were so busy whining about all the Poles moving into the neighborhood, that you became deaf, and I’m sorry to say, blind. And dumb.
After reeling from the shock and the appeals, of “Dearest Britain, say it isn’t so,” and turning-lemons-into-the-lemonade hope that perhaps Northern Ireland and Scotland will finagle a way to stay, I, like the rest of Europe, sobered up to the reality that Britain has officially filed the divorce papers. While the passionate French demand that Britain pack its black pudding, get the hell on its way and don’t let the door smack it in the derrière on the way out, the cool-headed Germans keep urging everyone to, “Stay rational, bitte sehr!”
Long-term relationships are hard. They just are. They demand compromise and sacrifice. And somewhere along the line, you have to be convinced that the relationship is bringing more benefits than harms. Otherwise, it is indeed more healthy to probably call it quits.
But I see remnants of old border booths, hear students from all over a peaceful Europe congregate together in the metro, pay for my cappuccino in Italy with the same Euros I use to buy my Schnitzel in Vienna and I feel like the benefits of a European Union still outweigh the harms.
But statements like Juncker’s make hanging on to that belief hard at times. I have to wonder if his dream of a united Europe has any resemblance to mine.
In his book, The Prophet, Kahil Gibran describes the perfect union. He writes that a perfect union has spaces in the togetherness, and the winds of the heavens dance between the parts that are joined together not with a bond but rather a moving sea. The sides of the union fill each other’s cups without drinking from the same cup. Give each other bread without eating from the same loaf. Dance together but allow dances alone, stand together, yet not too near: For the pillars of the temple stand apart, he writes, and the oak tree and the cypress grow not in each other’s shadow.
What kind of union is the EU striving towards? Absolute oneness or something better? I think it is the lack of clarity and communication of this very basic goal that is causing so much trouble.
Brexit in the EU, Trump in the US, Hofer in Austria, these uprisings, upsets, overturns, and shock-waves are about a generation that believes its voice has been lost. I do not support these fear-mongering movements pouring kerosene on fiery frustrations. I read Juncker’s words and the frustration burns in my veins as well. But nothing in me is convinced that razing the current structures to build a wall, a fence or border-closed sign is the answer. No, I think we should call in the exterminator, chase out the vermin and take back the dream. Throw open windows, beckon in some fresh air and make it a home where the interests of the people, and not the cronies, are served.
Since life goes not backward nor tarries with yesterday, dearest EU, learn from your mistakes and conscientiously determine what the Brexit legacy will be. Will the EU merely survive this crisis or turn it into an opportunity? And I don’t mean an opportunity for the cronies.
KC Blau is originally a steel city girl who has resided amongst the cobble-stoned lanes of Vienna, Austria for over 15 years. She is a German-English translator who loves to relate the tales of a bygone era of the fascinating women who lived, loved and struggled (not necessarily in that order) in turn-of-century Vienna.