Something happens when you break a world record. You cease to become a representative for your country, and you become a role model for the world.

This morning Lance Armstrong won the Tour de France for the sixth time. He is the only person in history to have won more than five. Moreover, he has won six consecutive Tours, after having been diagnosed with cancer eight years ago and given less than a 50 percent chance of survival.

Although many interpreted Lance’s stage win yesterday to mean that Armstrong had his sixth Tour victory already under his belt, Armstrong remained true to nature, humble and in the moment, remarking only that he wouldn’t anticipate a win until he crossed the finish line.

After his official win today, Armstrong reiterated the importance of not getting ahead of oneself and of taking each moment as it comes:

“The last laps there, I thought, ‘Ah, I want to get this over with … But then I thought to myself, ‘You know, you might want to do a few more laps, because you may not ever do it again.’ And you can’t take it for granted.”

The structure of the Tour de France ought to preclude nationalistic attitudes due to its three-week length, abundance of award opportunities, and race strategy. The American national anthem, which played this morning at the awards ceremony in Paris, served more as an homage to Armstrong’s beginnings than as a tally mark in a competition between nations. The cycling team led by Armstrong has been sponsored by the United States Postal Service and is composed of cyclists from several countries. To win the race, Armstrong and his teammates banded together, forging across France as a unit and lending each other strength and support in order to complete the 3,395-kilometer race.

There have been some resentments noted toward Armstrong, but his consistent efforts toward raising popular awareness of sports, the race to cure cancer and good sportsmanship are matched by a growing momentum of international supporters and admirers.

What do art and politics have to do with one another? Are celebrities any less worthy than anyone else when it comes to expressing political opinions?

Linda Ronstadt and the Aladdin. Whoopi Goldberg and Slim-Fast. Michael Moore and Disney. The Dixie Chicks and Clear Channel. Tim Robbins and the Baseball Hall of Fame.

An article on the First Amendment Center web site reveals that throughout history, celebrities of all political leanings have been dropped by the corporations which had sponsored them, although the current trend in the American media has been bashing celebrities who voice liberal views.

Some people believe art is only entertainment and escapism. Others believe art is a medium for a message. There are those who believe in the purity of aesthetic excellence. Still others believe that the more controversy stirred up over art through politics, the better art sells.

The latest episode, between singer Linda Ronstadt and the Las Vegas Aladdin Hotel and Casino, leads me to contemplate the First Amendment: the right to free speech in the United States. Perhaps the hotel-casino and the audience members who disagreed with Ronstadt’s opinion had the right to usher her out and to request refunds for the concert. Perhaps Ronstadt had the right to express her opinion during the concert. Certainly everyone should have been aware of the potential consequences for his or her actions.

The comedy inherent in this week’s situation results from the fact that the Aladdin Hotel and Casino will be taken over by Planet Hollywood International in the upcoming months. Hours after the news broke that current Aladdin president William Timmins had asked Ronstadt to leave and never return, Robert Earl, chief of Planet Hollywood International and prospective owner of the Aladdin, invited both Ronstadt and Michael Moore to return for a concert in the fall, after the Aladdin changes hands.

Sir Elton John has expressed the opinion that the current atmosphere in the United States is akin to 1950s McCarthyism. In an interview with the New York magazine, Interview, Sir Elton is quoted as remarking,

“There’s an atmosphere of fear in America right now that is deadly. Everyone is too career-conscious … There was a moment about a year ago when you couldn’t say a word about anything in this country for fear of your career being shot down by people saying you are un-American.”

Los Angeles-based writer Andrew Gumbel points out that perhaps these rebel celebrity headliners are less a manifestation of across-the-board censorship than they are of the extreme volatility present in the United States during an election year.

I grew up in a place called Salmon Nation. It stretches from the Yukon Territory in the North all the way to Southern California. On the West, it hugs the Pacific and its fingers reach East into Idaho. But Salmon Nation’s boundaries are not best defined using our political ones. It is a nation defined by watersheds and streams. EcoTrust, the Portland, Oregon-based nonprofit, which launched the Salmon Nation project in 2003, defines its boundaries rather elegantly as “anywhere Pacific salmon have ever run.”

Salmon are an indicator species. Because their circuitous lifecycle takes them from quiet mountain headwaters, to the ocean, and back again, they are a litmus test of sorts for the overall health of the region. When they are healthy, so is our soil, our water, and our food supply. The idea behind Salmon Nation is for people to stand up and take upon themselves the duties associated with living in such a nation. By declaring one’s citizenship in Salmon Nation, one is pledging to build a world in which the salmon will once again thrive.

I declared my citizenship a year ago, but truth be told, I’m a Salmon Nation expatriate living in Chicago. So, rather than living out my days dreaming of the West, I’d like to suggest another nation, built upon another equally endangered, indicator species. Let us consider the Pedestrian Nation, a sprawling empire whose boundaries were once limitless.              

In Wanderlust: A History of Walking author Rebecca Solnit suggests, “Perhaps walking is best imagined as an ‘indicator species,’ to use an ecologist’s term. An indictor species signifies the health of an ecosystem, and its endangerment or diminishment can be an early warning sign of systemic trouble. Walking as an indicator species for various kinds of freedoms and pleasures: free time, free and alluring space, and unhindered bodies.”

Like the salmon, the pedestrian has seen its ecosystem crumble. Feeble attempts have been made to recreate their habitat in captivity, but just as farm-raised salmon is injected with pink dye to make it look wild, so too the artificial pedestrian habitat is hard pressed to mask the urban sprawl peeking out from behind the commercial facades and parking structures. Perhaps in the not-too-distant future, all resident of both Salmon and Pedestrian Nation will stand up and declare their citizenship?    

Benjamin Helphand

In honor of the Bush twins’ first official interview last week, let’s take a look at how the press treats politicians’ children on the campaign trail.

A number of newspapers across the country have either covered campaigning kids – from the twins to Kerry’s daughters and John Edwards’ brood – or opined about their role. Few ask politicians about the role their children play in the campaign. Even fewer ask adult children pointed political questions. Granted, the twins’ first interview was with Vogue. Still, consider the questions they were asked:

What do you plan to do after graduation? (Teach at a charter school; work in Europe/Africa). Why did you join the campaign? (Not at parents’ urging). What are your parents like? (Dad’s hard on their prospective dates; Mom’s a clean freak, but funny).

The New York Times’ Elisabeth Bumiller summed it up best: “The article, which is light on politics and heavy on fashion, also reveals that the president is an avid teaser of his daughters’ boyfriends.”

Perhaps we don’t need to know more – what they think of the war in Iraq, for instance. Do we really care?

Sure we do. First, because their parents hold them out as an extension of themselves. As reporters at the Houston Chronicle (among the top 10 highest circulating papers in the country) observed: “The twins’ presence in the Bush campaign will help to soften the president’s image and possibly garner support from young Americans. ‘Surrounding yourself with family always tends to make you appear to be more human, softer,’ says Garth Jowett, a communications professor and propaganda expert at the University of Houston.”

Second, we care about their views because they have placed themselves on the stump. They purport to be well-educated, have grown up in the political spotlight, and as a result, may be considered public figures.

Julie Hines at the Detroit Free Press wrote a thorough article about campaigning children Monday
that examined both the role they play and their potential impact. The piece implies that since reporters/the public aren’t out to press kids for comment, their major role is as family-endorsing eye-candy.

In that case, the Edwards children – dubbed “replacement kids” during his North Carolina campaigns and now likened to the Camelot clan – could have a major impact. “During the first day of joint appearances by the Edwards and Kerry families, the Edwards tykes stole the show,” the story notes. “John Kerry joked at one point that Jack had become the new campaign manager.” So could Kerry’s own two adult daughters, who plan to campaign for him. Vogue is already talking to them about a piece similar to the twins’ spread. Then there’s his wife’s son Chris Heinz, 31, who’s been heavily involved in the campaign and likened to JFK Jr.

As Hines notes, “The conventional wisdom is that sons and daughters of candidates don’t have much impact on elections. They smile and make nice with the public, but they don’t change outcomes. But this year could be different, especially if polls continue to show President George W. Bush and Sen. John Kerry in a tight race, says Doug Wead, author of ‘All the President’s Children.’ ‘In a close campaign, absolutely everything counts, including the children,’ says Wead.”

The public – and the media – certainly cared three years ago when they were caught with a fake ID and alcohol in a Texas bar. And it seemed Bush spokespeople expected more after they graduated in May. “With their graduation from college and joining the campaign, there’s certainly going to be more coverage of them, and that’s understandable,” Gordon Johndroe, spokesman for First Lady Laura Bush, told The Washington Post’s Dana Milbank. “However, they are not public officials. When they engage in campaign activities, certainly there will be media interest. But when they’re going about their own work, we hope the media will respect that.”

But if the public wants to know what they’re thinking, shouldn’t adult children on the campaign  trail be asked hard questions about those they’re promoting? The New York Daily News’ Lloyd Grove, who doesn’t think kids will have any effect on the campaign, doesn’t think so. “Are people going to vote on the Jenna issue,” he asked Hines, “Or the Iraq issue?” But so many political questions of the moment – about the war, gay marriage, the economy – have been termed family values issues, particularly by conservatives, it seems ridiculous to think family members shouldn’t be pressed for answers, or at least opinions.

For now, it appears the kid gloves are still on. Washington Post Style writer Robin Givhan considers the Vogue spread indicative that the twins won’t be pressed on the campaign trail. “Those who spend any time on such trails argue that the goal is not to reveal one’s real self but a perfectly polished and eloquently scripted facsimile,” she writes. Chelsea Clinton made her press debut at a Versace show, after all, with a puff piece in Talk. “But the portrait does offer this: They are ready to play a new role … In their life story as told in public photographs, they’ve gone from indiscreet college students to Stepford daughters. One longs for photographs that tell of the intellectual curiosity that took them abroad or of the ‘natural effervescence’ that Reed (the author) found so compelling.” If only we didn’t have to rely on photographs or press releases to know what they’re thinking.

In The Fray Contributor

Not even Arnold Schwarzenegger can make me regret our American right to free speech.

Our California Governor made the executive decision to call some lawmakers “girlie men” at a rally last Saturday in Ontario, California. Not surprisingly, the lawmakers in question weren’t doing what Schwarzenegger wanted them to do.

Reactions to Schwarzenegger’s comment have been well-publicized, as has been their likely inspiration.

The difficulty with a remark like this remains, as always: What do we do with it?

The last line of an op-ed in USA Today got me thinking. It read: “Humor is a weapon that in politics is in far too short supply.” While certainly subjective in the context of the piece, these parting words reminded me of a truth I learned as a high school exchange student in Italy. Different cultures have distinctly different types of humor.

What Americans consider funny may be vastly different than what the French find humorous. Or, in this case, what an Austrian in office and a writer for USA Today appear to have found amusing.

In order to find something funny, you have to be able to share a perspective, or a culture. Even though the term “girlie-men” got laughs from the audience of “Saturday Night Live” when Hans and Franz used it, many Americans didn’t find it funny this time. In my case, I knew I was getting the hang of Italian culture when I started getting Italian humor. And sometimes even when I didn’t share someone’s opinion, I got a lot more out of laughing than I did out of what I had been doing before I learned to laugh like a Buddha.

When I asked my mother if Schwarzenegger’s latest had made it up to her neck of the woods, she told me about a bipartisan joke which had just aired on the Seattle news, a quasi music video that leaves both sides laughing.  

If living well is the best revenge, then laughter is the best medicine.

We all know what to do with lemons. Make lemonade.

While it may look like a typo, Llanhyfryddawelllehynafolybarcudprindanfygythiadtrienusyrhafnauole is, in fact, the new name of an old village in western Wales. The English translation of the new name is both angry and charming: “A quiet beautiful village, an historic place with rare kite under threat from wretched blades.”

The wretched blades in the name of the village refer to turbines, and activists in the village of Llanfynydd are renaming their town in protest against a proposal, submitted by Gamesa Energy UK, to erect a 40-meter tall mast on the edge of the village. This mast will test whether the region is suitable for a wind farm, which would create energy through turbines. Given that the project is, at this moment, only for a single mast, the name change does seem a bit eccentric and somewhat gimmicky, since this unwieldy name, with 66 letters, is now the longest place name in the United Kingdom (although it is considerably shorter than the little hill named Tetaumatawhakatangihangakoauaotamateaurehaeaturipukapihimaungahoronukupokaiwhenuaakitanarahu in New Zealand).  

Meirion Rees, a resident of the village, which is still technically named Llanfynydd, claims reasonably and correctly that “Welsh place names reflect unique landscape features, and hundreds of years of historical events and cultural traditions.”

Regardless of whether this protest can affect the results of the wind farm project, the use of the Welsh language as a vehicle of protest is certainly welcome; at a time when only one-fifth of Wales’s population of 2.75 million people speak Welsh, the residents of Llanfynydd are helping to keep the Welsh language alive.

Mimi Hanaoka

Religious language is nothing new in political discourse, but it has, unfortunately, become one of the most dominant voices booming out the Bush White House.  

David Greenberg, in his review of three books about the Bush legacy in The New Yorker, highlights research by Bruce Lincoln, Professor of the History of Religion at the University of Chicago, about President Bush’s use of religious language. According to Lincoln, President Bush made allusions to Revelation, Isaiah, Job, Matthew, and Jeremiah during his speech to Congress in which he declared that America would invade Afghanistan. Bush’s speech was littered with biblical allusions not only for theatrical and emotional effect but stemmed, at least partially, out of genuine religious conviction.  

Greenberg notes that “this kind of recourse to religion leaves citizens no grounds on which to question the President’s actions. If the inspiration of God or the Bible is purely personal or subjective, it’s not open to debate – and decisions based on it become immune from scrutiny.”

While Greenberg makes a valid point, I’d like to underscore the creative aspect of religious language. When religious language is used to discuss political events, language escapes its descriptive role and becomes outright creative – what is and should remain a political issue assumes a religious dimension. It is true that President Bush is fighting his wars in Afghanistan and Iraq under the protective shell of a religious banner in which his personal religious beliefs are excused from rigorous scrutiny. Just as importantly, however, it is the repeated use of religious language to describe a political issue that has made America’s wars in Afghanistan and Iraq, to an extent, a religious issue for some citizens.  

Religious language and imagery are nothing new in political discourse in America or elsewhere. Badr Shakir Al-Sayyab, one of the most acclaimed 20th century Iraqi writers, configured the British colonialism of Iraq in apocalyptic terms, and he did this to great effect. Al-Sayyab claimed in 1957 that the eyes of the modern poet have “been ravaged by his visions and he perceives the seven sins pervading the world like a terrifying monster.” According to Al-Sayyab, the modern poet is tormented by his apocalyptic visions and great evil of this century’s colonialism.  

While the apocalyptic vision may be well suited to poetic language, it is when apocalyptic visions seep into the dominant political discourse that we should be wary; it is this type of religious language that bars us from speaking honestly and productively about the political and material motivations for war and occupation. President Bush is not so much describing an apocalypse but encouraging one.  

Mimi Hanaoka

Martha Stewart was sentenced yesterday to five months in a minimum security prison and five consecutive months of home detention for lying about her sale of ImClone stock in 2001, “a small personal matter.” The five months she’ll spend in a federal prison camp in Danbury, Connecticut, isn’t geographically far from her Westport home or her 153-acre estate in New York — but it will be a far cry from what she’s used to. That’s okay though, as the Toronto Star reports, Martha’s like Mandela: she can handle it:

‘I could do it,’ she said, according to excerpts released by ABC late Friday. ‘I’m a really good camper. I can sleep on the ground. There are many, many good people who have gone to prison. Look at Nelson Mandela.’

That Martha would chose to compare herself to the former South African President doesn’t faze her fans, who see her as a trailblazer who taught them to embrace beauty — and her company’s products. Their supportive words are found on Martha’s trial web site, maintained by her company:  

Please do not despair. No matter where you are, you will still be you. And when you are done, I will be right there to support you by watching your show, and buying your products.

You have helped me gain the confidence needed in my own ability to entertain and create that enabled me to undertake some of my own challenges without too much reservation. I just held a Celtic Wake for my beloved mother’s memorial service, and entertained 70 people in my own home (2500 square feet) with food, beverages, and bagpipes.

I am and will continue to support you with all my heart … K-Mart is our local “everything” store and my home is proof of my feelings for the Martha Stewart Brand Products. Once again I wish you the very best. This too will pass Martha.

Martha’s a hero to Kmart, certainly. Our positions on Martha’s lucrative aesthetic brokering and subsequent sentencing reveal more about our society’s complicated feelings about female power and domesticity than they shed light on a public figure. Martha’s case stands apart as a female prosecuted for her own actions, and not for spending her husband’s money, a woman who built her empire on traditionally feminine crafts and was convicted for playing dangerously in a predominantly masculine market. Her actions aren’t heroic, but her fame opens the door for much needed dialogue about gender and business.

llouison

There are a few basic concepts we must start re-thinking in order to understand what they mean for us as citizens of our communities, our nation, and the world. One of these is the concept that is at the center of how we define ourselves as Americans: “DEMOCRACY.”

In this I have begun to search out those that are asking “What is the ‘meaning’ of democracy?” The best collection of the radical roots of American democracy is Timothy Patrick McCarthy’s and John McMillan’s edited collection, The Radical Reader (The New Press, 2003).

Another important contribution to the understanding of democracy in “action” is the recent collection, “We Are Everywhere: The Irresistable Rise of Global Anticapitalism” edited by Notes from Nowhere and published by Verso. It is described as “… a whirlwind collection of writings, images, and ideas from direct action by people in the frontlines of the global anticapitalist movement.” It’s a huge, inexpensive collection of activist statements/reports/pictures from around the world. It covers the years 1994-2003. The We Are Everywhere web site also includes excellent links, essays, and references to inspire any activist. Of course, if we are talking activism, let’s not forget the patron saint of contemporary community activism, Saul Alinsky, and his classic Rules for Radicals.

My favorite periodical that consistently questions, challenges, and (re)defines the democratic project is Orion magazine. Orion magazine inspires me because its definition of radical democracy rests upon the cultivation of open spaces and the recognition of the interconnectedness of our lives.

In the democratic spirit, we should ask the people what they think. Homeland, (Seven Stories Press, 2004) by Dale Maharidge and Michael Williamson, is an important book that seeks to plumb the soul of everyday post-9/11 America, and documentary filmmaker Mark Wojahn in his latest film travels the nation to ask us “What America Needs?”.

Democracy Now is another important independent champion of democracy on the Internet. Its series of videos examines contemporary democracy in “action,” asking important questions, such as, what is the role of Independent Media in a Time of War?  Of course, an active, engaged citizenry, is necessary for any radical understanding of democracy. In recognition of this need, the Indy Media movement has spread across the world, supplying inexpensive means and the necessary skills for citizen-produced media.

I know all to well how difficult it is to cut through the noise of contemporary society; thankfully we have Propaganda Critics and Disinformation Experts to lend a hand in sifting through the voices of our world.

Now it’s your turn. I ask you: What is the “meaning” of democracy?  

thivai

The Democrats have, once again, failed to understand the political logic of lowered expectations. Minutes after John Kerry anointed the youthful, Southern, telegenic, “two Americas,” son of a mill worker John Edwards as his VP choice, excited Democrats across the land began publicly salivating over the prospect of the successful trial lawyer using his mesmerizing courtroom skills to eviscerate stodgy Dick Cheney in their October 5 debate in Cleveland. Kerry even got into the act, saying he couldn’t wait to see Edwards go “toe-to-toe” with the Vice President.

Problem is, while Edwards was a smart choice to liven up the Kerry ticket, he was also consistently unimpressive in the primary debates (in a few, he seemed to barely be there). He may do better in a one-on-one setup, but he has yet to prove an ability to attack an opponent in an effective way. He mostly stayed “positive” in his race against Kerry (he had to if he wanted to stay in the VP race), and his early attacks on Bush and Cheney in his new VP role have been average at best.  

Second, Cheney may appear old, predictable, and cranky, but he’s also experienced and smart, and he’s not going to let Edwards blow him off the stage. In fact, with all the Democratic talk of how great Edwards will come off in the debate, the Dems have, once again, set themselves up for a monumental failure, with the post-debate talk inevitably focusing not on substance but on how Cheney (who some Republicans desperately want off the ticket) held his own against the litigator extraordinaire. Remember all that talk four years ago about how Al Gore would invariably embarrass George Bush? Well, with expectations significantly lowered, Bush didn’t look half bad.

My prediction: Cheney won’t look half bad, either, and the political pundits will declare him the debate’s “surprising winner.”

In The Fray Contributor

Dear Reader, In The Fray is a nonprofit staffed by volunteers. If you liked this piece, could you please donate $10? If you want to help, you can also:

• Follow us on Twitter: @inthefray
• Comment on stories or like us on Facebook
• Subscribe to our free email newsletter
• Send us your writing, photography, or artwork
• Republish our Creative Commons-licensed content