Tuesday 27 April 2010
Conservative promises to protect the arts remain unconvincing
Hurrah for the more than 40 performers – on the website at least Stephen Frears has signed twice – who wrote to the Observer last weekend pointing out that an incoming Conservative government is likely to serve the interests of the BBC's commercial rivals. No slogan in this election is more chilling than Vote Cameron, Get Murdoch.
My purpose in having coffee with Jeremy Hunt, the personable young shadow culture secretary, was to obtain reassurance, not least because mention of the arts, culture and broadcasting is entirely omitted from the 118-page Conservative party manifesto. Hunt sees nothing sinister in this. "There are lots of things which aren't in the main manifesto," he says. But he is humorously resigned to the suspicion aroused by Tory arts spokespeople. "Rupert Murdoch is not responsible for Conservative media policy. I am responsible, with David Cameron."
What did he feel about the letter? "I thought it was a shame that a group of artists for whom I have great respect were taken in by Labour party spin. I wish they'd written to me. The Conservative party are strong supporters of the BBC. We founded it in 1927, not a fact that widely known, or widely admired by certain elements of the Tory right. We are as proud of founding the BBC as Labour is of founding the NHS."
There are questions, Hunt says, about the specific ways the licence fee is spent. "We don't think it's right that the director general is paid £840,000." But he promises that the Tories "have set the principle. Because of changes to technology, we may have to think of new ways to collect the licence fee, but there will be a household tax which pays for public service broadcasting. That's something we accept".
He adds: "David Cameron will protect the BBC, he sees it as a very important part of his brand of modern conservatism. He loves the BBC programmes. He's a huge fan of Top Gear."
Talking about broadcasting, Hunt is pragmatic. But when he addresses arts subsidy, then, to my old ears, his fantasies of changing an entire culture seem as sweeping and unrealistic as those of any 70s Trot.
Are you ready to use the words 'subsidy works', I ask. "Yes. I'm very happy to say 'subsidy works', although I would tend to say 'public support works'. In fact because I'm feeling quite combative this morning, I will say that I believe funding for the arts will be significantly greater under a Conservative government than it would be under a Labour government."
How is that possible? As soon as Hunt answers by referring to "things in the tax system we can do to boost private giving", I tell him that I see flashing red lights. In the US there is a strong tradition of people making fortunes during their own lifetime and therefore expecting to give something back. But also, Americans have a religious notion of tithing which our culture lacks. The aristocracy here sets an atrocious example by holding on to everything it's got. Or stolen.
'I think, if I may say, David, that's quite an old-fashioned view. My concern is that people who do make their own money aren't, with some exceptions, as generous as they might be. And I would like to encourage them. I don't see it as a panacea. I see it as a 20-year project. If we could make it a social norm that people gave 10% of their legacy to an artistic or charitable organisation, that would be wonderful."
Jeremy Hunt comes across as cleverer than David Cameron, and on first meeting he's certainly way nicer. But I fear his fundamental analysis is wrong. Explaining why Thatcher's government was always so hostile to the arts, he claims we've moved out of a sharply ideological time. But surely, on the contrary, we're just about to move into one. If public service cuts are as severe and damaging as predicted, inclusive politics will soon belong to the past.
The first deal done in a smoke-filled room by representatives of a hung parliament should be as follows: the monarchists get to keep the monarchy, everyone else gets to keep the BBC.
David Hare @'The Guardian'
Dozens Walk Past Dying Hero Hugo Alfredo Tale-Yax On New York Sidewalk
Hugo Alfredo Tale-Yax was stabbed several times in the chest while saving a woman from a knife-wielding attacker. Then he bled to death while dozens of people walked by -- one stopping to snap a picture of the dying man with his cameraphone before leaving the scene.
Tale-Yax, 31, a homeless Guatemalan immigrant, collapsed at 144th Street and 88th Road in Jamaica, Queens, while in pursuit of the woman's attacker around 5:40 a.m. on April 18. He was pronounced dead by medical workers who responded to a 911 call around 7:20 a.m. But surveillance video obtained the New York Post, which the New York Times got the NYPD to confirm is genuine, shows that plenty of people saw Tale-Yax lying there in his death throes and did nothing.
The police said they were looking for the man who was in the altercation with the woman. He was described as 5-foot-6, with a medium build, wearing a green short-sleeved shirt and a green hat.
The police were not sure if the woman knew what happened to Mr. Tale-Yax, but they said it was possible she knew the suspect. They are waiting for her or a third party to come forward with more information.
Australia shelves key emissions trading scheme
The Australian government has shelved plans for an emissions trading scheme (ETS), the centrepiece of its environmental strategy. It has made repeated attempts to get the measure through parliament, but has been blocked in the Senate, where the government does not enjoy a majority. The government will now not start the scheme until 2013 at the very earliest. PM Kevin Rudd blamed the opposition for withdrawing its support for the measure and slow global progress on emissions. Previously, Mr Rudd has called climate change the "greatest moral challenge of our generation", and pledged to curb pollution by bringing in a comprehensive emissions trading scheme. But his attempts to enact the measure into law have repeatedly failed because his party does not command a majority in the upper house, Senate, and the opposition Liberal Party is now led by a climate change sceptic who won the leadership of his party by vowing to block the reform. In announcing his decision to shelve the measure until at least 2013, when the present Kyoto climate pact expires, Mr Rudd blamed the opposition and the slow progress from other countries in combating global warming. "These two factors together inevitably mean that the implementation of a carbon pollution reduction scheme in Australia will be delayed," he said. "The implementation of a carbon pollution reduction scheme in Australian will, therefore, be extended until after the conclusion of the current Kyoto commitment period, which finishes at the end of 2012." This is a major climb-down by the Rudd government, and also reflects the changing politics of climate change in Australia. Ahead of the Copenhagen climate change conference, Mr Rudd looked set to fight - and win - this year's Australian election on the emissions trading issue, but polls have pointed to an erosion of public support. Given its reliance on coal, Australia has the highest per capita emissions of any developed country, and this decision could draw strong criticism from abroad.
M.I.A. vid already banned in the US
Already removed by YouTube in the U.S., the video for M.I.A.'s "Born Free" was released this morning. Directed by Romain Gavras and available on M.I.A's website (also embedded below), this is one of the most violent videos I've ever seen. It is unapologetic in its critique of American military actions, and it depicts a strange and horrific allegory. Definitely not safe for work, and take special care if you're a redhead. Gingercide, anyone?
Carrie Brownstein @'NPR'
(Thanx Anne!)
The iPhone Leak Gets Ugly: Police Raid Gizmodo Editor’s House, Confiscate Computers
Wow. Last week, Gizmodo published a massive scoop
when they got their hands on what is mostly likely the next iPhone. At the time there was plenty of talk about the legality of Gizmodo’s actions (as they admitted to paying $5000 for the device). Now Gizmodo has just published a post saying that editor Jason Chen had four of his computers and two servers confiscated last night by California’s Rapid Enforcement Allied Computer Team, who entered the house with a search warrant.
when they got their hands on what is mostly likely the next iPhone. At the time there was plenty of talk about the legality of Gizmodo’s actions (as they admitted to paying $5000 for the device). Now Gizmodo has just published a post saying that editor Jason Chen had four of his computers and two servers confiscated last night by California’s Rapid Enforcement Allied Computer Team, who entered the house with a search warrant. Gawker’s COO Gaby Darbyshire responded to the actions by citing California Penal Code 1524(g), which states that “no warrant shall issue for any items described in Section 1070 of the Evidence Code”, which protects information obtained in protection of a news organization. Darbyshire also points out that the California Court of Appeal has previously found that these protections apply to online journalists (O’Grady v. Superior Court).
In Gizmodo’s post, Chen recounts last night’s events. Chen wasn’t home when the raid began, and came home after officers had already been in his house for hours. Chen’s door was broken open because he wasn’t home to open it. He wasn’t arrested, but police seized external hard drives, four computers, two servers, phones, and more.
The document detailing what police intended to seize refers to Apple’s “prototype 4G iPhone” and is also referred to as “stolen” (Gizmodo has contended that the device was found in a bar, not stolen). Also note that all of this went down on Friday night, and Gizmodo didn’t say anything until today.
(Click to enlarge)
Gawker founder Nick Denton has tweeted about the situation, saying it will show whether or not bloggers are considered journalists.
Gawker founder Nick Denton has tweeted
about the situation, saying it will show whether or not bloggers are considered journalists.You couldn't make this up!
An Australian restaurant has been forced to apologize and pay compensation after refusing to let a blind man enter because they thought his dog was gay.
In May 2009, Ian Jolly, 57, was attempting to dine at the Thai Spice restaurant in Adelaide, when he was refused entry after staff misheard his female companion, and thought his "guide dog" was a "gay dog."
"The staff genuinely believed that Nudge was an ordinary pet dog which had been desexed to become a gay dog," the owners said in a statement to South Australia's Equal Opportunity Tribunal.
Jolly is now set to receive a written apology and $1,400 compensation.
However, Jolly said that the situation had made him embarrassed about going to restaurants.
"I just want to be like everybody else and be able to go out for dinner, to be left alone and just enjoy a meal," he told Australian press.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
