May 2012

Opera funding — public or private?

by Fran Smith on July 31, 2007

in Culture

(Maria Callas in I Puritani)

Over at CafeHayek, Russell Roberts has a post on how opera companies and audiences are burgeoning in the U.S. He quoted from an article in The American about this phenomenon and asked the question — how reliant are opera companies on government funding?

It turns out that government funding represents about 5 or 6 percent of total U.S. opera companies’ funding, according to The American. For the arts in general, that amount is about 12 percent. The rest is from private sources — individuals, foundations, and corporations.

The National Endowment for the Arts breaks down those private funding sources:

Americans donated approximately $13.5 billion to the category “Arts, Culture, and the Humanities” in 2005, the most recent year for which such data are available. In per capita terms, the total amounts to about $45 for each individual in the United States. Individual donors account for about three-quarters of the total, with foundations and corporations providing the balance.

Kevin Smith, the head of Minnesota Opera, seems to think that private funding makes more sense, as he said to The American:

Despite the attraction of government money, Smith believes that there is something “healthy about needing to prove yourself to the community on a daily basis.” He says, “Tough as it is, the American system is good in a lot of ways. In France, they have seven or eight companies that get all the money. If you’re not year-round and fully professional, you don’t get any support. Here, it’s a grassroots system, and you have to demonstrate your value.”

There are other problems with government funding too — political ones. The big grants are likely to go to those with political connections or political savvy. Here’s an article that, while supporting government funding of the arts, points out how political decisions are made about what to fund in the Big Apple.

While the increased popularity of opera in the U.S. can be attributed to a lot of factors, it is encouraging that the growth seems to be mainly supported by private means. That way individual taste helps shape what you’ll see or hear — through buying tickets, subscribing, or donating small or large sums. And it means that opera companies, like other entities, have to prove themselves in the market.

Bergman and Antonioni — a personal appreciation

by Fran Smith on July 31, 2007 · 1 comment

in Culture

Two great filmmakers died in succession this week. On Monday, Ingmar Bergman died at the age of 89; yesterday Michelangelo Antonioni at 94. The end of an epoch in innovative film-making that began in the 1950s and is imitated even today.

Both Bergman and Antonioni were favorites of my small clique of foreign-film buffs at the girls’ school I attended. In high school — still in our uniforms — we’d go to the downtown “art theatre” that showed Bergman’s early films. In that far distant time, “art theatres” mostly showed porno movies, so we were a bit nonplused by the other audience members — mostly older men slumped in their seats.

My friends and I at school discussed the symbols and deep meaning of The Seventh Seal (1956), Wild Strawberries (1957), The Virgin Spring (1960). Indeed, we were a bit pretentious. But the images from those films have lasted a lifetime.

Antonioni’s L’Avventura (1960) and Blowup (1966) were later favorites. But I just saw Blowup on DVD a few months ago and was disappointed. The photography concept continued to be original and intriguing, but the depiction of the promiscuity seemed overdone and dated. Back then, it was shocking.

I’ll be revisiting Bergman’s films on DVD soon to explore his images again. I don’t expect to be disappointed. His vision was too strong.

They Say They Are A Revolution

by Iain Murray on July 31, 2007

in Global Warming, Sanctimony

Friends of the Earth is trying to organize a YouTube “revolution” on global warming, starting with unhappy pop stars. Climate Resistance isn’t impressed:

We at Climate-Resistance have no time for celebrities lecturing us about climate change. None of the celebrities speaking on behalf of the campaign appear to have a clue what it is even about. It is the most shameful indictment of Friends of the Earth that they have to recruit pop-stars to endorse their project because it lacks the content to generate its own momentum. The constituency of this campaign are not politically-engaged individuals, but inebriated festival goers and adoring fans – the two least critically-minded groups we can think of.

And what kind of demonstration calls for more law – especially law which regulates lifestyle and consumption? Could we imagine the serfs of 18th century France, demanding ‘less cake’? Polite requests for less freedom and lower living standards hardly sound like the stuff of mass movements, yet this is what FOE imagine 200,000 video clips will make them. As previous slogans have told us, ‘la révolution est dans la rue’, and ‘The revolution will not be televised’. By televising itself, away from the streets, The Big Ask reveals a protest movement which is neither: it is vague about what it asks for – rather than clearly demands. It is not an expression of collective will, but a database of whinges from individuals whose efforts to change the world only seem to extend as far as pressing ‘record’ and ‘send’… Just as it thinks turning the TV off, rather than leaving it on standby, is a world-changing action.

Indeed. ‘Praise Marx and pass the ammunition’ seems to have been replaced by ‘Praise Gore and pass the videocam.’

Michael Eckhart apologizes to Marlo Lewis — or does he?

by Marlo Lewis on July 30, 2007

in Environment, Global Warming

Dear Marlo:

I’ve received quite a lot of correspondence from people around the country about my July 13 email to you, and they have persuaded me how wrong I was.

No matter that I thought I was fighting for Free Speech and against what I saw as Paid Speech, I had no right in our American system of freedoms to threaten your career over it. As a moderate-conservative who believes in the Constitution and all it stands for, and as a moderate-liberal who believes that there are important issues to be addressed in making our society better, I was wrong to attack you. It was against my own principles. I apologize to you personally.

At a professional level, the matter took root two years ago when you said me that you believe that global warming is occurring, that you are personally a bit concerned about it, and that you could actually make a compelling argument either way, but that you were compelled to argue against global warming because you are against big government. I was very unhappy to see this occurring. Let’s put this aside if you are willing.

I ask you now, after these two years have passed and more has been learned, five questions:

1) Based on all of your study, do you personally believe that global warming is occurring (yes, no, or probabilities one way or the other)? 2) Do you believe that human actions are contributing to it, and, if so, how much? 3) Do you advise that action or inaction is the best course of action for society? That is, what is the upside and the risk of error for action versus inaction? 4) If you recommend that society take action, what specific strategies would you support? 5) Are there any strategies that are smart for society to pursue in any case?

I don’t mean to pin you or trick you in any way. I truly would like to know where you stand on this.

I’ve responded to every email, and many have come back expressing a desire to see us work out a solution. I’m agreeable to doing that.

Please post this letter on your blog, as I’d like your followers to know that I’ve apologized to your personally and am seeking a resolution of the issues with you. Thank you.

Sincerely,

Michael Eckhart

Dear Mike,

I would be happy to accept a complete and genuine apology. However, I do not think yours measures up.

Your apology continues to cast aspersions on my character, although not blatantly as in your Eckhart Response to CEI. You say you now realize you flouted constitutional norms. However, as background, you say you thought you were defending Free Speech against Paid Speech. This distinction implies that I am a mere mouthpiece of paying clients—an allegation made more directly in your email of Sep. 06 (about which your apology is silent), in which you threatened to shut CEI down unless we recant our views on global warming. By repeating that allegation without retracting it, you put it back in play.

Similarly, your apology does not retract the accusation—also made in Eckhart Response to CEI—that I am a liar and you can prove it because I told you so. Nor does it retract the claim that I am out to destroy environmentalists’ careers and, hence, that you were just responding in kind when you threatened to destroy my career.

That is the naughty schoolboy defense: “You started!” Well, no, I didn’t. I would no more tell you that I seek to destroy environmentalists’ careers than I would tell you I lie. Both allegations are outrageous falsehoods. You have not apologized for making those statements.

And how is it that I supposedly destroy environmentalists’ careers? In Eckhart Response to CEI, you say I do this not by attacking environmentalists as people but by criticizing their “underlying assumptions.” Apparently, you confuse refutation with defamation. Thus, apparently, because I questioned your assumptions in this column, and in our subsequent Debate on Energy and Environment TV, you felt entitled to attack me as a person. A policy advocate who cannot tell the difference between refutation and character assassination, challenging assumptions and defaming persons, is bound to flout the rules of civil discourse in the very way you did.

Your apology says I told you I “could actually make a compelling argument either way, but that you were compelled to argue against global warming because you are against big government.” Of course I can make a persuasive case for the other side; if I couldn’t, I also could not make a persuasive case for my side! To construe this as an admission of intellectual dishonesty is another slur.

I therefore feel no obligation to satisfy your curiosity, if that is what it is. Indeed, you posed similar interrogatories before we debated on E&E TV. In retrospect, your only purpose was to “trick” and “pin.” If you are genuinely curious about CEI’s views on climate and energy, I suggest you read the documents (here and here) that elicited your threats.

Sincerely,

Marlo Lewis

How much will the Farm Bill cost the average family?

by Fran Smith on July 30, 2007 · 3 comments

in Agriculture

WashingtonWatch today listed the cost of the farm bill (H.R. 2419) just passed by the House last Friday. It seems like the average American family will pay $2590.27 for this bloated program that the Democrats — in pushing it through — claimed had “something for everyone.”

According to the Congressional Budget Office, the House bill will bring total spending of programs administered by USDA to $286 billion for the period 2008-2012. It extends major farm income support programs for major commodities — direct and countercyclical payments, crop loans, and marketing loan programs — gives increased funding for export promotion and for rural development. It also includes significantly increased funding for nutrition, research on organic agriculture and specialty crops, conservation, and for block grants and promotion of specialty crops, horticulture, and organic agriculture.

And, that sweet l’il ole sugar program is made even sweeter by raising the price supports and by subsidizing the use of sugar as a feedstock in the production of ethanol. With the current sugar program costing consumers about $1.8 billion a year, the new and expanded program will further increase consumers’ and taxpayers’ burdens.

Oh, and by the way, to pay for expanding some of these programs — to the tune of over $4 billion — there’s a proposal for a new tax on companies in the United States that are owned by non-U.S. firms. What one group against that tax has called “in-sourcing.” Think what that would do for capital investment in the U.S.

So, now the House has a bill that’s going to hurt consumers, taxpayers, and thousands of companies in the U.S. to provide a “safety net” — mostly for rich farmers. (According to USDA figures, 66 percent of crop subsidy benefits went to 10 percent of the beneficiaries of those programs.)

Don’t expect the Senate, however, to have more sense. With election year coming up, the Senate may go the way of the House to deliver the pork — or the sugar — to farm states, including Big Sugar in Florida.

(Thanks to Wayne Crews for the tip.)

Should Disaster Insurance Be Compulsory?

by Eli Lehrer on July 30, 2007

in Insurance

A masthead editorial (full text by subscription only) lays out a compelling case for mandatory purchase of catastrophe insurance. I’ve long supported something close to a mandate for health insurance purchase, but I’m not sure if anything like that makes sense for property insurance. Under all circumstances, I do think that government does have an obligation to rescue people in serious trouble (although it might well send them a bill if they’re able-bodied and ignored clear evacuation orders).

But, unlike health care — where longstanding ethical rules make it impossible to deny treatment altogether — I can’t think of anybody who would argue that the state has an overarching public obligation to make everyone whole following catastrophes (although Florida Governor Charlie Crist might come pretty close). In fact, much of the best disaster mitigation involves not rebuilding, and any compulsory purchase law carries with it some sort of obligation to help people of modest means purchase insurance. Society has no obligation to subsidize people who wish to live in risky locations.

To encourage insurance purchase without mandating it, I’d go back to an original provision of the National Flood Insurance Program that quickly fell by the wayside: If you are eligible for insurance and don’t purchase it, government aid should be limited to rescue and basic human needs. If enforced, that would have many of the positive consequences of a mandate without actually imposing one.

Google: Open to Its Own Model

by Cord Blomquist on July 30, 2007

in Tech & Telecom

Openness–in our culture filled with feel-goodery and self congratulation openness is seen as a good thing–a trait that any liberal and modern person should hope to have. But is openness always the best policy?

Google sure thinks so. It’s advocating that the 700 Mhz spectrum–soon to be freed up by the transition to digital TV–should be auctioned with openness in mind. Eric Schmidt, Google’s CEO, has asked FCC Chairman Martin to limit the auction to models that would include open applications, open devices, open services, and open networks.

Sounds great doesn’t it? After all, other open things in the political world are good. Open government, open hearings–both good. But would we want open phone conversations or open email? Maybe open doors and open shades would be a good idea. What do you have to hide?

Living in a democracy we’re used to transparency, but certainly we can recognize the value of limits and closed proceedings as well. What about limited and closed models for networks? Can these be of any benefit or are they, like the technocrats claim they are, just stifling innovation? [click to continue…]

Species Conservation — Turtles and Tigers

by Fran Smith on July 30, 2007

in Economy, Environment

A recent Reuters article and video noted the plight of the leatherbacked turtles as it reported on the release of hundreds of baby turtles on the east coast of Malaysia by conservationists. Yet, the article noted:

Despite strict laws banning egg sales, moves to safeguard nesting sites and efforts to build hatcheries, the U.N. Environment Programme (UNEP) warned last year that the number of leatherback turtles had plummeted because of egg harvesting and turtle hunting.

Just last week at a CEI seminar, Barun Mitra, head of the Liberty Institute in New Delhi, India, used the example of tiger conservation in China to show that economic incentives and private ownership may provide a better model for species preservation than prohibitions on use and sale of wildlife. See his earlier New York Times op ed on this topic, “Sell the Tiger to Save It.”

At present there is no incentive for forest dwellers to protect tigers, and so poachers, traffickers and unscrupulous traders prevail. The temptation of high profits, in turn, attracts organized crime; this is what happens when government regulations subvert the law of supply and demand.

But tiger-breeding facilities will ensure a supply of wildlife at an affordable price, and so eliminate the incentive for poachers and, consequently, the danger for those tigers left in the wild. With selective breeding and the development of reintroduction techniques, it might be possible to return the tiger to some of its remaining natural habitats. And by recognizing the rights of the local villagers to earn legitimate revenue from wildlife sources, the tiger could stage a comeback.

In a CEI study in the mid 1990s, CEI adjunct scholar R.J. Smith succinctly stated the issue when he wrote:

Why are some species disappearing and others thriving? In those cases where human activity has contributed to species declines, it is clear that the problem of overexploitation or overharvesting is a result of the resources being under public rather than private ownership. Wherever we have public ownership we find overuse, waste, and extinction; but private ownership results in sustained-yield use and preservation.

FDA Tobacco Regulation Bill Tramples Free Speech, Advertisers Say

by Hans Bader on July 30, 2007 · 2 comments

in Economy, Healthcare, Legal, Precaution & Risk

Advertisers are objecting to the bill that would subject the tobacco industry to FDA regulation, saying that its restrictions on tobacco advertising would violate the Supreme Court’s ruling striking down tobacco advertising restrictions in Lorillard Tobacco v. Reilly (2001).

They also claim that it would set a bad precedent for advertising restrictions in other industries.

There are many other objections to the bill, such as the fact that it would make it harder to sell smokeless tobacco to cigarette smokers, even though smokeless tobacco is less dangerous than cigarettes and less likely to cause cancer.

Google Demands Fairness, When Convenient

by Cord Blomquist on July 30, 2007

in Tech & Telecom

Google’s Policy Blog today makes a succinct argument for why its purchase of DoubleClick should be approved. While I find their reasoning compelling and logical–in fact, I don’t think any justification should be necessary–I find it hard to be sympathetic to a plea for fairness when Google is asking DC to stack the deck in its favor on other issues.

Example: Google has issued an ultimatum to the FCC, asking it to offer up the 700 Mhz spectrum–the radio waves that will be free when TVs switch over to digital in 2009–with conditions attached.  These conditions make all potential bidders conform to Google’s business model.

What other example in history do we have of a company actually demanding strings be attached to an FCC auction such as this? If anyone can think of such an example I encourage you to comment. As far as I know, this is totally unprecedented.

And why ask the FCC to place limits on something you plan to buy? That seems a little odd. Unless you want to reduce the value of the spectrum to competitors that operate under different models.

What about these other models? More on that later when I discuss the idea of ‘openess’ in a post later today.

These types of restrictions are just political games, which Google doesn’t like when they prevent Larry and Sergey from making an aquisition or collecting different kinds of data. Yet the same political maneuvering is just fine when the men of Moutain View can use hapless regulators to make a mint at the public’s expense.

Hat Tip: John Battelle’s Searchblog

← Previous Entries

Next Entries →