Hard News: "Rubbish" is putting it politely
181 Responses
First ←Older Page 1 … 3 4 5 6 7 8 Newer→ Last
-
Not dissing you, just curious as to why creative people feel that society owes them a life-long income that is denied to all others unless they've got some financial nous.
I think it's more about creatives figuring out how they can have a place in society that enables them to do the regular things like have a family, buy a house or even rent one, afford healthcare etc and live a creative life as well. The days when an artist, writer, songwriter could live cheaply in a bach with a decent fruit & vege garden a la Frank Sargeson, or find a cheap old house to live in with space to do your thing, are long gone. In that scenario, it was workable to have a part time or seasonal job so you had the TIME to create.
We used to have more potters per capita here than in Japan, a traditional stronghold of pottery. That all went with cheap imports. The potter who, 25 years ago, could make an income from selling coffee mugs and still have time for original "art" work, simply can't do that now.
The painting or book you see is the final 10% of the work the artist has put in. It doesn't come out of the ether and appear by magic. There's alot of looking - *seeing* - listening, reading, plus whatever else stokes your fire, maybe walking, fishing, photography, that is all part of your process. And all those things are time-hungry.
Our cheapo-consumerism means folks want to purchase at the cheapest price, they don't give a rat's about whether the artist will live another day. i pay my mechanic $45 an hour for his labour to fix my car. If artists charged out at that rate, there'd be bugger all left.
-
__ most recent McCain-Palin madness__
How about this one. Yikes!
I'm not sure if it's the same interview, but apparently there's an exchange that goes:
Couric: "What lessons have you learned from Iraq, and what specifically would you do to spread democracy around the world?"
Palin: "Specifically, I think we should work to spread democracy around the world."
Yikes, indeed.
As was pointed out to me on another forum, some of Palin's answers when being interviewed are disturbingly similar to this one.
-
You are confused that is the limit of a campaign backing a party, for a single MP the limit is $1000.
That still buys an awful lot of flyers to distribute around Te Atatu (since you couldn't really regard any flyers distributed *outside* Chris Carter's electorate as being part of a campaign for the electorate vote).
I'd very much doubt that they'd got anywhere near that number.
-
Ah yes, that Hitler chap.
In addition, his regular methamphetamine use and possible sleep deprivation in the last, highly stressful period of his life must be factored into any speculation as to the cause of his possible psychotic symptoms as these two activities are known to trigger psychotic reactions in some individuals.
Who needs the Listener when we have Wikipedia
-
Ah yes, that Hitler chap.
Inhuman interest stories.
-
Feh.... remember folks, Tigh-Roslin '08 or else.
-
Note for Aucklanders:
First Presidential debate: Triangle TV, 10:30pm SundaySky had it 5pm this afternoon via their Fox News network.
-
First Presidential debate: Triangle TV, 10:30pm Sunday
Sky had it 5pm this afternoon via their Fox News network.
Sky had it live on CNN at 1.30 or thereabouts.
-
First Presidential debate: Triangle TV, 10:30pm Sunday
Sky had it 5pm this afternoon via their Fox News network.
Sky had it live on CNN at 1.30 or thereabouts.
I don't understand why anyone would want to watch it, except as a form of political masochism.
-
I don't understand why anyone would want to watch it, except as a form of political masochism.
There is that. Plus it was a really good debate, in which the candidates had ample opportunity to talk and make their cases. The best I've seen, I think.
-
3410,
Sky had it live on CNN at 1.30 or thereabouts.
Should've read "Note to poor Aucklanders". :)
-
Should've read "Note to poor Aucklanders". :)
Is Triangle free to air? Cool.
-
3410,
It is, Giovanni, but I got my info wrong. It's tonight.
-
3410,
Apologies for the bum tip (it would've helped if TriTV had had any info on their schedule or website about it). If it's any consolation, the debate was far from unmissable. McCain performed surprisingly well, considering. I'll give him a points decision.
-
This thread is like, so gay.
I grant you all 2,000 dollars to spend on the study of genitalia. I'm off right now to check some ....
-
Bloody hell.
I've blown my 2,000 already.
-
McCain performed surprisingly well, considering. I'll give him a points decision.
Oh, I wouldn't be so generous -- with the caveat that I've not watching the whole thing. The funny thing is that these debates don't exactly play to Obama's strengths (though I don't consider "nuance" a dirty word), he was direct but civil. McCain came off looking like a condescending arse. And I personally think the dicking around about whether McCain was going to show up at all was another Hail Mary strategy he fumbled.
It's going to be interesting seeing the "media narrative" that forms, because they tend to be more important than the debate itself -- which I suspect is watched more by partisans and politics junkies than swing voters.
-
And while I love sneering at the American media as much as the next person, when are TVNZ and Three going to grow a pair and call bullshit on this:
Helen Clark and John Key are refusing to share the stage with other party leaders during the election campaign.
The two have jointly agreed not to appear on TV3 and TVNZ with all the other party leaders.
[...]
Miss Clark and Mr Key will appear in two separate head to head debates and TV3 and TVNZ have jointly written to the two leaders asking them to reconsider on the MMP debate, however they have declined.
Well, here's a suggestion -- put forward a schedule and tell both Key and Clark that (of course) they're perfectly entitled to decline to participate, but empty podiums will be put on the stage, and viewers will be told why at regular intervals.
-
3410,
Oh, I wouldn't be so generous
Depends what's being measured. I guess I'm judging it on how swing voters might react, rather than on outright performance. In that sense, I'm thinking that some of the Repubs who might've been beginning to see McCain as a doddery, blundering, opportunist, could well have been somewhat reassured by his not-disastrous performance.
when are TVNZ and Three going to grow a pair and call bullshit on this:[?]
Absolutely. Can't quite understand why the networks have not just said "Hey, we're just going to do it the old, fair way. If you want to show up, you're welcome; if not, it's your loss."?
-
I guess I'm judging it on how swing voters might react, rather than on outright performance.
All the polls of independent voters taken before and after the debate, not to mention during (those who watched on CNN would have had reason to scream "The Worm! The Worm! Peter Dunne is going to be elected president of the United States!") suggest the exact opposite. Including the focus group polled by Fox News.
-
Sorry, I should have perhaps clarified. What all these polls show is that Obama won the debate hands down among the group that supposedly counted - leaners and undecideds. It was a rout.
-
3410,
What all these polls show is that Obama won the debate hands down among the group that supposedly counted - leaners and undecideds.
Glad to hear it. I guess that makes me a maverick. ;)
-
The Worm! The Worm!
Heh. I liked watching the reflexive Pavlovian uptick when either candidate said 'our troops'.
-
I'm not a pundit of US elections, and whilst I am interested in the outcome of this one, I can't be bothered with all the debates and to-ing and fro-ing of the candidates, so can someone clarify something for me, please? Considering what I have read, which would indicate that Americans are somewhat interested in change, and quite alot of them are sick of what's been going on the last 8 years, how come this Sarah Palin is looking quite popular, with some parts of the voting community? Does she not quite like drilling for oil, and making people have babies they don't want, and other such things that the Bush administration seem to have pushed on their public for god knows how long? Does she not subscribe to the same sort of policies as the incumbent? In which case, why is this woman the next big thing? Or do I not understand the etymology of the word "change??
-
And what makes your work so much more important than creative work that you should get paid and copyright creators shouldn't?
I don't recall saying that the creators shouldn't get paid. My objection is in no way related to their remuneration. Goodness knows I wouldn't do my job for free. But I don't expect to get paid for it forever, unless I do it forever. I definitely don't expect my grandchildren to be getting paid for the work I'm doing today, but that's what's being demanded every time a term extension is granted.
Once upon a time, copyright was for 14 years, with a renewal right of a further 14 if the author was actually still alive. That's fair. That's reasonable. I can live with something being tied up in a monopoly that's a fraction of the average human lifespan. What riles me is this insistence that a) artists have a right to be paid forever, when no other occupation offers such a luxury, and b) that it's not the creators like Islander who actually benefit from the ludicrous terms currently on offer. The big-time artists, like Metallica, get zero sympathy from me if, in 20 years' time, they've spent all the millions of dollars they currently earn. Likewise John Grisham or J.K. Rowling. They're wildly successful now, and thoroughly raking it in, so why should copyright be the pension plan for them that doesn't exist for other sections of the modern workforce?
For the minor creators, if they cannot survive on what they make now, what would suddenly change in 30 years' time to make a work a viable income stream? It's a rare painter who's getting large sums while they're alive, and the few who make it in their lifetimes are subject to my caveat above regarding financial (mis)management.Short version is, if they can't live off it now they're unlikely to be able to live off it in 20-30 years, which was the original duration of copyright. If they can survive on their earnings now, why should they be placed in a better future position than minimum-wage earners and others who can live on what they earn now but cannot accumulate any kind of buffer? For the ones who make it big, society doesn't owe them any kind of future duty if they're incapable of managing their money wisely. We expect everyone else to look after their finances.
Post your response…
This topic is closed.