Latest news with #JoniMitchell
![[Jeffrey Frankel] Foreign aid, now missed](/_next/image?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwimg.heraldcorp.com%2Fnews%2Fcms%2F2025%2F05%2F28%2Fnews-p.v1.20250528.f81ef46e2593499194675b6150ee5887_T1.jpg&w=3840&q=100)
![[Jeffrey Frankel] Foreign aid, now missed](/_next/image?url=https%3A%2F%2Fall-logos-bucket.s3.amazonaws.com%2Fkoreaherald.com.png&w=48&q=75){kind=small}
Korea Herald
4 days ago
- Business
- Korea Herald
[Jeffrey Frankel] Foreign aid, now missed
'Don't it always seem to go, that you don't know what you've got 'til it's gone.' When Joni Mitchell sang that line in 1970, she was lamenting the destruction of the environment, but the sentiment applies to many issues. Today, we can add official development assistance to the list. For some 80 years, the United States spent more on humanitarian assistance, economic development programs and other types of foreign aid than any other government. In the 2023 fiscal year, the US government disbursed $72 billion, with much more coming from private NGOs and individual citizens. But the US does not spend the most as a share of its income: by that measure, the US contributes just 0.24 percent — a quarter of what northern European countries give — putting it in 24th place globally. Moreover, foreign aid accounts for just 1 percent of total US government spending — a far cry from the 25 percent many Americans believe the US allocates. Many Americans, including some prominent scholars, believe that foreign aid has a negligible impact, with some, such as Dambisa Moyo and William Easterly, arguing that it does more harm than good. Critics highlight examples of misguided aid programs falling prey to mismanagement, government overreach, or corruption, including Vietnam in the 1960s, Zaire in the 1980s and Afghanistan in the 2000s. While some economists, such as Paul Collier, insist that foreign aid is useful — especially when certain conditions are met — the dominant message seems to be that foreign aid is suspect. But now foreign aid is gone, or at least going fast. Soon after US President Donald Trump returned to the White House, his administration — and, in particular, his unelected billionaire crony Elon Musk — began frantically dismantling the US Agency for International Development. Almost immediately, reports began flooding in: what was being defunded were often life-saving, high-return projects. Since George W. Bush launched the President's Emergency Plan for AIDS Relief in 2003, the program has saved millions of lives from HIV and AIDS, especially in Africa. The President's Malaria Initiative has prevented two billion cases of malaria over the last 20 years, and halved the mortality rate. Gavi, the Vaccine Alliance, which receives US government support, has vaccinated more than a billion children against measles, diphtheria, tetanus, whooping cough and other potentially fatal diseases, preventing an estimated 19 million deaths. Polio has been eliminated in all but two countries, and smallpox has been eliminated everywhere. These efforts have contributed to a steep decline in child mortality globally: today, 4 percent of children die before their fifth birthday, compared to 40 percent a century ago. Foreign aid also enabled the development and diffusion of improved crop varieties, as well as synthetic fertilizers, new pesticides and modern irrigation, in the second half of the twentieth century. This so-called Green Revolution in agriculture doubled cereal crop yields in Asia; enabled many countries, such as India, to become self-sufficient in food; and raised incomes in many developing economies. This contributed to a reduction in infant mortality by 2-5 percentage points, from a baseline of 18 percent, in the developing world. The US Marshall Plan achieved spectacular success in helping European economies recover from World War II, and in laying the groundwork for 80 years of relative global peace and prosperity. More recently, foreign aid has played a pivotal role in enabling Ukraine to withstand the worst attack on a European country's sovereign territory in the postwar era. The US reaps massive benefits from the aid it provides. One need only recall the COVID-19 pandemic to see that participation in global health initiatives is not pure charity, especially when it comes to infectious diseases like Ebola, HIV/AIDS and Tuberculosis. More fundamentally, international assistance has been a pillar of US soft power. And that soft power has been at least as important as military might in sustaining US global leadership since the Cold War. But now the Trump administration is assiduously undermining it — to China's benefit, no doubt. The effect of foreign aid on economic growth is difficult to quantify because so many other causal factors are involved. Moreover, much of US aid is designed to advance political or military objectives. The top recipients of US foreign aid, after Ukraine, are Israel, Jordan and Egypt. Nonetheless, we know that reduced morbidity and mortality, and improved nutrition, can boost an economy's performance. It thus stands to reason that foreign aid is a contributor to development, even if not the most important one. The US undoubtedly benefits from having more developed, higher-performing trading and commercial partners. Why, then, has the pessimistic view of foreign aid dominated public discourse for so long? One explanation is that the pessimistic view of everything has prevailed for years. A 2018 survey showed that a substantial majority of people in rich countries believed that the child mortality rate in poor countries had either risen or stayed the same over the previous 20 years; in fact, child mortality had been halved. And a whopping 80 percent of people in rich countries believed that the share of people in extreme poverty had either plateaued or risen, even though it fell steeply from 1990 to 2013. If people are so wrong about these trends, how can they possibly know about the role foreign aid played in driving them? Of course, foreign aid has its flaws and limitations, including instances of inefficiency, mismanagement, or unintended side effects. But whatever the limitations of foreign aid in the past, it is clear that Trump's destructive approach is making things far worse. Jeffrey Frankel is a professor of capital formation and growth at Harvard University. The views expressed here are the writer's own. — Ed.
CBC
4 days ago
- Entertainment
- CBC
How Neil Young, Joni Mitchell and more disabled artists changed music
From unique guitar chords to sign singing, we explore the innovations of disabled musicians Cripping is a term used by disabled people to reclaim how they see themselves. As Eliza Chandler, an associate professor at TMU's School fo Disability Studies writes,"animated by the experiences of living in a world that does not typically desire us, or even imagine us as cultural participants, disability arts specifically mobilizes a disruptive politic.... the disability arts community doesn't want to be included in an ableist world/culture, we want to create something new. This disruptive politic comes through the word 'crip.'" When it comes to music, an industry that often treats disabled musicians and spectators alike as an afterthought, they've taken matters into their own hands. In a co-production between CBC Music, CBC Creator Network and AccessCBC, composer, performer and comedian James Hamilton takes viewers through the different ways disabled musicians have innovated, or "cripped," music. "Disabled musicians, by simply existing and being artists, can radically change the music world as we know it. This can be in the concert form, musical content, new technologies, or breaking down our definition of what music entails," Hamilton says in the introduction. Two such musicians are Joni Mitchell and Neil Young, who were both disabled by the polio epidemic that swept Canada in the 1950s. After losing some of the mobility in her hands, Mitchell changed the tuning on her guitar to make it easier to play, and simultaneously changed the sound of the chords, leading to her signature "jazzy" guitar sound. Young recorded his 1972 album, Harvest, in a back brace after an accident on his ranch in the Santa Cruz mountains. The restrictive apparatus could have led to his "more mellow and minimalistic style," limiting his ability to play guitar and sing. More recently, ASL rapper Sean Forbes is popularizing sign-rapping with his songs like Watch These Hands, and Toronto-based composer Stephanie Orlando is writing music with neurodivergent listeners in mind. Both are making space for more diverse music audiences. Watch the video above for more insights into the myriad ways people are "cripping music."
Yahoo
24-05-2025
- Automotive
- Yahoo
EDITORIAL: Rochester should relax its rules on parking minimums
May 24—Joni Mitchell sang that they "paved paradise and put up a parking lot." A little more of paradise will be spared from the steamroller, if the Rochester City Council greenlights a proposal to reduce minimum parking capacity requirements for new apartment buildings in the city. Reporter Randy Petersen described the situation in his in-depth report in last weekend's edition. He found that, in this case at least, developers, new urbanists, and, well, paradise-lovers have a common goal: not to build excess parking just for the sake of meeting some arbitrary standard. The old standard, prior to 2022 when the city implemented its Universal Development Code, called for a minimum of one parking spot per studio or one-bedroom apartment, 1.5 spaces per two-bedroom apartment, two spaces per three-bedroom apartment, and three spaces per four-bedroom apartment. But what if an apartment's developer doesn't expect that many of its tenants will have cars? Just consider the cost of car ownership. A pretty basic ride, a 2025 Toyota Corolla, costs about $24,000. With dealer financing, the monthly payment on a five-year loan comes to $564. Add to that the cost of insurance, registration and gas (to say nothing of the hidden cost of depreciation) — and further, add to that the cost to rent a parking space — and the price of convenient, individual transportation easily tops $1,000 per month. That's money that can be put to a lot of rideshares. So, it's easy to see how Nathan Hoover, one resident whom Randy interviewed, says he gets along fine without a car, even when life calls for a trip to the grocery store or a Target run. And Nathan is not alone. Rochester is becoming a bigger city, with all the attendant concerns about congestion. Other, larger cities have already come to grips with the fact that their regulations were impeding smarter development, and Minneapolis, St. Paul and Duluth already have done away with parking minimums, as Rochester soon might. Even a small city like Northfield has taken the step. You might ask: If there are no parking minimums, what's to stop unscrupulous developers from building apartment structures without any parking? Will my neighborhood's streets be clogged with parked cars from a nearby high-rise? The answer lies in the relationship between developers and the lenders who finance their projects. A lender won't extend credit to a project that, due to a lack of amenities, shapes up to be a failure. And the truth is, that even though many people might find it reasonable to live without owning a car, still more — the majority of people — still do. They will expect the convenience of available parking. That's a strong safeguard against dereliction. We favor the goal of having the city move to eliminate parking requirements, if not immediately, at least gradually. And that's not all. We also find merit in the city's efforts to extend the availability and reach of public transportation, and to improve the ever-growing network of public facilities including bike lanes and pedestrian routes, because as more people choose to forego car ownership, those services and facilities will be in greater demand. Does all of this mean that Rochester is setting itself up to become the paradise that Joni sang of? We wouldn't go that far, but it's hard to argue that it isn't a step in the right direction.
Business Times
23-05-2025
- Business
- Business Times
Foreign aid looks good now that it's gone
[CAMBRIDGE] 'Don't it always seem to go, that you don't know what you've got 'til it's gone.' When Joni Mitchell sang that line in 1970, she was lamenting the destruction of the environment, but the sentiment applies to many issues. Today, we can add official development assistance (ODA) to the list. For some 80 years, the United States spent more on humanitarian assistance, economic development programmes, and other types of foreign aid than any other government. In the 2023 fiscal year, the US government disbursed US$72 billion, with much more coming from private non-governmental organisations and individual citizens. But the US does not spend the most as a share of its income: by that measure, the US contributes just 0.24 per cent – a quarter of what northern European countries give – putting it in 24th place globally. Moreover, foreign aid accounts for just 1 per cent of total US government spending – a far cry from the 25 per cent many Americans believe the US allocates. Many Americans, including some prominent scholars, believe that foreign aid has a negligible impact, with some, such as Dambisa Moyo and William Easterly, arguing that it does more harm than good. Critics highlight examples of misguided aid programmes falling prey to mismanagement, government overreach, or corruption, including Vietnam in the 1960s, Zaire in the 1980s, and Afghanistan in the 2000s. While some economists, such as Paul Collier, insist that foreign aid is useful – especially when certain conditions are met – the dominant message seems to be that foreign aid is suspect. But now foreign aid is gone, or at least going fast. Soon after US President Donald Trump returned to the White House, his administration – and, in particular, his unelected billionaire crony Elon Musk – began frantically dismantling the US Agency for International Development (USAid). Almost immediately, reports began flooding in: what was being defunded were often life-saving, high-return projects. Since George W Bush launched the President's Emergency Plan for Aids Relief in 2003, the programme has saved millions of lives from HIV and Aids, especially in Africa. The former president's Malaria Initiative has prevented two billion cases of malaria over the last 20 years, and halved the mortality rate. BT in your inbox Start and end each day with the latest news stories and analyses delivered straight to your inbox. Sign Up Sign Up Gavi, the Vaccine Alliance, which receives US government support, has vaccinated more than a billion children against measles, diphtheria, tetanus, whooping cough, and other potentially fatal diseases, preventing an estimated 19 million deaths. Polio has been eliminated in all but two countries, and smallpox has been eliminated everywhere. These efforts have contributed to a steep decline in child mortality globally: today, 4 per cent of children die before their fifth birthday, compared to 40 per cent a century ago. Foreign aid also enabled the development and diffusion of improved crop varieties, as well as synthetic fertilisers, new pesticides, and modern irrigation, in the second half of the 20th century. This so-called Green Revolution in agriculture doubled cereal crop yields in Asia; enabled many countries, such as India, to become self-sufficient in food; and raised incomes in many developing economies. This contributed to a reduction in infant mortality by two to five percentage points, from a baseline of 18 per cent, in the developing world. The US Marshall Plan achieved spectacular success in helping European economies recover from World War II, and in laying the groundwork for 80 years of relative global peace and prosperity. More recently, foreign aid has played a pivotal role in enabling Ukraine to withstand the worst attack on a European country's sovereign territory in the postwar era. The US reaps massive benefits from the aid it provides. One need only recall the Covid-19 pandemic to see that participation in global health initiatives is not pure charity, especially when it comes to infectious diseases such as Ebola, HIV/Aids, and TB. More fundamentally, international assistance – including for causes such as disaster relief and support for human rights and democracy – has been a pillar of US soft power. And that soft power has been at least as important as military might – which costs far more to maintain – in sustaining US global leadership since the Cold War. But now the Trump administration is assiduously undermining it – to China's benefit, no doubt. The effect of foreign aid on economic growth is difficult to quantify, because so many other causal factors are involved. Moreover, much of US aid is designed to advance political or military objectives. The top recipients of US foreign aid, after Ukraine, are Israel, Jordan, and Egypt. Nonetheless, we know that reduced morbidity and mortality, and improved nutrition, can boost an economy's performance. It thus stands to reason that foreign aid is a contributor to development, even if not the most important one. The US undoubtedly benefits from having more developed, higher-performing trading and commercial partners. Why, then, has the pessimistic view of foreign aid dominated public discourse for so long? One explanation is that the pessimistic view of everything – especially what governments do – has prevailed for years. A 2018 survey showed that a substantial majority of people in rich countries believed that the child-mortality rate in poor countries had either risen or stayed the same over the previous 20 years; in fact, child mortality had been halved. And a whopping 80 per cent of people in rich countries believed that the share of people in extreme poverty had either plateaued or risen, even though it fell steeply from 1990 to 2013. If people are so wrong about these trends, how can they possibly know about the role foreign aid played in driving them? Of course, foreign aid has its flaws and limitations, including instances of inefficiency, mismanagement, or unintended side effects. But whatever the limitations of foreign aid in the past, it is clear that Trump's destructive approach is making things far worse. PROJECT SYNDICATE The writer is professor of capital formation and growth at Harvard University and served as a member of president Bill Clinton's Council of Economic Advisers. He is a research associate at the US National Bureau of Economic Research.
Global News
18-05-2025
- Entertainment
- Global News
We could soon end up with a new definition of Canadian content for music. Here's why
A long overdue CRTC review of the Canadian content rules has begun. The outcome will affect music, radio, and both audio and video streaming. Radio, for example, is working under many regulations that have been in place since 1971. There have been a few tweaks along the way, but no Cancon review has been done in the age of streaming. It's time for a serious update. Cancon has been both helpful and controversial, and it's instructive to know a little of its history. Before 1970, there wasn't much of a music industry in Canada compared with many other countries. We had almost zero music infrastructure. Most record labels were branch-plant operations of foreign labels, while domestic companies were small and struggling. We didn't have much in the way of recording studios, producers, promoters or managers. Globally speaking, we were a musical backwater. Any Canadian artist who wanted to make it big knew they had to leave. Neil Young, Joni Mitchell, Paul Anka, Leonard Cohen and other promising stars bolted for the United States. Story continues below advertisement But things had started to change within the culture. In 1965, we got our own flag, shrugging off an important part of British colonialism. Then came Expo 67 in Montreal, which had the interesting effect of raising our pride when it came to our culture. There were more discussions about what it meant to be Canadian. One point of agreement was that for a distinct Canadian identity to exist, Canadians needed to be able to tell their stories to each other. One way to do that is through music. And if Canada was to ever produce its own Beatles, much work needed to be done. After much lobbying, the Canadian content rules for radio went into effect on Jan. 18, 1971. The original demands was that 30 per cent of all music on the radio had to be of Canadian origin (more on that in a moment). Get daily National news Get the day's top news, political, economic, and current affairs headlines, delivered to your inbox once a day. Sign up for daily National newsletter Sign Up By providing your email address, you have read and agree to Global News' Terms and Conditions and Privacy Policy First, this was a cultural strategy that gave mandatory exposure for Canadian artists who made the grade. Second, this was an industrial strategy designed to create a domestic infrastructure of record labels, recording studios, promoters, venues, managers, national booking agencies — all those things that you need to support music on a nationwide scale. The radio's needs created a demand. A new market was born. Radio hated the new rules because initially, a lot of the music it was forced to play was objectively substandard compared with international releases. But over the next decade, we caught up. By the time the '90s arrived, Canada had a robust domestic music scene and was exporting far more material to the rest of the world than a country of our population had a right to. Things were so good that Cancon levels for radio were boosted to 35 per cent. Some new radio stations promised 40 per cent. Story continues below advertisement Then the internet arrived. Traditional terrestrial radio stations were now in competition with the whole world, especially after streaming arrived in the late aughts. (TV, which also has its own Cancon rules, also faced increasing competition from American cable channels and streamers.) Yet the rules from 1971 remained unchanged. There was a big push for reform in 2005, but all the suggestions put forward by the radio industry were either watered down or dismissed entirely. Meanwhile, the entertainment and media landscape continued to rapidly evolve. There have been attempts to alter the status quo, most notably with the Online Streaming Act, otherwise known as Bill C-11, which wants streamers to pony up five per cent investment into Canadian culture once they do $25 million worth of business in the country. The streamers and major labels are vehemently against this. Meanwhile, Canadian radio continues to pump millions into Canadian talent development and promotion. 0:31 Liberals' online streaming Bill C-11 set to become law after passing final vote in the Senate A starting point for these new hearings is modifying the bureaucratic definition of Cancon. As it stands, we use the MAPL system, which assigns a point to a song if (a) the music was written by a Canadian, (b) the artist is Canadian and (c) the lyrics are written by a Canadian. Story continues below advertisement The 'P' in this system is problematic. It does not stand for 'producer' like you'd expect. Instead, involves a convoluted issue involving a live recording made in Canada and then broadcast to the world. There are many of us in the industry (including me) who want 'P' to be converted to producer. Given the role a producer plays in the making of music, they deserve credit. Canada also has produced many, many superstar producers, including Bob Ezerin (Pink Floyd, Kiss, Alice Cooper), Bob Rock (Metallica, Aerosmith, Bon Jovi), Garth Richardson (Rage Against the Machine, Chevelle, Rise Against) and Gavin Brown (Three Days Grace, Billy Talent, Mother Mother). Shouldn't their contributions be recognized as a part of a song's Canadianness? I think so. What else could be changed? What about giving extra credit to radio stations that go out on a limb by playing new, unfamiliar artists? Another option is to give classic rock and classic hits stations a break on their Cancon load. After all, they're not making old music anymore, so to hit that 35 per cent quota, their playlists are filled with burned-out songs by the Guess Who, BTO, Rush, Neil Young and so on. Bill C-11 needs to be examined carefully so that terrestrial radio isn't alone when it comes to financial support of Canadian music. The outcome of this new two-week set of hearings got off to a rocky start last Tuesday when Netflix, Paramount and Apple all decided not to appear at the last minute. Music Canada, the lobby group for the major labels, is also on record as opposing much of what's in Bill C-11. Story continues below advertisement If you'd like to view the hearings, which will continue for the rest of the month, you can watch them online.
