Home » Archives by category » News » Politics (Page 1168)
Chloé names new creative director

Paris fashion label says the Birmingham-born former Pringle designer will replace fellow Briton Hannah MacGibbon in June The Paris fashion label Chloé, whose previous designers have included Karl Lagerfeld and Stella McCartney, has announced that Clare Waight Keller, who was responsible for updating the Pringle of Scotland brand, will take over as creative director. She will replace fellow Briton Hannah MacGibbon, who has worked at the fashion house for ten years and has been creative director since 2008. Chloé, which is owned by Compagnie Financière Richemont, said MacGibbon was leaving to pursue “new projects”. Born in Birmingham, Waight Keller was appointed creative director of Pringle in 2005 and charged with turning it from a heritage label into a modern luxury brand. She resigned in March after a successful six-year run with the label, where she oversaw the menswear and womenswear collections and worked on collaborations with the likes of Tilda Swinton. She has established herself as a talent able to combine craft with modern shapes. With an MA in fashion knitwear from the Royal College of Art, she has worked at Gucci under Tom Ford, Ralph Lauren and Calvin Klein and begins work at Chloé on 1 June. Despite mixed reviews, MacGibbon had begun to turn Chloé’s image around with a mix of 1970s-influenced sportswear and minimalism, including wide trousers and silk blouses. In March 2010 MacGibbon, along with her former Chloé boss Phoebe Philo (currently head of design at Céline) and McCartney, were widely celebrated for pioneering an influential new look: feminine minimalism. MacGibbon’s tenure was seen as a marked improvement on the seasons by the Swedish designer Paulo Melim Andersson, who left after Philo in 2006. But the label, despite a recent successful fragrance launch, has failed to replicate the success of the Philo years, which included stellar sales and hits such as 2002′s Paddington bag. Chloé’s chief executive, Geoffroy de La Bourdonnaye, said MacGibbon’s “considerable talents will be missed”. In a short statement MacGibbon added: “I will always have a deep affection for Chloé and am very grateful to the company for having given me this opportunity.” During the Paris autumn/winter womenswear shows in March, rumours circulated that the label was not planning to renew the designer’s contract, and had even interviewed replacement designers. As yet no one has claimed the top job at Christian Dior after John Galliano was fired over his alleged racist and antisemitic outbursts. Sarah Burton of Alexander McQueen, the designer of Kate Middleton’s wedding dress, is the latest designer thought to be in the frame. Balmain has also recently replaced its head designer. Fashion Fashion designers France Europe Simon Chilvers guardian.co.uk

Continue reading …
Chloé names new creative director

Paris fashion label says the Birmingham-born former Pringle designer will replace fellow Briton Hannah MacGibbon in June The Paris fashion label Chloé, whose previous designers have included Karl Lagerfeld and Stella McCartney, has announced that Clare Waight Keller, who was responsible for updating the Pringle of Scotland brand, will take over as creative director. She will replace fellow Briton Hannah MacGibbon, who has worked at the fashion house for ten years and has been creative director since 2008. Chloé, which is owned by Compagnie Financière Richemont, said MacGibbon was leaving to pursue “new projects”. Born in Birmingham, Waight Keller was appointed creative director of Pringle in 2005 and charged with turning it from a heritage label into a modern luxury brand. She resigned in March after a successful six-year run with the label, where she oversaw the menswear and womenswear collections and worked on collaborations with the likes of Tilda Swinton. She has established herself as a talent able to combine craft with modern shapes. With an MA in fashion knitwear from the Royal College of Art, she has worked at Gucci under Tom Ford, Ralph Lauren and Calvin Klein and begins work at Chloé on 1 June. Despite mixed reviews, MacGibbon had begun to turn Chloé’s image around with a mix of 1970s-influenced sportswear and minimalism, including wide trousers and silk blouses. In March 2010 MacGibbon, along with her former Chloé boss Phoebe Philo (currently head of design at Céline) and McCartney, were widely celebrated for pioneering an influential new look: feminine minimalism. MacGibbon’s tenure was seen as a marked improvement on the seasons by the Swedish designer Paulo Melim Andersson, who left after Philo in 2006. But the label, despite a recent successful fragrance launch, has failed to replicate the success of the Philo years, which included stellar sales and hits such as 2002′s Paddington bag. Chloé’s chief executive, Geoffroy de La Bourdonnaye, said MacGibbon’s “considerable talents will be missed”. In a short statement MacGibbon added: “I will always have a deep affection for Chloé and am very grateful to the company for having given me this opportunity.” During the Paris autumn/winter womenswear shows in March, rumours circulated that the label was not planning to renew the designer’s contract, and had even interviewed replacement designers. As yet no one has claimed the top job at Christian Dior after John Galliano was fired over his alleged racist and antisemitic outbursts. Sarah Burton of Alexander McQueen, the designer of Kate Middleton’s wedding dress, is the latest designer thought to be in the frame. Balmain has also recently replaced its head designer. Fashion Fashion designers France Europe Simon Chilvers guardian.co.uk

Continue reading …
Breitbart Claims That Bill Maher and Michael Eric Dyson Set Him up to Look Like a Racist on Real Time

Click here to view this media Well, C-SPAN decided not only to embarrass themselves by allowing Andrew Breitbart to come on their morning call-in show Washington Journal this week. They also decided to give him some fact free air time with Armstrong Williams as the interviewer of all people on their Book TV series and to be allowed to cry about how unfairly he was treated on Bill Maher’s show a couple of years ago and with heaven forbid anyone being allowed to paint him as a racist as Michael Eric Dyson did on that show. Breitbart of course thinks he can’t be painted as being a racist because he loves Clarence Thomas, which is about the equivalent of Stephen Colbert talking about his one black friend in his parodies on Comedy Central given Breitbart’s history of going after groups that support minorities and the powerless and those that want to make sure that heaven forbid black people in America still have the right to get registered and to vote. Breitbart is also apparently unable to comprehend the English language since he admits here that everything Dyson said during that interview on HBO went in one ear and out the other with being capable of understanding what was being said to him. And shame on C-SPAN for giving not only Breitbart, but someone like Williams air time where the viewers don’t know anything about Armstrong’s background with being a Bush sycophant . And for a little trip down memory lane as I took last year, here’s some of Breitbart’s appearance on Real Time that he was complaining about. See if you can follow along and understand the words that come out of Dyson’s mouth, because that was apparently too much for Breitbart’s brain to digest, but something he doesn’t have any trouble with doing some historical revisionism on now. I assume he thinks that there is no one who watched the show on HBO and his appearance with Dyson that also watches C-SPAN or that possibly recorded both because his rewriting of what went down during that obnoxious interview on HBO during this Book TV interview is almost comical. Shame on C-SPAN for allowing this garbage to be broadcast on their airways. Click here to view this media

Continue reading …
Breitbart Claims That Bill Maher and Michael Eric Dyson Set Him up to Look Like a Racist on Real Time

Click here to view this media Well, C-SPAN decided not only to embarrass themselves by allowing Andrew Breitbart to come on their morning call-in show Washington Journal this week. They also decided to give him some fact free air time with Armstrong Williams as the interviewer of all people on their Book TV series and to be allowed to cry about how unfairly he was treated on Bill Maher’s show a couple of years ago and with heaven forbid anyone being allowed to paint him as a racist as Michael Eric Dyson did on that show. Breitbart of course thinks he can’t be painted as being a racist because he loves Clarence Thomas, which is about the equivalent of Stephen Colbert talking about his one black friend in his parodies on Comedy Central given Breitbart’s history of going after groups that support minorities and the powerless and those that want to make sure that heaven forbid black people in America still have the right to get registered and to vote. Breitbart is also apparently unable to comprehend the English language since he admits here that everything Dyson said during that interview on HBO went in one ear and out the other with being capable of understanding what was being said to him. And shame on C-SPAN for giving not only Breitbart, but someone like Williams air time where the viewers don’t know anything about Armstrong’s background with being a Bush sycophant . And for a little trip down memory lane as I took last year, here’s some of Breitbart’s appearance on Real Time that he was complaining about. See if you can follow along and understand the words that come out of Dyson’s mouth, because that was apparently too much for Breitbart’s brain to digest, but something he doesn’t have any trouble with doing some historical revisionism on now. I assume he thinks that there is no one who watched the show on HBO and his appearance with Dyson that also watches C-SPAN or that possibly recorded both because his rewriting of what went down during that obnoxious interview on HBO during this Book TV interview is almost comical. Shame on C-SPAN for allowing this garbage to be broadcast on their airways. Click here to view this media

Continue reading …
Breitbart Claims That Bill Maher and Michael Eric Dyson Set Him up to Look Like a Racist on Real Time

Click here to view this media Well, C-SPAN decided not only to embarrass themselves by allowing Andrew Breitbart to come on their morning call-in show Washington Journal this week. They also decided to give him some fact free air time with Armstrong Williams as the interviewer of all people on their Book TV series and to be allowed to cry about how unfairly he was treated on Bill Maher’s show a couple of years ago and with heaven forbid anyone being allowed to paint him as a racist as Michael Eric Dyson did on that show. Breitbart of course thinks he can’t be painted as being a racist because he loves Clarence Thomas, which is about the equivalent of Stephen Colbert talking about his one black friend in his parodies on Comedy Central given Breitbart’s history of going after groups that support minorities and the powerless and those that want to make sure that heaven forbid black people in America still have the right to get registered and to vote. Breitbart is also apparently unable to comprehend the English language since he admits here that everything Dyson said during that interview on HBO went in one ear and out the other with being capable of understanding what was being said to him. And shame on C-SPAN for giving not only Breitbart, but someone like Williams air time where the viewers don’t know anything about Armstrong’s background with being a Bush sycophant . And for a little trip down memory lane as I took last year, here’s some of Breitbart’s appearance on Real Time that he was complaining about. See if you can follow along and understand the words that come out of Dyson’s mouth, because that was apparently too much for Breitbart’s brain to digest, but something he doesn’t have any trouble with doing some historical revisionism on now. I assume he thinks that there is no one who watched the show on HBO and his appearance with Dyson that also watches C-SPAN or that possibly recorded both because his rewriting of what went down during that obnoxious interview on HBO during this Book TV interview is almost comical. Shame on C-SPAN for allowing this garbage to be broadcast on their airways. Click here to view this media

Continue reading …
Breitbart Claims That Bill Maher and Michael Eric Dyson Set Him up to Look Like a Racist on Real Time

Click here to view this media Well, C-SPAN decided not only to embarrass themselves by allowing Andrew Breitbart to come on their morning call-in show Washington Journal this week. They also decided to give him some fact free air time with Armstrong Williams as the interviewer of all people on their Book TV series and to be allowed to cry about how unfairly he was treated on Bill Maher’s show a couple of years ago and with heaven forbid anyone being allowed to paint him as a racist as Michael Eric Dyson did on that show. Breitbart of course thinks he can’t be painted as being a racist because he loves Clarence Thomas, which is about the equivalent of Stephen Colbert talking about his one black friend in his parodies on Comedy Central given Breitbart’s history of going after groups that support minorities and the powerless and those that want to make sure that heaven forbid black people in America still have the right to get registered and to vote. Breitbart is also apparently unable to comprehend the English language since he admits here that everything Dyson said during that interview on HBO went in one ear and out the other with being capable of understanding what was being said to him. And shame on C-SPAN for giving not only Breitbart, but someone like Williams air time where the viewers don’t know anything about Armstrong’s background with being a Bush sycophant . And for a little trip down memory lane as I took last year, here’s some of Breitbart’s appearance on Real Time that he was complaining about. See if you can follow along and understand the words that come out of Dyson’s mouth, because that was apparently too much for Breitbart’s brain to digest, but something he doesn’t have any trouble with doing some historical revisionism on now. I assume he thinks that there is no one who watched the show on HBO and his appearance with Dyson that also watches C-SPAN or that possibly recorded both because his rewriting of what went down during that obnoxious interview on HBO during this Book TV interview is almost comical. Shame on C-SPAN for allowing this garbage to be broadcast on their airways. Click here to view this media

Continue reading …

Republicans are, of course, too busy pandering to their extremist fundamentalist base to actually do anything to help the millions of Americans who are still unemployed: Energized by Republican gains in the last election and still stinging from the passage of President Obama’s healthcare overhaul, conservative lawmakers in statehouses around the country have put forward a torrent of measures aimed at restricting abortion. The measures now under consideration in dozens of states reflect advances in technology and a political cycle that has reempowered a reliably antiabortion bloc — conservative Republicans — on the state and federal levels. Some proposed laws, drawing upon improvements in medical imaging, seek to shorten the window during which women may have an abortion, though states may not impose restrictions in the first trimester. Others focus on eliminating federal dollars for abortion providers such as Planned Parenthood. Even though it is illegal to use public funds for most abortions, some conservatives argue that any money given to an organization that provides abortions is subsidizing them, even if the public funds are spent on other services. In the first three months of 2011, legislators in 49 states introduced 916 measures related to reproductive issues, according to the Guttmacher Institute, a New York nonprofit research organization that supports abortion rights but is viewed by both sides of the debate as providing reliable statistics on the issue. More than half of the measures — 56% — seek to restrict abortion access. In 2010, Guttmacher said, only 38% of bills concerned with reproductive health sought to restrict abortion. (The others concern issues such as sex education, infant abandonment, stillbirth certificates and treatment of sexually transmitted diseases. Few initiatives are aimed at expanding access to reproductive health services, the institute said.) Fifteen of the bills introduced this year have been enacted into law, and more than 120 others have been approved by at least one legislative chamber. Don’t call them “pro life” because they’re not. They don’t care about war, capital punishment, health care and aid to poor families that help them feed themselves. Nope, none of that stuff. All they care about are little tiny fetuses and the fairy tales in their own minds.

Continue reading …
Magazine reveals life inside Apple

Fresh insight from US magazine shows that pared-down management structure and tight feedback loops make Steve Jobs’s thinking permeate the corporation An extraordinary picture of life within Apple, in which Steve Jobs is trying to create a “university” to teach incomers how the business makes decisions, keeps a “top 100″ coterie who are told key decisions ahead of time and bawls out entire teams for failures emerges from an article published in Fortune this week. The article (which is not yet online) indicates that Apple is driven by Jobs’s personality: “the creative process at Apple is one of constantly preparing someone – be it one’s boss, boss’s boss, or oneself – for a presentation to Jobs,” writes Adam Lashinsky, who calls him “a corporate dictator who makes every critical decision – and oddles of seemingly noncritical calls too”. One key element of the company that had not previously been disclosed is the existence of a “Top 100″, not necessarily based on seniority, who gather every year for a three-day session at a sequestered location – one without a golf course, at Jobs’s insistence. Attendees are discouraged from marking the dates on their calendar or discussing it. They get to see super-secret new products before anyone else; the iPod, unveiled ten years ago, was first shown off at one such meet. But Apple also runs an extremely tight ship, with tiny product groups; just two engineers were given the task of writing the code to convert the Safari browser to run on the iPad, a task that on its face seems like a huge undertaking that other companies such as Microsoft or Google might have devoted dozens of people to. Jobs’s reputation as a manager who takes no prisoners is reinforced with an anecdote from the time in 2008 when the relaunched MobileMe cloud service had significant outages. Jobs called the MobileMe team together to the Town Hall Auditorium on the campus. “Can anyone tell me what MobileMe is meant to do?” Jobs began. On getting a response describing it, he replied: “So why the fuck doesn’t it do that?” A 30-minute tirade followed – and a new person was put in overall charge of the group. (Many of the developers left the group soon afterwards.) Despite being on medical leave from the company, Jobs personally took charge of Apple’s response to “Locationgate”, over the revelation that iPhones and iPads retained a file which could effectively track the owner’s movements . The article is presently only available as a paid download via the Fortune app on Apple’s iTunes Store , or as an Amazon “single” costing 69 pence to be released on 10 May – though it will be published in full for free access online in time. The thinking behind that paywalled-for-a-period strategy is worth examining: Dan Roth, managing editor of Fortune Digital, told Peter Kafka at AllThingsD that “We’re trying to figure out the best way of releasing journalism online” – which means trying to monetise a high-interest story by keeping it paid-for over a limited period. Previously it couldn’t do this, but now that it can offer the iPad app to print subscribers for free (following a deal made with Apple), it can. “There was this feeling that we’re sort of pissing off our subscribers,” by publishing the magazine’s best stories on the Web, often before paying customers got their hands on them, [Roth] says. “The problem was there wasn’t anything we could have offered them before.” The article is fascinating, with in-depth analysis of Apple’s working based on dozens of interviews. A teaser post (” 6 things I never knew about Apple “) from Philip Elmer-DeWitt on Friday led to a burst of interest that has seen the article being written about repeatedly, despite not being online. Other information revealed in the article includes: • Every Monday the executive team holds a meeting which reviews the entire business progress and products under development – in which 80% will be unchanged from the previous week • Every Wednesday Jobs or Tim Cook, the chief operating officer, chairs a marketing and communications meeting • Responsibility is taken seriously: Jobs tells anyone who becomes one of the 70-odd vice-presidents in the company that there is no acceptable excuse for not getting things done; he contrasts that with a janitor who might not be able to get access to a key to unlock a door for work. • every executive action, product or project has a “DRI” – directly responsible individual – who carries the can (or laurels) for its outcome. • only the chief financial officer is reponsible for costs and expenses that translate into profit and loss; Jobs reckons that Sony, for example, has too many divisions to create a viable iPod, iPad or iPhone competitor – a view paraphrased as “it’s not synergy that makes [Apple] work, it’s that we’re a unified team.” • the “Jobs culture” extends through the company; everyone is meant to know what Jobs would think, so that they can do it without reference • Jobs wants to institutionalise his way of running and driving the business, and to that end has created an “Apple university” inside the company – for which he hired an academic, Joel Podolny, from Yale Management School in 2008. Commenting on the details in the article, Horace Dediu noted: “Podolny has been building an understanding of how Apple is run. He’s then been asked to codify this understanding into a curriculum that can be taught to Apple employees.” • Sometimes, the company spares no expense: it got the London Symphony Orchestra to record some samples used in its iMovie movie-making software; it sent a camera crew to Hawaii to film a wedding for a demo video, and then staged one in San Francisco using its own staff as guests, groom and wife • Walt Mossberg, the veteran computer writer and reviewer at the Wall Street Journal, is referred to by Jobs as “our friend” who was “no longer writing good things about us” after the MobileMe debacle. Comment: the question that many companies ask is: how could we get as profitable as Apple? How could we get as big as Apple? And how could we get as nimble as Apple (which has grown roughly 60% of its multi-billion-dollar revenues from two products, the iPhone and iPad, that it only started selling less than four years ago)? It seems like the answer might be: structure yourself more like Apple. The problem with companies that grow bigger is that they lose the ability to move like a startup. Apple, it must be said, has probably undergone every incarnation a company can – startup, successful ingenue, mismanaged flop, basket case, imminent bankrupt, recovery prospect, surprise hit, behemoth. It might be that some sort of business Darwinism has been going on inside it. But in that case, it’s even more useful for business people to know how it works – so they can reach the final point without dicing with the “bankrupt” stage. Apple Steve Jobs Charles Arthur guardian.co.uk

Continue reading …
The great corporate tax swindle

It’s astounding how our politicians have bought in to firms’ tax blackmail. But there is an alternative: workplace democracy More and more, we hear that nothing can be done to tax major corporations because of the threat of how they would respond. Likewise, we cannot stop their price-gouging or even the government subsidies and tax loopholes they enjoy. For example, as the oil majors reap stunning profits from high oil and gas prices, we are told it is impossible to tax their windfall profits or stop the billions they get in government subsidies and tax loopholes. There appears to be no way for the government to secure lower energy prices or seriously impose and enforce environmental protection laws. Likewise, despite high and fast-rising drug and medicine prices, we are told that it is impossible to raise taxes on pharmaceutical companies or have the government secure lower pharmaceutical prices. And so on. Such steps by “our” government are said to be impossible or inadvisable. The reason: corporations would then relocate production abroad or reduce their activities in the US or both. And that would deprive the US of taxes and lose more jobs. In plain English, major corporations are threatening us . We are to knuckle under and cut social programmes that benefit millions of people (such as college loan programmes, Medicaid, Medicare, social security, nutrition programmes, etc). We are not to demand higher taxes or reduced subsidies and tax loopholes for corporations. We are not to demand government action to lower their soaring prices. If we do, corporations will punish us. Three groups deliver these business threats to us. First, corporate spokespersons, their paid public relations flunkies, hand down the word from on high (corporate board rooms). Second, politicians afraid to offend their corporate sponsors repeat publicly what corporate spokespersons have emailed to them. Finally, various commentators explain the threats to us. These include the journalists lost in that ideological fog that always translates what corporations want into “common sense”. Commentators also include the professors who translate what corporations want into “economic science”. Of course, there are always two possible responses to any and all threats. One is to cave in, to be intimidated. That has often been the dominant “policy choice” of the US government. That’s why so many corporate tax loopholes exist, why the government does so little to limit price increases, why government does not constrain corporate relocation decisions, etc. No surprise there, since corporations have spent lavishly to support the political careers of so many current leaders. They expect those politicians to do what their corporate sponsors want. Just as important, they also expect those politicians to persuade people that its “best for us all” to cave in when corporations threaten us. What about the other possible response to threats? Government could make a different policy choice, define differently what is “best for us all”. In other words, it could persevere in the face of business threats, and to do so, it could counter-threaten the corporations. When major corporations threaten to cut or relocate production abroad in response to changes in their taxes and subsidies, or demands to cut their prices or serious enforcement of environmental protection rules, the US government could promise retaliation. Here’s a brief and partial list of how it might do that (with illustrative examples for the energy and pharmaceutical industries): • Inform such threatening businesses that the US government will shift its purchases to other enterprises. • Inform them that top officials will tour the US to urge citizens to follow the government’s example and shift their purchases as well. • Inform them that the government will proceed to finance and organise state-operated companies to compete directly with threatening businesses. • Immediately and strictly enforce all applicable rules governing health and safety conditions for workers, environmental protection laws, equal employment and advancement opportunity, etc. • Present and promote passage of new laws governing enterprise relocation (giving local, regional and national authorities power of veto over corporate relocation decisions). • Purchase energy and pharmaceutical outputs in bulk for mass resale to the US public, passing on all the savings from bulk purchases. • Seize assets of enterprises that seek to evade or frustrate increased taxes or reduced subsidies. Laws enabling such actions either already exist in the US or could be enacted. In other countries today, existing models of such laws have performed well, often for many years. These could be used and adjusted for US conditions. Of course, a much better basis than threat and counter-threat is available for sharing the costs of government between individuals and businesses. That basis would be achieved by a transition to an economic system where workers in each enterprise functioned collectively and democratically as their own board of directors. Such worker directed enterprises eliminate the basic split and conflict inside capitalist corporations between those who make the key business decisions (what, how and where to produce, for example) and those who must live with and most immediately depend on those decisions’ results (the mass of employees). One concrete example can illustrate the benefits of this alternative to the threat/counter-threat scenario. Corporations have used repeated threats (to cut or move production) as means to prevent tax increases and to secure tax reductions. Likewise, they have made the same threats to secure desired spending from the federal government (military expenditures, federal road and port building projects, subsidies, financial supports and so on). In effect, corporate boards of directors and major shareholders seek to shift tax burdens onto employees. Their success over the last half-century is clear. Tax receipts of the US government have increasingly come, first, from individual rather than corporate income taxes and, second, from middle and lower individual income groups rather than from the rich. In worker-directed enterprises, the incentive for such shifts would vanish – because the people who would be paying enterprise taxes are the same people who would be paying individual income taxes. Taxation would finally become genuinely democratic. The people would collectively decide how to distribute taxes on what would genuinely be their own businesses and their own individual incomes. Economics US taxation United States Economic policy Obama administration Public finance Equality Richard Wolff guardian.co.uk

Continue reading …
Rap homophobia: at a tipping point?

Tyler, the Creator and Lil B are the latest rappers to turn the spotlight on homophobia in hip-hop, but the attention their lyrics attracts suggests attitudes are slowly changing On the surface, the attitudes of LA collective Odd Future Wolf Gang Kill Them All and fellow Golden State compadre Lil B are polar opposites. The former trade in an adolescent misanthropy heavily flavoured with violent misogyny and homophobic slurs – to such an extent that even in a genre no stranger to either, the frequency with which Odd Future lean on the shock value of lines such as “Rape a pregnant bitch and tell my friends I had a threesome” and use of the word “faggot” is notable. On the other hand, Lil B caused a furore – and attracted death threats – last month when he announced his forthcoming album would be titled I’m Gay. Though the former Pack member is straight, it’s hardly out-of-character for a rapper who specialises in stream-of-consciousness surrealism. His penchant for blurring gender and sexuality lines is already well known, whether exclaiming “Damn, I’m a princess” mid-freestyle, referring to himself as a “pretty bitch” or throwing down the gauntlet to the biggest female rapper around: “Nicki Minaj, I’m the finest bitch out!” And with songs entitled I’m God , I Am the Ocean and I’m Paris Hilton , I’m Gay is less of a grand statement than it might appear. Thousands of words have been expended on Odd Future’s lyrical content and What It All Means since their rise to prominence over the past year, but only now – as lead member Tyler, the Creator gears up for the release of his second album Goblin – have they been pressed to explain themselves. Which, in recent interviews, Tyler has done in a particularly mealy-mouthed fashion. “I’m not homophobic,” he declared to NME last week. “I just think ‘faggot’ hits and hurts people.” It would appear that Tyler’s much-vaunted genius does not stretch to making a connection between these statements. Notwithstanding his inability to distinguish between active and cultural homophobia, though, it’s important to remember that Odd Future is not a monolith. Frank Ocean, their R&B associate, has penned a song with an explicitly pro-gay marriage slant : “I believe that marriage isn’t between a man and woman, but between love and love.” And the collective’s sound engineer, Syd tha Kyd , is an open lesbian whose response to the controversy is telling: “When I first started really fucking with Odd Future heavy, my dad was like, ‘Really? They talk about some crazy shit and as a female, you’re slapping a lot of women in the face.’ I’m like, ‘That’s what I do. I slap bitches.’” For Lil B’s part, one suspects he is motivated less by a desire to fight for oppressed minorities than just old-fashioned attention-seeking; announcing the title I’m Gay with the reasoning that “I’m gonna show y’all the words don’t mean shit” isn’t exactly on-message. It’s much the same argument that Tyler uses to excuse his own words; as professional lyricists, it’s unlikely that either Tyler or Lil B actually believes that words are meaningless, but what they both share is a faith in the malleability of words that perhaps makes the idea of entrenched connotations incomprehensible. But Lil B deserves plenty of kudos for refusing to back down, and indeed standing even more strongly, when asked to ally himself with the gay community, declaring himself outright to be “a supporter of GLAAD” . Judging either Odd Future or Lil B on purely moral terms isn’t really adequate, though – and, in fact, is something of a red herring that precludes discussion of their art. What’s interesting about their contrasting attitudes is how they affect the power of that art – and, in particular, why Tyler, the Creator, who relies so heavily on shock tactics, ultimately makes his music toothless. Fundamentally, for all the outrage and shock he garners from easily excited fans, his misanthropy is a cliche of angry male adolescence. He raps: “They claim the shit I say is just wrong/ Like nobody has those really dark thoughts when alone”; it’s pretty much the Odd Future modus operandi in one couplet, but the problem is that so many “outsider” artists have affected transgression by telling the world about their dark thoughts that, wrong or right, it’s become boring. Tyler doesn’t transgress expectations; he follows a well-worn path of faux-rebellion trodden by everyone from the Sex Pistols to Eminem – and the alleged vulnerability Tyler reveals in rapping about his absent father is entirely part and parcel of this archetype. Tyler’s combination of dubious fantasies, anti-gay slurs and emo whining about his upbringing recalls Eminem which doesn’t leave much room for shock. In 2011, this feels impotent and tedious. Odd Future’s defenders in the media emphasise Tyler’s technical skills – and it’s true that his gift for assonance and internal rhymes is impressive. But his talent is only half the story: the shtick they use it for is played out. And it undermines the rest of his aesthetic: he demands our empathy at every turn for his own tough life, but is too limited an artist to show empathy for people who, with all due respect, suffer much more on a daily basis than growing up in a single-parent household. Tyler’s model of male anger ends up feeling a lot more like male privilege – and as conservative and regressive as that implies. As the critic Ann Powers noted recently , “Maybe OFWGKTA raps about rape because none has ever known a victimised woman, so it seems comic book to them.” What both Odd Future and Lil B are doing, at heart, is trolling their elders in the hope of provoking reaction. So why does Lil B seem so much more exciting? Perhaps because he understands that truly brave trailblazing entails trolling your own core demographic, not outsider strawmen who have no time for you anyway. And perhaps because he seems interested in engaging with wider culture at the same time as disappearing into his own head: while he’s made his name by splurging often erratic freestyles on to YouTube as though he’s trying to empty his brain into cyberspace, when Lil B hits the mark he is a visionary talent. In The Age of Information , for instance, he muses on the internet that is the lifeblood of his generation. It won’t have escaped your attention that these culture wars are, once again, largely being fought by straight men. Another California teenager, with a style indebted to both Odd Future and Lil B, could change that. Nineteen-year-old Angel Haze is a bisexual girl of Native American ancestry, whose Altered Ego mixtape is one of the year’s finest. She essays love songs of cosmic scope and reach, pulling together a sequence of startling, heart-squeezing imagery on, for example, Fall for Your Type ; then she turns round and uses her “queerness” as a weapon to deliver the most vituperative nastiness you’ll hear this side of, well, Odd Future. Both Lil B and Angel Haze seem determined to twist and shred questions of love, sexuality, culture and the self into new shapes. If words are malleable to them, that’s only because they themselves are in flux. In contrast, Tyler and Odd Future are stuck in rigid archetypal modes. Lil B understands that hip-hop values aren’t antithetical to progress: when he claims that “in 100 years, people will look back and thank me” for confronting the genre’s homophobia, it’s partly braggadocio – but you wouldn’t bet against him being proven right. And this is how it should be. Personally, as a gay hip-hop fan, I am long since inured to impolitic lyrical content. But as easy as it can be to turn a blind eye, I don’t expect to do this in two decades’ time. Odd Future Wolf Gang Kill Them All Hip-hop Rap Urban music Gay rights Alex Macpherson guardian.co.uk

Continue reading …