Nestle has a long history of criminal acts, including the baby killing (they kill a great many kids with baby formula in third world nations...diabolical) for which they get fined every few years.
I'm a hardcore libertarian/anarco-capitalist but Nestle jumps over the gray area of ethics and leaps into the red zone, mass baby murder for profit. Fraud is also one of their primary marketing devices for the baby formula. Their actions are illegal and beyond the pale morally speaking. You don't have to be a hippie to find them morally reprehensible.
Also, their food is mass produced garbage. Their coffee is also awful. Really awful products, worse than most of the crap sold today.
They may throw down cash for good music, but they are just phonies. Cultured people don't sell piss poor quality and they don't mass murder children.
Yawn.... heather's remarks indicate she knows little about the nature and function of art in society.
SUPPORT THE ARTS!!!
ART FOR ART'S SAKE...OUR CHILDREN NEED THE ARTS!
The first time I read ANYTHING by Heather MacDonald, I thought to myself: When I "grow up," SHE'S who I want to be! (See not only her outstanding CJ articles, but her spectacular book, "The Burden of Bad Ideas.")
She is a brilliant, incisive mind no matter WHAT the subject, and a beautifully clear, fluid writer.
And on this subject--dear to us both--she is, unfortunately, "The voice of him (sic) that crieth in the wilderness."
However, may she continue to...cry so eloquently and intelligently. Thank you, Heather MacDonald, for "all" you do.
Fierce, accurate reporting.
Nobody does it better
A commercial venture, a charity or state-supported projects? Does it matter? Thanks God that decent people are willing to support classical music or give a long-term opportunity to young talents. The difficult times will produce the right sort of sense of proportio, I believe.
Alena Hromádková, Prague
This seems to me to be a dead argument about a dead story. Commercial sponsorship of the arts is a fact of life, even in Europe. There are challenges, commerce tends to be a small 'c' conservative sponsor and puts money into respectable recognised names and events. This has meant that the controversial and provocative side of art relies on state subsidies, these are diminishing, and this is a threat to the health of the arts in general.
Commercial (and state) sponsorship still tends to be a subsidy for the middle classes (in the European sense). I attend the National Theatre in London on a regular basis and enjoy the guilty pleasure of the £10 sponsored seats. I'm certain that neither I, nor my neighbours in the cheap seats, are the target audience for the discount. Sponsorship has largely failed to broaden the base of 'high' arts participation and it would be interesting to see Nestle spend money on a serious attempt at this.
I would be more impressed if Nestles were subsidizing ticket prices so that proletarians like me could afford to go to the opera without busting the family budget wide open and descending into poverty.
Could the stockholders of Nestle and others object to their executives using company funds for social-climbing?