my best blog

"Provocation at the highest level," was the way one Austrian headline described Bruno.

The advent of Sacha Baron Cohen's latest creation, Bruno, a gay Eurotrash fashionista who just happens to come from Austria, is being met with a mixture of trepidation and wry amusement here.

Unlike the Kazakh authorities, many Austrians laughed heartily at Mr Baron Cohen's last film, "Borat: Cultural Learnings of America for Make Benefit Glorious Nation of Kazakhstan".

But will they laugh as hard at Bruno The character, according to a recent article on the ORF website, "doesn't necessarily shed the best light on Austria".

The media here have faithfully recorded Bruno's exploits since the start of filming.

It may partly be out of concern for Austria's image, already battered by the trial earlier this year of Josef Fritzl, who imprisoned his daughter and their children in a cellar.

Lisa Trompisch, a columnist on heute.at, was incensed by a recent interview with Bruno in the fashion magazine Marie Claire, in which he described Hitler as this country's "black sheep".

'Not funny'

"Ve're all proud of our country und are raised to try and achieve ze Austrian dream - find a job, get a dungeon und raise a family in it," Bruno went on.

"No it's not funny," she wrote.

"Sacha Baron Cohen is showing me my hidden Bruno"

Alfons Haider, a gay TV presenter seen as a possible model for Bruno

"It is hard to know which is worse: the insult to Austria," or that Hitler was "merely a black sheep".

But other Austrians seem to be secretly relishing the prospect of Bruno-fuelled outrage.

There's been speculation in the British and the Austrian papers that Bruno is based on a real person, Alfons Haider, one of Austria's most well-known television presenters.

But Mr Haider, who hosts the Austrian version of Strictly Come Dancing, told me that there were only two similarities between him and Bruno: "I'm Austrian and I'm openly gay."

Mr Haider thinks that the Austrian sense of humour may be severely challenged by Bruno and his ambition to be the "most famous Austrian star since Hitler".

"The gay stuff is probably OK but the Nazi stuff - I'm not sure that people would like that," he said. "I personally don't like it that my country is always shown as a fascist, right-wing Nazi country. We have problems with the right wing as all European countries do, but it is not as bad as they show. This is a democracy."

But when I asked him if he was upset at being linked to Bruno, he smiled delightedly. "It's wonderful!"

Sacha Baron Cohen "is showing me my hidden Bruno" he said. "The guy is a great comedian."

Turning to the camera, a la Bruno, he blew a kiss. "This is the real Bruno from Austria!" he said.

An honour

On a sunny day in one of Vienna's trendiest squares, it was hard to find anyone who was really upset at the prospect of the film.

Georg, a musician, said he was looking forward to it. "I think the Austrians have enough self-esteem to take it the way it is supposed to be. We're used to people making fun of us."

And he wasn't bothered by any possible Nazi references. "We are used to that too. German and Austrian actors can only make it in Hollywood if they play Nazis so what's the big deal"

Sitting on a marble bench, 22-year-old Katherine said that although she hadn't liked Borat, she had a sneaking suspicion that Austrians might actually come to feel proud of Bruno.

"Every time something comes from Austria everyone says - oh it is from Austria, oh it was made in Austria. I don't think it will be a problem," she said.

Florian, a bartender, said Borat means that people know what to expect."I wouldn't say it is an honour that he is playing an Austrian," he said, "but it is funny."

By Philippa Thomas
BBC News, Washington

It is a critical week for what could be the biggest reform of Barack Obama's presidency.

America's president lobbied America's doctors on Monday, making his case for a complete overhaul of the nation's costly healthcare system.

He is up against fierce opposition from private insurance corporations - and from politicians who denounce any government involvement in health provision as the road to "socialised medicine".

So he needs the support of America's doctors - his biggest domestic reform is expensive, controversial, and vulnerable to attack on all sides.

'Unsustainable'

He had a blunt message at the annual conference of the American Medical Association.

If reform is to work, he said, the AMA will bear much of the responsibility for reining in the huge cost of American healthcare.

The current system, he said, is based on quantity not quality.

There is every financial temptation for a doctor to add more patients to the list, and to add more expensive tests for every patient.

"It is a model that has taken the pursuit of medicine from a profession - a calling - to a business. That's not why you became doctors".

The core of his case is one we have heard before, and will hear all summer long, as President Obama keeps up the pressure on the nation's lawmakers back in Washington.

"If it were simple, we would have passed this many years ago"

Henry Waxman
Chairman, House Energy and Commerce Committee

Again and again, he is insisting that "the status quo is unsustainable".

He argues that America cannot afford not to reform a health care industry that accounts for around one sixth of the US economy.

In his speech to the AMA he warned against the "fear tactics" of his opponents - before going on to describe the cost of healthcare as "a ticking timebomb" for the national budget.

Crushing loss

Mr Obama is right to diagnose a sickness at the heart of American healthcare.

Around 46 million Americans are currently uninsured. For them, simple problems can become acute.

For the taxpayer, it means funding patients who end up unnecessarily in hospital emergency rooms.

Even for those with coverage, much of it provided through employers, the costs of doctors and hospitals, tests and treatment, often rip a huge hole in the family budget.

When Americans lose their jobs, the most crushing loss of all can be the access to family healthcare. And in this recession, the unemployment rate has now risen to 9.4%.

But it is so much easier to point to the problem than engineer a solution.

That is why the corridors of Congress are swarming with worried legislators, facing President Obama's deadline of passing meaningful legislation to reform American healthcare this summer.

The key initiative from Senate Finance Committee Chairman Max Baucus could come as early as this week.

America's representatives are grappling with a series of challenges, each in itself a political nightmare.

Is it time for healthcare somehow to be rationed Can doctors and hospitals provide their services for less Should employer-provided healthcare benefits be taxed Should the current insurance options be broadened to include a government plan

In the final reckoning, who pays to extend insurance to the millions who currently go without

Lessons of history

A lot of powerful interests have a lot to lose.

Above all, the giant corporations who currently provide private insurance - and stack up handsome profits for doing so.

All that adds up to a lobbying frenzy on Capitol Hill.

I spoke this week to Congressman Henry Waxman, one of the key lawmakers in the House of Representatives in charge of writing healthcare legislation.

"[The government is] trying to figure out how to get the most feathers from the goose with the least amount of squawking"

Michael Cannon
Cato Institute

"We desperately need this", he told me, adding that he was facing "an intense amount of lobbying and concern".

"If it were simple," he added with a rueful smile, "we would have passed this many years ago."

The lessons of history are daunting.

For decades, since the days of Teddy Roosevelt and Harry Truman, presidents have pushed for reform.

In 1948, Truman's plans faltered in the face of cynicism about "Russian-style communism".

Fast forward to 1994, and the massive healthcare initiative sponsored by then-First Lady Hillary Clinton.

It went down in flames, victim to the classic "Harry and Louise" television ad campaign, which featured the anxious conversations of two concerned Americans.

The ads aroused intense fears about "socialised medicine", implying a future of long lines for treatment, and the rationing of essential services.

Who pays

Today those fears are back.

But this time there is a well-organised TV marketing campaign behind the president's efforts, urging Americans to demand that Congress vote for change this summer. The fear of European-style, "socialised medicine" still looms large, however.

And the biggest question of all is still the subject of intense debate - who is going to fund this

I heard an interesting take on the question from libertarian thinker, Michael Cannon, who heads health policy analysis at Washington's Cato Institute.

He told me big reform is needed - but reform that puts financial power into the hands of individual consumers, not another vast government bureaucracy.

He estimates it will cost around $2tn to cover all of America's uninsured over the next 10 years. Others say around $1tn. Either way, who pays

The burden might fall on doctors and hospitals, tasked with providing more with less funding.

The burden might fall on workers, if salaries fall as employers are required to provide broader health insurance. The burden might fall on taxpayers, facing more or higher taxes.

To make universal healthcare work, everyone is going to need to sacrifice.

As Michael Cannon puts it, "the people that you're going to ask to pay that $2tn price tag are going to notice that you're asking them to pay. So really what the government is doing now is to try to find the path of least resistance. It's trying to figure out how to get the most feathers from the goose with the least amount of squawking".

And that is where President Obama's celebrated powers of persuasion will be tested to the utmost this summer.

By Philippa Thomas
BBC News, Washington

It is a critical week for what could be the biggest reform of Barack Obama's presidency.

America's president lobbied America's doctors on Monday, making his case for a complete overhaul of the nation's costly healthcare system.

He is up against fierce opposition from private insurance corporations - and from politicians who denounce any government involvement in health provision as the road to "socialised medicine".

So he needs the support of America's doctors - his biggest domestic reform is expensive, controversial, and vulnerable to attack on all sides.

'Unsustainable'

He had a blunt message at the annual conference of the American Medical Association.

If reform is to work, he said, the AMA will bear much of the responsibility for reining in the huge cost of American healthcare.

The current system, he said, is based on quantity not quality.

There is every financial temptation for a doctor to add more patients to the list, and to add more expensive tests for every patient.

"It is a model that has taken the pursuit of medicine from a profession - a calling - to a business. That's not why you became doctors".

The core of his case is one we have heard before, and will hear all summer long, as President Obama keeps up the pressure on the nation's lawmakers back in Washington.

"If it were simple, we would have passed this many years ago"

Henry Waxman
Chairman, House Energy and Commerce Committee

Again and again, he is insisting that "the status quo is unsustainable".

He argues that America cannot afford not to reform a health care industry that accounts for around one sixth of the US economy.

In his speech to the AMA he warned against the "fear tactics" of his opponents - before going on to describe the cost of healthcare as "a ticking timebomb" for the national budget.

Crushing loss

Mr Obama is right to diagnose a sickness at the heart of American healthcare.

Around 46 million Americans are currently uninsured. For them, simple problems can become acute.

For the taxpayer, it means funding patients who end up unnecessarily in hospital emergency rooms.

Even for those with coverage, much of it provided through employers, the costs of doctors and hospitals, tests and treatment, often rip a huge hole in the family budget.

When Americans lose their jobs, the most crushing loss of all can be the access to family healthcare. And in this recession, the unemployment rate has now risen to 9.4%.

But it is so much easier to point to the problem than engineer a solution.

That is why the corridors of Congress are swarming with worried legislators, facing President Obama's deadline of passing meaningful legislation to reform American healthcare this summer.

The key initiative from Senate Finance Committee Chairman Max Baucus could come as early as this week.

America's representatives are grappling with a series of challenges, each in itself a political nightmare.

Is it time for healthcare somehow to be rationed Can doctors and hospitals provide their services for less Should employer-provided healthcare benefits be taxed Should the current insurance options be broadened to include a government plan

In the final reckoning, who pays to extend insurance to the millions who currently go without

Lessons of history

A lot of powerful interests have a lot to lose.

Above all, the giant corporations who currently provide private insurance - and stack up handsome profits for doing so.

All that adds up to a lobbying frenzy on Capitol Hill.

I spoke this week to Congressman Henry Waxman, one of the key lawmakers in the House of Representatives in charge of writing healthcare legislation.

"[The government is] trying to figure out how to get the most feathers from the goose with the least amount of squawking"

Michael Cannon
Cato Institute

"We desperately need this", he told me, adding that he was facing "an intense amount of lobbying and concern".

"If it were simple," he added with a rueful smile, "we would have passed this many years ago."

The lessons of history are daunting.

For decades, since the days of Teddy Roosevelt and Harry Truman, presidents have pushed for reform.

In 1948, Truman's plans faltered in the face of cynicism about "Russian-style communism".

Fast forward to 1994, and the massive healthcare initiative sponsored by then-First Lady Hillary Clinton.

It went down in flames, victim to the classic "Harry and Louise" television ad campaign, which featured the anxious conversations of two concerned Americans.

The ads aroused intense fears about "socialised medicine", implying a future of long lines for treatment, and the rationing of essential services.

Who pays

Today those fears are back.

But this time there is a well-organised TV marketing campaign behind the president's efforts, urging Americans to demand that Congress vote for change this summer. The fear of European-style, "socialised medicine" still looms large, however.

And the biggest question of all is still the subject of intense debate - who is going to fund this

I heard an interesting take on the question from libertarian thinker, Michael Cannon, who heads health policy analysis at Washington's Cato Institute.

He told me big reform is needed - but reform that puts financial power into the hands of individual consumers, not another vast government bureaucracy.

He estimates it will cost around $2tn to cover all of America's uninsured over the next 10 years. Others say around $1tn. Either way, who pays

The burden might fall on doctors and hospitals, tasked with providing more with less funding.

The burden might fall on workers, if salaries fall as employers are required to provide broader health insurance. The burden might fall on taxpayers, facing more or higher taxes.

To make universal healthcare work, everyone is going to need to sacrifice.

As Michael Cannon puts it, "the people that you're going to ask to pay that $2tn price tag are going to notice that you're asking them to pay. So really what the government is doing now is to try to find the path of least resistance. It's trying to figure out how to get the most feathers from the goose with the least amount of squawking".

And that is where President Obama's celebrated powers of persuasion will be tested to the utmost this summer.

The network is so pervasive it now invades our dreams and that is a good thing, says Bill Thompson

"Last Saturday morning I woke up and reached for my phone so that I could spend five minutes catching up on e-mail, Facebook and of course overnight updates on Twitter before I got up to make some coffee and start the day.

Radio 4 is the best way to find out what's happening in the rest of the world, but having easy access to news from my online social networks in bed is one of the boons of having a home wireless connection and a small portable computer that masquerades as a mobile phone.

One of my Twitter friends, game designer Jane McGonigal, had not slept well.

"Had a nightmare last night. Ustreaming from home. In the chatroom, everyone starts typing INTRUDER! INTRUDER! Someone snuck in", she tweeted, followed by:

"They saw it but I didn't. I'm terrified. I wake up (for real) and can't shake the feeling someone is in the apt. Very hard to sleep."

Ustream is one of the more popular services for streaming live video from a webcam, and Jane's nightmare was a technologically updated twist on one of the older slasher movie tropes, with a laptop and internet connection replacing the telephone clutched in the shaking hand of the the terrified victim as a friend shouts "he's behind you!"

Fortunately it was, as they say, only a dream.

BILL'S LINKS
"Such dreams are one sign of just how important the network is becoming"
Bill Thompson

Jane McGonigal on Twitter

Henry Porter on 'evil' Google

John Naughton on Henry Porter

It is not too surprising that Jane's dreams should involve online activity since she devises and runs alternate reality games of soaring beauty that work equally well at human and network scale, and a lot of her unconscious mind is probably taken up with working out ways to follow Superstruct and I Love Bees, two of her biggest online successes.

I've had my own computer-inflected dreams too. Once a massive spacecraft crashed into the building I had just run from, and as I turned to look at it I thought 'that's extremely high-definition rendering", somehow confusing CGI and reality in a way that didn't seem at all odd inside the logic of the dream.

And I will confess to having had twitter-based dreams that were entirely carried out 140 characters at a time.

I suspect that more and more of us will find that computers and the network feature in our dreams simply because more and more of us are spending increasing amounts of time engaging with life through screens, keyboards and game controllers, and the subconscious will take what it gets from waking life to work into the dreamscape. Nobody dreamed about car chases before 1885.

One sign

Such dreams are one sign of just how important the network is becoming, and a reflection of the continuing impact of tools, technologies and services which rely on fast, affordable and reliable internet connectivity to operate.

We are also becoming more reliant on these services. A couple of weeks ago my son called me from home, interrupting an important meeting with the urgent news that our home broadband connection wasn't working. For him this was a disaster on a par with 'the house has been burgled" or "I've chopped off my thumb", and he expected an appropriate response from me.

Not every aspect of the ongoing revolution is positive, of course, and the changes that companies like Google have wrought on the economic, artistic and even intellectual landscape have occasioned a great deal of concern, especially among those who held power and influence under the old dispensation.

Database state

For example last weekend Henry Porter, whose campaigning journalism exposing the dangers of the database state is admirable in many ways, wrote an article for The Observer in which he took aim at 'the destructive, anti-civic forces of the internet', compared Google to a 'delinquent and sociopathic' eleven year-old child and complained bitterly that 'Google is in the final analysis a parasite that creates nothing, merely offering little aggregation, lists and the ordering of information generated by people who have invested their capital, skill and time.'

His concerns about the cavalier attitude Google has sometimes shown to those whose data appears in their index, whose books are scanned for their catalogue and whose homes appear in Street View reflect the ongoing debate on the forms of regulation and control appropriate to the emerging network economy.

But it is hard to take serious notice of anyone who believes, as Porter apparently does, that the effort needed to create, manage and run perhaps the world's largest database, capturing and sorting billions of items of data from the web, is no more than a 'little aggregation'.

Sometimes the technology and the politics are so co-dependent that failure to understand one means you run the risk of not saying anything sensible about the other, and this is one of those times.

Cry of anguish

Porter's lack of understanding about what Google is and what it does means that his call for it 'to be stopped in its tracks and taught about the responsibilities it owes to content providers and copyright holders' carries no real weight and seems simply to be a cry of anguish from a well-paid columnist who sees the world that sustained him replaced by one in which anyone can have a voice.

Politics, technology and culture can no longer be treated as separate worlds, and we need people who understand and appreciate this rather than those who continue to defend the old boundaries.

This is why I trust the political judgment of blogging and twittering Cabinet Office Minister Tom Watson as he goes about trying to open up government systems much more than I would ever listen to Home Secretary Jacqui Smith, and why I look to people who dream of the network, like Jane McGonigal, for inspiration and enlightenment.

At least her nightmare was based around an understanding of modern technology - Google probably stomps around like a rainbow-coloured Godzilla in Porter's dreamscape.

"

Bill Thompson is an independent journalist and regular commentator on the BBC World Service programme Digital Planet