Wednesday, February 25, 2009

Phoenix's Peculiar Presence


Actor Joaquin Phoenix's 02/11 appearance on the Late Show with David Letterman was memorably eccentric. He wore long hair, a Grizzly Adams-styled beard, and dark sunglasses. He seemed self-absorbed and disinterested with the interview, as he frequently looked down, offereing two-word-answers in between chews of gum. At one point, Letterman jokingly expressed his disapproval of Phoenix's chewing during the interview; to which Phoenix responded by removing the gum, and preceding to stick it to the bottom of Letterman's desktop.
The host and his audienced were hysterically humored by the actor's behavior. Confused by their reaction, Pheonix asked Letterman, "What do you gas them up with?" Late Show Bandleader, Paul Shaffer, laughed mockingly when Letterman asked Phoenix to setup his movie clip, prompting Phoenix to explicitly ask "Are you serious, Mr. Maniacal Laughter".
Addiction Medicine Specialist, Dr. David Pensky, believes Phoenix's appearance suggested "intoxication, or severe psychiatric condition, such as depression". Some have reacted to Phoenix's behavior with concern, others with amusement; those familiar with Phoenix are more likely to fall into the latter category.
He once asked a red-carpet reporter if he had a "large frog in [his] hair", simply because he was bored. He commented on the incident saying "I made it up. It entertained me. I do a lot of that kind of thing." That incident, years ago, similarly left some thinking he was insane.
His latest incident has even more signs of a hoax. First of all, he breaks character twice during the interview: he laughs when the host expresses his disappointment that the actor did not show up; and once the interview is over, Phoenix jumps up and takes off his glasses, talking to Letterman more freely. If that were not telling enough, he and friend Casey Affleck are reportedly working on a documentary about the actor's alleged transition from acting to rapping.

Monday, February 16, 2009

An Artistic Bailout


In this time of economic crisis, the government is dealing out money left and right. Obviously the Obama administration is simply attempting to clean up the financial mess left by its predecessor; but ever since Bush proposed his late-term $700 billion plan, everyone has been looking for a handout. The auto industry, which received billions in bailout money, is now pleading for more. Moreover, there are presently pending plans, aiming to help banks, homeowners, etc., that total nearly a trillion dollars. While so many industries crucial to the American economy are failing, the 'arts' is the last place the government should consider investing in,... right?
Wrong, but that is an easy oversight to make at first glance. Even certain members of congress have been unable to see how the $50 million stimulus bill for the National Endowment for the Arts could benefit the U.S. economy in its current state. Rep. Jack Kingston (R-Ga.) argued that the money being offered with this bill would be put to better use if it went towards the funding of a road project. He suggests that such a project would create more job opportunities for average middle class workers who are currently struggling. Although, what Jack fails to realize is that the arts industry employs at least 3 million workers in non-artistic jobs, such as: accountants, carpenters, electricians, janitors, publicists, etc..
Christopher Knight, of the Los Angeles Times, pinpointed the reason why people like Kingston have a misconception about the arts industry, in his argument "Arts Jobs are Real Jobs". He explained that the celebrity culture of the arts industry has created the distorted perception that everyone in the biz is a glamorous artist. "Celebrity culture teaches us to equate the arts with fame, fame with success, success with money.", Knight suggested. The truth is there are plenty of job opportunities for working class citizens in the arts industry, even during a crisis.
$50 million for the NEA would be money well invested, but the NEA should be required to outline their plans on how to use the money to help the economy; as should all recipients of such packages. Greed exists even in times of need. Agence France-Presse exposed this sad truth in its article "Merrill Bonuses Made 696 Millionaires: Probe". Sometimes when company heads actually receive the help (millions or billions of government dollars) that their businesses need, they become sidetracked...and begin to weigh their options: distribute funds to employees according to need and thereby help to stimulate the economy, or enable rich board members and close executives to purchase new jets (decisions, decisions). Merrill Lynch and Bank of America are appropriately being investigated now by the New York state Attorney General's office, but now is too late. Conditions must be dictated before money is dispensed, because a rushed reaction to recession will only dig a deeper debt.
The request made by Grammy academy President, Neil Portnow, for a new cabinet position dedicated to the arts and culture, may have been too far fetched, but President Obama's proposal of $50 million for the arts should do the trick for the time being.

Sunday, February 15, 2009

Is Individualism Dead?


In "Network", Howard Beale convinced 6 million of his viewers to write to the White House to stop a deal that was going to allow an Arab takeover of the Communication Corporation of America. In the following episode he described the act as a "radiant eruption of democracy", but he predicted that the success of the protest was not a sign of things to come. He argued that Democracy was dead, and that people were becoming dehumanized assembly line workers in a world of corporations, rather than nations. Beale's speech was inspired and influenced by the scolding lecture he received from Arthur Jensen, (who presumably was the head of the conglomerate that owned UBS), after Beale "meddled with the primal forces of nature" by stopping the Arab deal.
The point that Beale and Jensen made was that individuals were losing their power and value, but then Beale asked his audience to consider if dehumanization was good or bad. Obviously there is something wrong with humans becoming inhuman; in fact, before Beale was lectured by Jensen, 'individualism' was one of his show's premier preaching points. Jensen managed to convince him that "it is the international system of currency, which determines the totality of life on this planet." When in actuality, it is the poor management of currency, that leads to financial crises, which then encourages desperate and needy individuals to become dehumanized pawns for large corporations.
In a time when the media is dominated and controlled by just a handful of conglomerates, it is difficult for an individual with a unique vision to a rise. However, just as Dubai's ruler, Sheikh Mohammed bin Rashid al Maktoum has been able to transform his deserted hometown into a thriving city invested in the success of each of its citizens, the same is possible in journalism. Today's journalists have to be willing to take risks, and question or even expose apparent shady dealings by powerful entities, for the uninformed individual's sake. Aquiring knowledge is an interactive task, therefore news organizations must encourage feedback from their consumers. They should take advantage of the 'letter to the editor' feature and put more emphasis on it. Moreover, as the internet is becoming the leading medium in journalism, blogging is on the rise as an effective way for individuals to infiltrate and impact news coverage. As a matter of fact, there is even a popular online show called "Meet the Bloggers" that highlights unconventional opinions of various individuals. In reflection, today's individual only dies if he or she does not choose to live.

Tuesday, February 10, 2009

Did DuBois Forewarn About Chris Brown?


Sunday night's airing of the 51st annual Grammys Award Show ran smoothly, with the exception that two notable guests were MIA. Chris Brown and Rihanna were both scheduled to perform; however, he was arrested on suspicion of making criminal threats, and she was allegedly victimized by him. He turned himself in at the LAPD's Wilshire Station and is being investigated on charges of domestic violence. It came as no surprise that Wrigley suspended their Doublemint Gum ads that featured Brown, but the actual allegations were shocking. However, we should ask ourselves "why is this shocking?".
Naturally, there is an element of shock concerning any incident where a man beats a woman, but especially in situations like this. MTV asked people on the street what they thought about the story, and they made comments like "You would've never thought Chris Brown, a superstar...would be beating females down" and "he doesn't seem like the type". But, why? Why do we expect anyone to be an ideal man or role model simply because they have become rich and famous from singing and dancing. W.E.B. DuBois warned about the danger of this in his 1903 essay "The Talented Tenth".
"If we make money the object of man-training, we shall develop money-makers but not necessarily men", Dubois declared. Although those words were published over a century ago, they are particularly pertinent today. In modern society, we frequently exhalt select individuals and put them on a pedestal for the wrong reasons; and we subsequently hold them to unrealistic expectations. He believed that real men could only be developed if boys were educated on 'manhood', which to DuBois, encompassed intelligence, broad sympathy, and knowledge of the way of the world.
"The Talented Tenth" discusses DuBois's idea that a small percentage of African American men will have to become "leaders of thought" and "missionaries of culture" to save the race. Based on this notion, there is nothing wrong in supporting individuals for their entertainment talents, but we should not look to them as the kind of leaders that DuBois describes, solely based on those talents.

Tuesday, February 3, 2009

Electronic Waste Causes Environmental Hazards


As the production of electronics has increased, so has the amount of electronic waste. One of the major problems with e-waste is that much of it is shipped from developed nations like the U.S., to developing countries like China, India and Nigeria. Approximately 50 tons of e-waste is produced globally every year. In towns like Guiyu and Nanyang of Southern China, people work to dispose of electronic waste, not in factories, but near their own homes. Earning around $12 a day, these workers, of various ages, often burn the waste, which creates harmful exposure to toxic chemicals. Professor Qua has studied the effects that burning e-waste has on babies and children. She has found that her subjects have blood led levels about 25% higher than normal, which has negative effects on nervous systems and learning abilities. However, she did point out that these effects have decreased in recent years, since local media has forced the government to pay more attention. Although mutations have increased by 40% since 2001 due to electronic waste.
On May 22, 1989, the Basel Convention on the Control of Transboundary Movements of Hazardous Wastes and Their Disposal was opened for signature. There were 170 parties in attendance to the convention, and of all of the parties only Afghanistan, Haiti, and the U.S. signed the convention without ratifying it. Out of the three countries, the U.S. is the only developed nation. The U.S. is one of the biggest contributors of e-waste to countries like China, therefore ratification by the U.S. would be most significant in improving the current dituation. The fact that the U.S. still has not done so suggests that the nation agrees that the exportation of these wastes to developing countries is unfair, but finds continuance of this practice to be more convenient. Obviously, exporting to developing nations where cheap labor is available is more profitable for American companies. Furthermore, it removes the potential environmental harm that naturally exists with the disposal of electronic products, by putting that burden on poor workers in other countries.
Greenpeace is a political organization that suggests that the exportation of any and all electronics should be banned, since the residue from such products has caused so many environmental problems, and consequently, health problems. However, the United Nations Conference on Trade and Development disagrees, making the reasonable argument that exportation of electronics is still useful for trades involving repairs and recycling.
Assuming that exportation will continue, there are still positive changes that can be made to alleviate the level of health risks faced by e-waste disposers. There still needs to be strict ratification and enforcement of laws regarding the setting and process of disposing, recycling or repairing electronics, if there is expected to be any turnaround in the negative effects of the current process. There needs to be laws requiring that electronics be treated in a factory, rather than in residential areas; and workers should be provided with gear and equipment that will ensure there safety and well being while working.