Rock Hard

Recently, Communication Breakdown posted this commentary on the issue of the western music making its way into China and its impact. It had to do with a lot of music sales being down and out largely due to the rise of shareware programs like torrents, IRC, limewire, etc and how western artists are seeking new artists and opportunities in the East:

Western music is looking to the East to play live shows, and capitalize from merchandise and technology. Peter Grosslight, worldwide head of music for the William Morris Agency believes that “China is on the tip of everyone’s tongue. There are 1.3 billion people there. It’s becoming a much wealthier place. How can we ignore that?” According to “For all the Rock in China” printed in Sunday’s New York Times, China has come to embrace Western music again as they “were once largely closed to foreign music, but the country has gradually loosened it’s restrictions,” and has thereby become a necessary destination for pop music.

This is no problem at all. In fact, it's smart business and this isn't the first time (or the last) that western industries seek bigger pastures on the other side of the yard. A notable example that comes in mind for me is professional American sports organizations such as the MLB and the NBA going over to China to expand its business and take advantage of the rising population and wealth there. In terms of music, I think the best and most recent example of (though it went further than just east) would be Michael Jackson and the sheer number of concerts, album sales, etc, that were acquired outside the U.S. Similarly, due to opportunity AND necessity, western artists seem to be heading east.



At the same time, China is still under a repressive regime, and unsurprisingly the authority extends to concerts, music, lyrics, you name it. So on the one hand, we have artists from the west, more specifically, America, such as Linkin Park, Yeah Yeah Yeahs, Beyonce, etc, etc, seeking new opportunities in the east, including China. But on the other hand, China offers nothing but its authoritarian regime who decides everything from the lyrics, to set list, to venue, sound, etc. Communication Breakdown offers a very real perspective on the issues that obviously arise out of the conflict:

What is more important to a musician- playing sold out concerts in China where lyrics and every minutia of your set is scrutinized or playing in a small club where you are free to play your music as you intended it? As an artist I cannot easily understand why so many US music groups are willing to hand over their creativity to the Chinese Ministry. The discrepancy between the band’s China sponsors and the music they actually sell illustrates the point that China is only out to make a profit… even if that means disrupting a global marketing plan along the way.

This is especially interesting because in a recent article entitled, Concert Without Strings, the New York times talked about a similar issue in North Korea. The article refers to the New York Philharmonic considering performing in Pyongyang, North Korea. The article further commentates about how just like in China, everything from the guest list, to the venue, set list and everything is determined by the government, in this case, it would be Kim Jong-Il. The article also refers to examples of when there has been any detraction in terms of unwavering allegiance to the North's music, program and organization as to what is to be listened to. One such example was the story of a Ji Hae Nam who was imprisoned for 3 years and suffered physical abuse to the point she couldn't walk for a month. With all this said, the authors offered a sort of an open ended challenge:

If, as some starry-eyed commentators have suggested, the dictator’s willingness to let the Philharmonic perform demonstrates a new level of “openness,” then the orchestra should be able to make reasonable demands: that the orchestra alone set its program; that the performance be broadcast on state radio for everyone to hear; that the concert hall be open to the public, not just the elite; and that the Western press be allowed to attend. If the regime refuses these conditions, the Philharmonic should, in the name of artistic freedom, decline to perform in North Korea.

In considering this case as well as the Communications Breakdown post from earlier, it is indeed important to ask ourselves, especially musicians, if business ventures and breaking through to China, North Korea, wherever, if it is at the cost of artistic integrity. Indeed, I would say that it's not really breaking through if you are not allowed to do it on your terms. Just because an artist may be performing in China or North Korea doesn't mean that their music is going to progress any further than that. The interesting question at this point is if the artist stays or goes, and if the artist stays are they really willing to be at the mercy of the local government's imposing will? Or, if the artist leaves, they face a set of entirely different and similar problems back home, especially in America with its RIAA and downloading epidemic. Either way, it's clear that there are questions everywhere, both at home and abroad for western musicians.

We All Need Some Musical Healing

A few weeks ago, JSorg's Spot published a post entitled "Can Your Therapist Really Prescribe Music", which talked about music therapy. After reading, I realized although I love music, I also was not that familiar with music therapy, so at one glance, as JSorg pointed out, music therapy sounded like something that had to do with

an eclectic gathering of reefer-smoking, tree-hugging hippies attempting to relive the “flower power” days of the 1960’s.

I think this has a lot to do with the fact that people, myself included, have often associated music therapy and the like with some metaphysical development. This almost ethereal quality, I think, has resulted in a lot of skeptics who still remain under doubt about the validity of musical therapy.



The exact goal of musical therapy is to achieve non-musical goals through musical means. JSorg points out the American Music Therapy Association's goals are "to promote wellness, manage stress, alleviate pain, express feelings, enhance memory, improve communication, and promote physical rehabilitation". But this is only the tip of the iceberg as it supposedly is capable of several other functions:

It can be used in a wide range of therapeutic techniques from prenatal to hospice care. Musical therapy is often used in mental institutions and it can be used for both adults and children. Musical therapists apply music in psychology to treat depression, schizophrenia, and eating disorders for adults. It can also be used to help children learn counting, numbers, colors, and even social skills.

Aside from these specific treatments and applications, the post also refers to practical applications of musical therapy:

Specifically, music can be used in certain daily applications to promote a healthy lifestyle. Listening to music provides a beat which encourages our rhythm while exercising. It can also be effective while eating, helping us to savor taste, aiding in digestion, and helping us to eat less. Music can also be used during meditation which helps lower blood pressure, depression and stress.

I'm sure there are a lot of psychological terms, figures and numbers that can attest to the validity of these effects and services musical therapy does for a person. But I'm reading this, and asking myself, "doesn't music do these things in the first place?". I guess I'm scratching my head a little bit, but I feel like they've taken a natural phenomenon, branded and patented it as their own. Reading about all these formal functions of musical therapy, I realized that these things happen for me or any other person every day. I mean, I listen to music to relax, to fall asleep, to pump myself up, or simply to keep me entertained as I do work. So by this definition, am I some "sick" person who is a patient of this phenomenon? or am I someone who just enjoys music? To be sure, I do agree that there are some peripheral benefits that are key for those going through unnatural depression, sicknesses, etc, but I just find it a little silly to take the musical experience and to give it a name, or pigeonhole as though it's only available for those who need it.

I guess the line that is drawn, and pointed out by JSorg is that there are supporters of musical therapy on one side, but on the other, are those who can't seem to place their faith in it.

Despite the research in music therapy, some people still believe that its claims seem improbable. Although some forms of music therapy are not an exact science, they have proven to be rather effective. Anyone who is critical and doubtful of music therapy may not be receptive to it simply because they are close-minded. The power of the brain is something that we will never be able to understand or grasp. Sometimes believing in something alone seems to be enough to let if affect you. Those who lack faith in music therapy may never see its true potential or embrace it.

Although, a point that I would raise, and JSorg could have further elaborated on, is that we're all capable of musical experiences everyday. After all, most of us listen to music for leisure, for fun, and to enjoy ourselves. If we're capable of that, it isn't too much of a stretch to say that music can have some sort of positive effects on some higher-functions of our brains and minds. It may not be tangible in logic and numbers, but that's what makes emotion, well, exactly that, emotional.

A Bad Name Indeed

In a recent posting on the Ketch Up blog entitled, "A Bad Name for USC", the blog refers to the incident involving former USC college student, Holly Ashcraft, who is best known for having been tried for charges stemming from her dumping newborn baby in a trash bin on 29th street in 2005. In fact, it was just a year prior in 2004, when she gave birth to another child in a dormitory bathroom, whose remains remain unfounded to this day.

As noted in Ketch Up, there is something to be said about the fact that Ashcraft went from facing charges of murder three times, to having the case dismissed citing lack of evidence, and recently having bail reduced just last week. She expresses this sentiment in stating:

Seems to me that the authorities are going way to easy with this woman even though she has done this before. The prosecutors in this case continue to believe that Ashcraft's baby was born alive and she dumped it in the trash bin in order to get rid of her son while the defense lawyer, Mark Geragos, continues to argue that there is no evidence Ashcraft knew she was pregnant or that the baby was born alive. Also arguing that putting the child in a box in the dumpster was not intentional. What kind of defense is that?

As appalling and as unbelievable as her crimes and acts may have been, the circumstances in the trials have been just as unbearable. And this is just for the 2005 incident. One would think that the previous incident in 2004 would corroborate charges and suspicions against Ashcraft, but so far, she hasn't faced anything near the justice that is necessary. Also pointed out is the fact that the defense lawyer, Geragos, is arguing that the woman did not know she was pregnant nor that it was alive. I would think that if you give birth and hear a baby crying, those would be pretty clear signs of whether you were pregnant and whether the baby was alive or not. But I guess that is the sticking point, that no one knows for sure if the baby was still-born or still alive when it was abandoned in the dumpster. At the same time, it is puzzling that he also argues for Ashcraft that abandoning the baby in the dumpster was not intentional. If so, did she accidentally throw her baby away? I'd like to see how you would do that.

In the concluding paragraph, Ketch Up noted:

Not only does this woman need a psychological evaluation but she needs to go to jail. She intentionally took the life of her two children and is not suffering any consequences. Holly continues to say she is not guilty. Only time will tell if Holly will ever have to go to jail. But it seems the longer this case continues, the more lenient the circumstances are for this woman.

There are multiple levels of trespasses committed by Ashcraft. The murders are one thing, but I think there is something to be said about her psychologically if she is sleeping around, getting pregnant, giving birth and then killing/abandoning her baby in some sort of a sick little cycle. And as noted earlier, as distressing as this situation is, it seems as time passes by, indeed she faces less and less justice. One can only hope that, in time, this case will move forward and reach a conclusion, for Ashcraft's punishment and for the memory of her children who never lived to say a word to their mother.

Much Ado About Nothing

In this article, Jason Shaplen and James Laney summarize the ongoing peace negotiations and the North Korea's disarming of their nuclear weapons and centers. In it, they summarize the progress of the peace negotiations but raise the issue of what will happen to the weapons and the stockpile of the already existing fissile material. Though much progress has been made, to the tune of North Korea's promise of disarming all its nuclear centers, the Beijing talks, and the U.S. aid of $25 million among others things, Shaplen and Laney nevertheless still agree that "Still, the nuclear accord is ambiguous on one issue that threatens to derail it: the question of what will happen to North Korea’s existing stockpile of fissile material".

It is an important question to ask, since more than ever before, Bush has spent resources and efforts to pursuing this end. He has dissolved and stepped over the 6+ years of conflict between hard-line conservatives who want to oust Kim Jong Il's regime and those who favor negotiation, and vested responsibility and power in Christopher Hill, a member of the State Department who is the point man for North Korea. North Korea has thus far mostly, and encouragingly has complied, with much aid from America, of course. But with all this progress with the disarming of nuclear centers and factories, it is just as important to consider the fate of the current stockpile of nuclear items that has been sitting, unused.

This issue is significant. The article cites that North Korea "has reprocessed approximately 50 kilos of weapons-grade plutonium — enough for as many as 10 nuclear bombs — and this stockpile will soon be Mr. Kim’s last remaining card". On the one hand, Kim can hold on to it as a trump card for perhaps, more aid and rights. But on the other hand, giving it up could severely weaken his regime and could mean Kim would be at the mercy of reformists who wish to eradicate his regime.

The article offers a suggestion, one I agree with, that North Korea cede the material to one of its closest allies in China. This would not only allow China to hold on to it, but it would prevent North Korea from making more bombs or selling it to, for example, a terrorist organization for some much needed quick cash on the go. Another important reason why China could be a viable option is that outside organizations, especially ones associated with the U.S., such as the International Atomic Energy Agency, are often distrusted by Kim and North Korea. Case in point would be when he threw out inspectors in 2002. Furthermore, because there is, ultimately, a trust in China that it is not seeking the overthrow of his regime, Kim can rest assured in that respect. In addition, China has mass subsidies and aid that it could use in case North Korea falls out of line.

Whatever the case may be, Korea is a step closer than ever before in uniting, but this issue remains as a hurdle to be cleared. Timing is key and it is just as important as to who will deal with and handle North Korea and its fissile material. But as North Korea becomes more integrated with the rest of the world, and everyone is beginning to acknowledge, as the article states, "the elephant in the room", progress isn't looking too far away.

A Boy Raped by 3 Men and Dubai

Evidently, Dubai’s policy on male-rape cases is “Don’t tell and we won’t ask”.

As reported by the New York Times, a French 15 year old, Alexandre Robert was raped and sodomized by three Emirati men while he was vacationing with his family in the United Arab Emirates. It was during Bastille Day in July, when a chance encounter with one of his schoolmates led to a traumatizing ordeal with the three men.

It was during the aftermath when the Robert family found out that underneath Dubai’s status as the Arab standard of modernization and wealth, and its good reputation of protecting foreign investors, there lingers a criminal system that remains stagnant when it comes to the issues of homosexuality and protection of foreigners.

In fact, as revealed by his family and French diplomats, the Dubai authorities not only discouraged Alexandre from pressing charges, but also threatened to charge him with criminal homosexual activities. Instead of finding the reassuring comfort Dubai is known for, they were met with only hostility. This doesn’t even scratch the surface with the fact that they neglected for weeks on end to inform anyone in his camp that one of his attackers had tests HIV positive four years prior. As he flees from school to school fearing a jail term in Dubai, Alexandre reveals “They tried to smother this story. Dubai, they say we build the highest towers, they have the best hotels. But all the news, they hide it. They don’t want the world to know that Dubai still lives in the Middle Ages.”

Despite the fact that the perpetrators have jail history, and that their sperm were found in Alex, United Arab Emirates law does not recognize these rapes of male individuals, save for a crime of “forced homosexuality”. This adds a tragic touch as it becomes an undertone of a country that is a financially bustling and tourist center. Alexandre's case, furthermore, cannot be passed over as an exception to the rule because of the fact that at least 90% of the Dubai population are not of Emirati citizenry, the same majority that has raised concerns regarding this unequal treatment of foreigners.

Looking deeper, this case study reveals the taboos of HIV and homosexuality that resound strongly in Dubai, which many residents say has led to rampant harassment and discrimination, as well as the health system’s falling in line as they treat HIV in secret. In fact, under Emirates law, foreigners with HIV and those convicted of homosexual activity are deported. Those, such as Khalifa Rashid Bin Demas of the United Arab Emirates legal system claim otherwise, countering the “legal and judicial system in the United Arab Emirates makes no distinction between nationals and non-nationals”. But those such as a 42-year-old gay foreign businessman, who wishes to remain unidentified, save for his nickname Ko, chronicled his 13 years of residence in Dubai as filled with routine harassment and has said he will be leaving the country due to his fears of deportation and continued harassment.

The grim reality revealed by the facts and misfortunes of Alexandre’s case and the reality of Dubai owing its economic resurgence to foreign investors and companies must somehow be reconciled. But the legal system has continued to be a system of contradictions in many ways. Not only were the victims treated as though they were the guilty, but truth was the first casualty of the Alexandre case. It was over a month before the family learned that the police were incorrect in saying the assailants were all HIV negative.

However, this lack of aptitude runs deeper than just the legal/police force. The happy-go-lucky naivete and ignorance of the issues at hand resides with the health system as well. In Alexandre’s case, the doctor who was examining him the night of the assault accused Alexandre, “I know you’re a homosexual. You can admit it to me. I can tell”. This is the sort of conundrum which could end up hurting not only the case against the assailants, but making Alexandre’s irreparable hurt even worse.

Indeed, on the one hand, Dubai and much of the rest of the United Arab Emirates have a lot going for their legal system. Dubai has managed to successfully uphold a system based on Islamic values along with the best practices of the West, resulting in a modern legal system. This holds true especially in business and finance, an area in which Dubai has earned the reputation for its impartiality and swift justice. However, the opposite seems to hold true for its criminal justice system which is rooted in the contradiction between its laws rooted in conservative Arab and Islamic culture and its population whose overwhelming majority consists of foreigners.

In spite of much rhetoric on the part of Dubai officials, there is still much reservation about the focus and aim of the criminal justice system. In looking at Alexandre Robert’s case, it is only the tip of the iceberg as Dubai deals with a population full of foreigners. It also remains to be seen whether the criminal system is progressing to become that “modern legal system” or if it will remain the same stagnant system which Alexandre’s mother stated only moved forward after much diplomatic and public pressure.