GLOBALIZATION: CUBA

Cuba is known for its cigars, food, music and Fidel Castro amongst many things. The population of Cuba is 11,365,124. The country’s population has only increased by 2% over the last seven years. As of August 2007, only 2% of Cuba’s population is currently online. That’s 240,000 people online as opposed to 60,000 in 2000 (only 0.5%). So why the increase in Internet usage? . Only luxury those staying in luxury hotels in Cuba have access to global television news stations, so many of those who have access to the Internet are beginning to find their media, especially news, online. This increase is actually impressive considering Cubans have to have a permit form the government to own a computer or access the Internet. Only four Internet providers exist in Cuba through a single gateway that the government controls. Some Cubans access the Internet through providers designated for tourists and foreigners. They are able to do this by purchasing illegal, black market access codes. The Cuban government has begun to limit Internet access more by putting measures in place to inhibit those using illegal access codes. The government is outraged that people believe this is censorship and say it is for the greater good. They also control 73% of the country’s phone service, landline and mobile. The cellular phone use is very restricted. In 2006, only 152,700 mobile phones were legally in use by Cubans. Visitors to the nation have even been ‘strongly advised’ to leave their camera phones behind while in Cuba. The government fears they will take photographs that could be detrimental to Castro’s regime and send them to people outside the country. Even the song Mala Leche by the band Moneda Dura has been banned from radio play in Cuba due to its apparent criticism of the public transportation system amongst other things. (http://youtube.com/watch?v=2j-THYa5z1Y)

Even with the communist presence in Cuba, music is very popular and has a great presence in the nation. Cuban music has been very influential in many musical styles throughout the nineteenth and twentieth centuries. There have even been famous music stars from Cuba such as Gloria Estefan and Al Jourgensen of Ministry fame, as well as famous actors like Andy Garcia and Desi Arnaz from I Love Lucy.





With all the culture, inventiveness and history of the Cuban culture, what has happened to make it so difficult for the people of Cuba to prosper and expand their technological and economic status? To find the reasons behind their current culture and society, we have to look into the history of the nation and its people.

To understand Cuba as a country, one must look back at its tense political history in its relation to America. It was brought into the limelight in 1962 when the world held its breath in the face of nuclear war. Cuba is located “90 miles off the coast of America” so when Russian nuclear weapons were constructed, President John Kennedy had to begin negotiating immediately. America is not one to hold grudges, but “2003 saw the end of the ban on American travel to Cuba”. It took 41 years for our countries to be on good enough terms with each other for us to allow direct travel and trade. From this we can infer that Cuba has a fairly open future ahead of it because American tourism to their tropical island will spark their economy.
When the Soviet Union was dissolved in 1989, the Cuban economy took a huge hit and lost “85% of their exports.” This accounted for a large poverty rate and difficult times for many Cuban people. With trade opened to America, Cuba can export many natural, agricultural and constructed products. To name a few, “ Sugarcane, Tobacco, Citrus, Coffee beans, Salt and minerals” are all shipped out of Cuba daily. Prior to the lifting of the trade embargo, “Russia, Canada and Spain” were all countries to which Cuba shipped.


So what does one think of when they hear of Cuba? Perhaps you think of Fidel Castro and the Communistic government and neither of which sound very good. So what does Cuba hear about America? Cuban Media is riddled with Pro-Castro propaganda and anti-American Semitism. The only form of media that Cuban people are exposed to is television and radio because “Internet access is restricted unless you have permission from the government.” When you really think about it, Internet is the most free spirited type of media you can have because you control what you see. American perspective of Cuba is skewed as well however, as it is a tropical paradise.





Many people believe that as time takes its coarse, Cuba will become a rich a wealthy country. It is going through a time of political unrest and Castro is still oppressive over his people, but hopefully trade with the America’s will spark economic growth. I think that if Cuba wants to keep up with the rest of the world they will have to make some changes to their governmental structure and become very open to tourism. American’s have an idea of Cuba being an unruly, unsafe location for societal tension, when it needs to make people think of beachfront vacations for everyone to enjoy.



America typically, has not consumed other countries' cultural products. Soccer, the number one sport in the world, has only just begun to make some head way into the American culture. Movies have been better welcomed by Americans, specifically those from Asia such as "Crouching Tiger, Hidden dragon", "Hero" and "The House of Flying Daggers". As proof, Crouching Tiger, Hidden Dragon grossed http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0190332/business) about 128 million dollars in the United States alone.


America is inarguably the tastemaker in the globalized media and culture. For example, MTV as a cultural experience has "invaded" so many countries media landscape. There are now several version of MTV being localized and broadcast to several ethnic groups. An example is MTV Base Africa, which broadcasts MTV programming for the entire continent. The interesting thing to note is that, while MTV does take notice of the local artistes and makes sure to represent them in the programming they provide, they still include American artists and shows. The effect of this is the creation of a common denominator of music and shows that all countries, continents and ethnic groups are aware of. However, the market penetration in the United States for artists who are large everywhere else in the world is minimal. History has shown that foreign acts are not as commercially successful in the United States. An example is...

This question of national identity relies heavily on perspective. One can say that the old American cultural landscape (or what was reflected of it) is markedly different from the new American cultural landscape simply because the newer landscape has more diversity reflected in it. On the other hand, one could argue that the very diversification has changed the American cultural landscape so that it is no longer American. I don't see the erosion of national identity. If anything it's becoming more diversified. The creation of Spanish version of television, and MTV's channel Tres highlights this diversification.

Whether we as individuals are willing participants is a hard question to answer simply because we do not control the programming of television or radio. They are decided for us and we can only choose whether or not to participate in the culture by engaging it.



Sources

1) http://library.thinkquest.org/11046/
“90 miles off the coast of America”
This page and graphics copyright 1997 ThinkQuest Team 11046

2) http://www.cubafoundation.org/CPF%20Travel-Ag%20Study/Release-Cuba-Travel-Ag-0302.04.htm
“2003 saw the end of the ban on American travel to Cuba”.
Cuba Policy Foundation Press Release

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE – Wed. February 5, 2003; Contact: Brian Alexander: 202-321-CUBA (2822)

3) http://www.new-agri.co.uk/00-5/countryp.html
“Estimated 85% drop in exports”
Major exports- “ Sugarcane, Tobacco, Citrus, Coffee beans, Salt and minerals”
Major Export Partners: Russia; Canada, Spain
Wren media

4) http://www.counterpunch.org/dangl03242004.html
“Internet access is restricted unless you have permission from the government.”

http://www.theinquirer.net/en/inquirer/news/2004/01/11/cubas-castro-censors-cameraphones

http://worldblog.msnbc.msn.com/archive/2007/10/05/398939.aspx

https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/geos/cu.html#Comm

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/3386413.stm

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/3425425.stm

http://www.state.gov/r/pa/ei/bgn/2886.htm

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Cuban_Americans#Actors

Our group watched "Thank You For Smoking" this week, which is riddled with several media-related ethics issues and censorship issues.

On the media-related side of things, the first issue is the fact that the Academy of Tobacco Studies is not fulfilling its moral obligation and societal responsibility to inform the public of the links between tobacco and health. It would seem that Nick Naylor is erring on the side of dishonesty, especially when we consider that he hires a German researcher to disprove (or at the very least cast doubt) on the conclusiveness of any scientific research that connects ill health and cancer by producing their own results. This is a glaring ethics dilemma that is either condoned or condemned depending on which philosophical approach we subscribe to, and even then the issues are still complicated. For example, if one considers the Utilitarianism philosophical approach, then the Academy should choose the decision that achieves the greatest amount of good for the greatest number of people. Arguably, Nick Naylor's current approach is doing the greatest amount of good for those involved in the tobacco industry, either as farmers etc. Conversely, if he were to revise his approach, it would serve the greatest good for all the tobacco users (who for the most part, already know that tobacco use can have adverse effects on their health).

Senator Finisterre, the main anti-smoking proponent in the movie is trying to censor the tobacco industry by introducing a bill that would require all cigarette packs to be labeled "poison".


This approach can be seen as unconstitutional because the First Amendment protects free speech. However, if one considers the context that many people are dying from cigarette use, one can argue that it is the moral responsibility of the tobacco companies to label their packs as "poison". It would appear then, that the Surgeon General's warning that is required to appear on ALL cigarette products is a "Golden Mean" philosophical approach to the issue because it is at the mid-point between the two extremes; one extreme being the absence of any label at all, the other being a label that identifies the pack as poison.

Another media-related ethics issue is Nick Naylor's relationship Heather Holloway, the journalist who ends up exposing the information Nick gives her about the tobacco industry, their attempts at product placement, and their attempts to stifle any negative press. He did so under the assumption that it was off the record. It is arguable that she used surreptitious newsgathering methods to acquire her story of significant public importance, yet she seemed to lose her job (possibly her license) for doing so. This is hard to comprehend when institutions like the SPJ and RTNDA condone the usage of such tactics. One can hardly say that Nick Naylor would have disclosed so many details of his industry and it's inner workings to her had the relationship not involved any sex, yet this was enough to warrant her losing her job. Nick Naylor neglected his professional moral obligation to his financial supporters, his employer and professional colleagues by divulging this information. It can also be argued that she acted in an unprofessional manner by neglecting hers. This is yet another illustration of the complexity of the ethical dilemmas.



The movie pits several ethical dilemmas against each other. Product placement of cigarettes itself is a hotbed of contention when it comes to ethics. On one hand, Nick Naylor is fulfilling his professional responsibility to promote the company's best product, and on the other hand, he can be seen as neglecting his societal and moral responsibility to not market cigarettes to people in the context of the world where many are dying from cigarette use. Nick Naylor suffers the burden of professional responsibility versus moral and societal responsibility several times in the movie. Senator Finisterre's desire to use a person dying from cancer to garner public contempt for the tobacco industry and subsequently consent for his bill can also be considered unethical.

Most of these issues are resolved by the end of the movie. The issue of personal responsibility is brought to bear when Nick Naylor is on trial. He states that the companies should be allowed to market to everyone (kids included), but that parents should be responsible enough for their kids upbringing to inform them of what is good and bad for their health. The right to freedom of speech without censorship is upheld when the bill Senator Finisterre prescribes is not adopted.



Hundreds of years of history tell us of tobacco use in the world from cigarettes to cigars to pipes to chewing tobacco. Smoking was once a luxury, farming tobacco was considered a reputable profession. In the last fifty years, we’ve become more aware of the health hazards of smoking. Smoking has also become a multi-billion dollar per year business. It seems today that smoking is an epidemic and out of control. We see the ads everywhere. They are sold everywhere. Troops in the Middle East are even paying upwards of $10 for a pack of cigarettes.(http://poynter.org/column.asp?id=29741) Last year alone 378 billion cigarettes were sold in the United States. Ironically, that’s the lowest yearly cigarette sales figure since 1951. Why is that? Are we actually beginning to realize what cigarettes are doing to our health?

We can speculate many causes for the decrease in cigarette sales for 2006. One of these reasons may be the trend in our nation, and others, to ban smoking in public places. (http://www.smokefreeworld.com/usa.shtml) A majority of our nation’s states have instituted some form of smoking ban in the recent years. Even the UK banned smoking in most public places this past July. Many sources conclude that these smoking bans will lead to people quitting smoking. (http://www.dailymail.co.uk/pages/live/articles/health/healthmain.html?in_article_id=366048&in_page_id=1774) In recent years, cigarette vending machines have even been removed from most public places so that teens cannot access them.



Others reasons for people to quit smoking are benefits from their employer. This lowers health care costs benefiting both the employer and the employee. Some believe the trend in quitting is due to the availability and many options of drugs and products for smoking cessation. There are also government funded and non-profit organizations that are dedicated to educating and advising people when they are trying to quit. All in all, people are getting fed up with the tobacco industry as a whole. More and more people are becoming ill and dying from tobacco related diseases. Most of all, people are becoming more aware of the amount of cigarette advertising is directed towards their kids.



This film was written not to prove smoking was a positive impact on society or a negative impact on society, but to prove that it is an issue in today’s society. This was the directors’ intension from the beginning. In reference to, (2006, October 3). Thank You for Smoking [DVD]. Fox Searchlight Pictures. Event occurs at Special Features, the director Jason Reitman talks about his intensions for the film. He describes the film as a bias to both sides, which neither favor one side or the other.
At the time this movie was filmed many issues regarding smoking were present in modern day society. In 1995 California AB13, prohibiting smoking in enclosed workplaces, took effect http://www.trdrp.org. In addition, one of the nation's toughest anti-smoking laws took effect on April 10, 1995. In New York City a law was passed that was designed to eliminate smoking in most enclosed public places around the city (http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m3190/is_n16_v29/ai_16852234). In some ways it was a coincidence that this movie was released during the year these smoking laws were put into effect, but neither the movie nor the laws prompted the release of the film.
There have been many other films released that have challenged the opinions of society. Many of these movies fall under the famous director known as Michael Moore. Michael Moore has directed films like Fahrenheit 9/11, and Sicko. Both movies raised issues regarding society after the attack on 9/11, and the American health care system. Moves like these and “Thank You For Smoking,” have created discussion among the movie business. They continue to keep society aware of issues regarding everyday life. “Thank You For Smoking” is a wonderful film and will be watched for many years to come.

Thank you for smoking

Aaron Vetter

Movie analysis:

“Thank you for Smoking”


Even before I saw this movie on the list I knew I was going to have to write about it. My group chose to study the tobacco companies and their advertising/marketing techniques and I think this movie, although fictional, is probably very accurate. This movie brings up the point that in winning an argument both positions mean nothing. You’re not after convincing the other person of your argument, just that theirs is illogical and really it’s all about what the audience hears.
Throughout the entire movie Nick Naylor “Big Tobacco’s” spokesperson is involved in many confrontations and through smooth talking he manages to go in the exact direction he intended. Tobacco Industries have the money to hire people exactly like Nick Naylor to talk down bad press. In the movie, the Senator from Vermont is pushing a new law that would have a skull and cross bones printed on every packet of cigarettes to remind people again of how they are bad for you. This is redundant in itself and I think the movie was making fun of how many anti-smoking advertisements can be found on smoke-able products.
Tobacco and America have held hands from the very beginning. It was the cash crop that enabled America to have something special and different that the whole world was interested in. People have come to terms with the fact that smoking is bad for you. It is all a personal decision at the end of the day. Near the end of the movie Nick is in trial and somebody asks him if he would let his child smoke, to which he responds that he would not because he is not of the legal age much less the fact that nobody would want their kid to smoke. The matter is pressed and the man finally yells if Nick would support his son smoking on his 18th birthday, to which he replied, “If he really wants to smoke…I will buy him his first pack”. This statement is a basic understanding that he wants his son to have the right whether he chooses to smoke or not.
A lot of the movie time is spent in courts just like tobacco in the real world. A wave of lawsuits in the early 90’s saw the biggest ban on smoking advertisements to date. This movie was released in 2006 and I think it was a nice perspective switch. All you ever hear about is negative news and publicity and this movie made you feel sympathy with the tobacco company. Nick stops smoking by the end of the movie, eventually does start his own motivational speech school and the tobacco companies can hire somebody new. Life goes on and as long as people still smoke um they will still roll um.

Peace

Week 2 Group Presentation - Advertising

Our group has decided to research and discuss tobacco companies and their advertising practices. According to the tobaccofreekids.org homepage, tobacco companies have spent $35.6 billion so far this year on advertising. They advertise by using most (if not all) the principles we discussed in this week’s lesson on advertising;

1. they are everywhere
2. they use repetition,
3. they use psychological appeals to consumers to encourage them to buy their products, and
4. they organize people by quantitative characteristics so they can effectively market to them.

These companies tend to advertise in any as many areas as possible including movies, television, magazines, the internet, billboards, clothing, points of sale, and even on transportation (buses, trains, taxis, etc.)

They engage very heavily in product placement. Examples are scenes in movies, where characters use products with the company names or logos very conspicuously displayed. This is something they actually planned. They also use stealth marketing to convince consumers by using images of healthy, attractive and young looking people using their products which is far from the reality, that those who tend to use their products are far from healthy.

According to an article on Corpwatch.org, some of these companies have affiliations with some government officials. They also have alliances with corporations, such as Winston's alliance with NASCAR and Formula One's alliance with Marlboro.

Their target audience seems to be anyone and everyone with lungs because they have something to target any demographic, race, age or class. For example, this picture shows them using colors that are more likely to attract young women.

They have also changed the images that they've used several times. An NY Times article explores these changes over time.

They seem to be heavily employing several of the Jib Fowles’15 psychological appeals. They use people’s need for affiliation in marketing to these demographics. The images they often use, are images that consumers want to be affiliated with or images of what consumers wish to experience.

It’s hard to say that there’s a typical consumer for these products because they are marketed in such a variety of ways. Each of these ways isn't always meant for a specific demographic. For example, when the hero of a movie is shown smoking, it’s hard to say that it’s meant for a particular audience.

It is inarguable that everyone fantasizes about being the hero of their own movie. Most people end up trying to project the same image as the hero. This article states that 60% of all smoking images are seen in G, PG and P-13 rated movies.

The public image of tobacco companies is virtually non-existent. They try especially hard to keep a low profile it seems by emphasizing their products and not themselves as a company. Even with this being the case, there are people that perceive them in a negative light which is why they spend so much money trying to rectify that perception. According to TheTruth.com's fact files, they spent $21 million to tell the general public that they had donated money to charity, when the estimated total of the money they sent amounted to approximately $125,000. These companies brand their product by associating it with images that people want to be associated with.

Aesthetically they use colors and images that will attract specific groups of people and also make their products attractive TO these people and others.

This makes it easy to argue that they want to be perceived as cool and the kind of people everyone should aspire to be.

The messages behind their images, logo and slogans are that the consumers of their products can partake in the lifestyle, emotion or persona that they project.

The subtext is often "you can be like this person or experience what they're experiencing, if you smoke". This is definitely the message they push and promote to kids as evidenced by this video below.


They use Robert Cialdini's principles of trigger feature and commitment/consistency. Like we said before, they employ the principles of Jib Fowles's ideas of 15 psychological appeals and seem to rely most heavily on the need for sex, attention, affiliation, escape and prominence. It's impossible for anyone to argue that they don't exploit those needs.

Their advertising is VERY deceptive AND manipulative simply because it never reflects reality. Their advertising is filled with images of people who are healthy, wealthy and slim which creates the idea in peoples' minds that smoking is not harmful despite the warnings. This way of advertising is so powerful that people still continue to smoke because they don't readily associate smoking with the image of a person with a hole in their throat.

The marketers represent the world we live in as this perfect Utopian society in which everyone is happy, popular, wealthy, healthy, and can smoke without any negative outcomes or side effects. At times, they portray the world as a place in which smoking may even help one's popularity. The fact that they portray the world as they do leads us to believe that those who consume their products believe in that world or want to be a part of that world (they want to experience that world, and hope to do so through cigarette use).

This representation is having DEVASTATING effects on the world. According to TheTruth.com's Facts A La Carte:

1. Approximately 5.6 million years of potential life are lost EACH year because of smoking
2. 1,755000 of former smokers have had a heart attack from smoking,
3. 2,633,000 have chronic bronchitis from smoking.

Those who believe in cultural determinism are right about the power of media because according to this video 52% of kids in non-smoking homes began smoking because of the influence of movies and magazines all of which are considered media.

Further Links

http://www.health.ri.gov/media/981222b.php

http://www.tobaccofreedom.org/issues/documents/image/images_image/1999cigreport.PDF

http://tobaccodocuments.org/landman/268413.html

http://tobaccodocuments.org/landman/268413.html#images

Still smoking?

Many people today including close friends of mine, find themselves caught in the routine that they have built around smoking. I do however emphasize they because nobody ever forces you to smoke. Tobacco companies may market a dangerous product but at this point who doesn’t know that? I have smoked before and you can immediately tell that it is not good for you. So in some way are people just looking for somewhere to point their fingers?
The public image of tobacco has been bad for a long time. Pretty much as soon as we figured out so many people were dying from it, we let the entire world know. From anti-smoking campaigns, to protests, to bills and acts through congress to billions of dollars thrown into stopping people from smoking. The tobacco companies don’t even try to deny the health risks, so why are people still smoking?
Tobacco companies saw a wave of lawsuits in the early 90’s forcing them to pay billions of dollars in health care retributions. Basically, advertising for cigarettes has completely gone away in America besides on billboards and only then in certain states. However in 2005 the “five largest cigarette manufacturers spent a total of $13.11 billion on promoting their products”. So how can this be possible if advertising is illegal? Good old American democracy comes into play and the cigarette companies had to reduce their own price and value, “This category accounted for 74.6 percent ($9.78 billion)”
I think that just like any other big business, the tobacco industries play their strengths and weaknesses. They get attacked by the media even though after being at Fullsail I would say 75% of the production team smokes. The media makes money and a good name for itself by going after a product that is dangerous. It is such an easy target for a political party to build up support attacking. I think if you really don’t like smoking then don’t, and don’t let your kids, until they are 18 and then they decide.


http://www.lungusa.org/site/pp.asp?c=dvLUK9O0E&b=44462
2007 American Lung Association®. All rights reserved.



Written by: Aaron Vetter

Race and Ethnicity in TV Shows

Race and ethnicity can be represented in very positive ways in TV shows. African Americans are cast in a particularly positive light because of the behavior of the characters in the show " The Fresh of Bel-Air". African Americans are shown to have the wit, humor and decency that many of them do without ridiculing them as a race or making them seem supernatural.

The representation of the race of African Americans has changed significantly over time and I am unsure as to whether the representation of them in the modern day comedy shows is accurate. I say so because I do not presume to know the state of the entire race of African Americans, nor do I know each one individually to be able to attempt to capture their collective essence into a few characters on a television show. To attempt to do so is folly.

I believe that this true for ALL races. Therefore, I believe the key is to have variety of shows, that display through the characters that there is no ONE way in which a particular race behaves. I believe this is especially important and essential if we wish to avoid stereotyping because the restriction of time on TV shows makes is so that a person cannot be truly portrayed or represented in all their true complexity.

Television images influence the perception of anyone who sees them. Therefore it is hard to argue that there isn't an agenda when images that would negatively influence perception are used instead of those that would positively influence.

The media does reflect society, but it doesn’t do so in the wholesome entirety of the actual nature of society and this ends up encouraging stereotyping and misrepresentation.

How race is involved with music.

In the most recent years of music dating from the early 1900's on, mass people have offen associated different styles of music with different races of people. Rock N' Roll and Bluegrass with white Americans. Blues and Hip Hop with African Americans. Metal with Europeans, mainly Sweden, Norway, Germany, and Austria. When you get down to it, there's really nothing different from any particular genre of music. The style is different, but what makes it all the same is the fact that it is all artists that are expressing themselves. There's a saying that's very common amongst Blues musicians. "There ain't no color to the Blues." I think it's safe to say that's the case with all music.

Rock N' Roll has often been described as an American, or British style of music. That's it's nothing but a bunch of white men making noise. But back in the 60's, the world was about to realize that there's always an acception to the rule. One of Rock's greatest legends, Jimi Hendrix, was a black guitarist from Seattle, Washington, that moved to England, and remained there until his tragic death in 1970. When he emerged in the late 60's, people were amazed at how a black man can rock out harder than any current white man that's already in the rock scene. Most people often say that, the only competition for Hendrix, was a young British guitarist by the name of Eric Clapton, who at the time, was playing with the notorious band Cream. Clapton was the only guitarist in history to have his name written on walls all around London, saying "Clapton is God". In all actuality, Hendrix and Clapton were very fond of each other, and were each other's biggest fans.

Blues, is referred to in most cases as "The Devil's Music". This is so because it was derived from Gospel music, but instead of songs of happiness, they were songs of depression, and alcoholism, and adultry, and sinning. It is referred to that also because of the story of how Robert Johnson went down to the crossroads in Mississippi, and supposedly sold his soul to the Devil, to be the best guitarist around. People believed this because of the fact that he wasn't seen for an entire year, and before he disappeared, he wasn't really a good guitarist at all. But there's acceptions to the color factor, which back up the saying "There's no color to the blues". Guitarists such as the late great Stevie Ray Vaughan, was a white guitarist born in Dallas, Texas, who made his mark in Austin, Texas, and reached the housewife contingincy in the 80's. He's believed to be the greatest guitarist of all time. He dedicated his entire life to the Blues.

Eric Clapton was also another guitarist to delve in the blues. Derek Trucks is a slide guitarist from the South, that has a Blues/Rock/Gospel/Middle Eastern style to his playing. He is also a white man. Music is the one thing in the world that does not discriminate against any race, any gender. It is often referred to as the universal language. Music is something that is heard, not seen, therefore anybody can be anybody through music. It eliminates Jazz musicians that can't walk, from being different than Blues musicians that can't see.