You’ve seen it before. Perhaps you’re watching the Academy Awards and expecting the winner of Best Supporting Access to give a quick acceptance speech thanking her cast, director, crew, and family, but perhaps she takes more time to pontificate about human rights, war, or politics. Most people I know groan when yet another entertainment superstar shares his opinion about issues unrelated to acting, singing or dancing. But skills in entertainment may not always preclude intelligence or sincerity.
Tom Hanks knew this when he published his stump video for Barack Obama on Youtube. He says sarcastically, “As an official celebrity, I know my endorsement has just made your mind up for you.” (Hanks managed to slip into his endorsement a mention of George Washington’s transference of power to John Adams, an event recently depicted in the John Adams miniseries he recently produced for HBO, but perhaps that is beside the point.)
I like Tom Hanks’ approach. By posting a Youtube video, he is not forcing anyone to listen to his message; those who are interested can seek it out. Additionally, I find Tom Hanks to appear to be an intelligent figure in entertainment, always making smart and challenging choices in his own career. I would then extrapolate and assume that he is likely just as intelligent with other decisions as well. But his argument in favor of any presidential candidate is only as persuasive to me as I want it to be.
This is just a recent example, but there is no doubt that it is common for celebrities to use their voice and popularity to bring awareness to a human rights or political cause. Perhaps the type of popularity in which individuals have the ability to reach an audience of millions instills responsibility or desire to reach people in a way that not many others can. Anyone in their place who cares about an issue would regret not bringing awareness before they no longer have the ears of a wide audience if given the fleeting chance.
I believe that anyone with the ability to communicate to millions of people and touch so many lives has the responsibility to raise awareness to important issues. However, the most uncouth outbursts at an inappropriate time (think Michael Moore at the Oscars blasting President Bush) make the celebrity seem like a jerk for using their status to spread their message and take attention away from *the issue* and place it on *the celebrity.* Don’t forget that celebrities all along the political spectrum use their status for awareness, including Charlton Heston with his From My Cold, Dead Hands call as chairman of the National Rifle Association.
Should celebrities just shut up and entertain us, or does great responsibility follow great popularity? Is it right for some celebrities but not others, or is it the timing or situation that makes the message acceptable to hear? Or do you believe only the celebrities who agree with you should have the opportunity to speak out for issues that they find important?
Photo credits: Alan Light and Legendary Classic
I had family visiting from California this weekend, and was very glad to be able to take time off from work and everything else just to be able to spend it with them. It’s precious time I’ll always remember.
In the midst of our happy chatter over brunch this morning at a great local diner, however, I noticed something which made me incredibly sad. Seated at the table adjoining ours was a mother and daughter, both facing each other, but not in communication in the least. As my family laughed and talked, I noticed the quiet blanketing their table, the pretty but sad face of the daughter staring blankly at Mom, waiting for the conversation that never came.
Mom was curled around her cell phone as she dined, glancing up only occasionally. I actually commented on her behavior at one point to my party, though I doubt she heard me, engrossed as she was in the apparently fascinating world of T-Mobile.
At the end of their meal, Mom actually snapped her fingers in her daughter’s face as she tossed her the credit card, never ceasing her other conversation. Daughter trotted off to pay the bill, and that was that, Sunday morning brunch concluded.
Instances like this remind me how important it is to be actively enjoying and experiencing the moments we’re paying for, no matter the scale. Cell phones, Blackberries and the like make it simple for anyone to reach us anywhere, but also for anyone to interrupt us in the middle of anything. Emergencies are one thing, but to turn aside from the ones you’re with to focus on someone else tells them they don’t rank too highly within your social hierarchy.
Why spend the time or the money to go out for a meal with a loved one at all if your actions are going to tell them they’re not significant enough to receive your undivided attention? Why lay money out for an experience if you’re not going to be fully there?
In our wired society, are we starting to lose our intimate and special connections to others in the name of being constantly connected? More and more, I feel plagued by this type of social multitasking, and don’t really see anyone benefiting from the extra money we spend to be eternally reachable. I’m sure employers love to be able to reach their staff at any time, especially when a server starts misbehaving, but when the workday’s limits dissolve, employee morale and productivity generally suffer.
How do you switch it off?
David Walker, the Comptroller General of the United States, had some harsh words for his country last month. I’m surprised that I didn’t hear of this earlier; I’ve also been thinking about some of the issues Walker raised, but until now, I haven’t heard them echoed by anyone actually involved with governmental policy. His words were reported in Financial Times.
Drawing parallels with the end of the Roman empire, Mr. Walker warned there were “striking similarities” between America’s current situation and the factors that brought down Rome, including “declining moral values and political civility at home, an over-confident and over-extended military in foreign lands and fiscal irresponsibility by the central government…”
I’m torn. While I certainly see some parallels between society today and the aspects commonly thought to cause Roman society to decline, usually a gross over-simplification of the issue, I still have hope. We have the benefit of immediate information and feedback, and it’s much more difficult for those in power to get away with manipulating the masses. Despite short-lived imbalances of public sentiment, this country is often split on issues down the middle. Civic decisions are therefore more difficult to make on a national scale, less gets done, and change is only driven in those times of imbalance.
I don’t think the American empire is quite ready to fall, despite some of the parallels with societies on the decline or past their tipping point. What do you think? Is the Comptroller General correct about the impending implosion of our society, or are his words necessary only to bring awareness to some of the issues and perhaps inspire a new cycle of sentiment?
Learn from the fall of Rome, US warned [Financial Times]
According to the Global Rich List, my estimated income of $70,000 for this year puts me in the top 0.85% in the world on the basis of annual earnings. However, according to a new global study commissioned by the United Nations, my net worth of under $70,000 translates to “only” the top 10% of all individuals throughout the world, ranked by total “wealth.”
From an article on MarketWatch, providing the details of the study: [click to continue…]
If you’re looking for an investment that provides a return higher than Treasury bills, and you want to help the world at the same time, you might want to consider this new bond. The government of Britain with some others (not including the United States) are selling bonds to raise money to immunize millions of children around the world against polio, measles, diphtheria, and hepatitis.
The first bond issued will be purchased by the Pope and heads of other religious organizations will be among the first buyers.
According to the Marketplace morning report, the United States government is not participating because the payments to bondholders in the future will come from active budgets. The bonds are underwritten by the World Bank.
According to CNN, if you add up the net worth of the 400 wealthiest Americans, you come up with a combined net worth of $1,250,000,000,000. That’s $1.25 trillion.
That’s an increase of $120 billion from last year.
The article then goes on to describe who is in the list (only billionaires, no lowly millionaires). Warren Buffett and Bill Gates, pictured here, are at the top, But that’s not important to me today. This is what I really want to know: [click to continue…]
I’ve been talking with J.D. of Get Rich Slowly about the rise of (the social acceptance of) personal debt in the twentieth century, which was somewhat spurred on by my MoneyBloggerPodcast interview.
J.D. has included a passage from a book, Ain’t We Got Fun, in his recent post, The Dawn of the Age of Credit. The book looks at the changes in American society of the 1920s that led to the way people view credit cards and personal debt today. That is to say, most of this country holds personal debt as socially acceptable, rather than in previous centuries when a social stigma was attached to those who owed money.
The book seems a little difficult to come by, otherwise I’d add Ain’t We Got Fun to my wish list.
Peggy Post, who has taken over the Etiquette legacy from the mannerific Emily Post, was interviewed by Bankrate.com. She tackled the problem of the appropriateness of talking about money; that is, when and how not to do it.
Her tips were standard. People don’t like to talk about money because they feel they are being evaluated on how much they make or how much they spend. For some, talking about the topic is like revealing your age.
I don’t talk about money much in person. If I did, I’d be getting on people’s nerves as I would likely complain about the cost of my apartment or my salary, and I’m sure when I’m out being social, people don’t really want to hear that.
This increases the value of the blog to me. It’s relatively anonymous. Most of my friends don’t read this website (if they want to keep up they might read another blog I write that contains more information on my interests and activities) and don’t care about my financial situation.
I’m not breaching any etiquette by presenting my household income statement or balance sheet. Corporations aren’t embarassed when people read their annual reports; it’s just “business.”
The focus of this blog is my financial situation, but there’s much more to me than just that. I may have an accounting-related job, but that is just a coincidence. Money doesn’t define a person and it certainly doesn’t define me.
Email this article
Print this article
