What does music say about a person?

I've always thought that music in the social concept is an interesting topic: How does our taste in sound define us? People are social creatures, and music is inherently social. Some musicians perform for the fans, others for the experience, and others to try to reach stardom. What's so peculiar about music is how much of it relies on other people: If you sing the most beautiful song in the world and no one hears it, is it worth anything? If no one ever knows that you were singing, then the only benefit is your enjoyment - the base incentive to perform. Beyond personal enjoyment, all other benefits rely on the people who experience the performance. Many musicians are pleased if fans enjoy their work. Some musicians release their recordings on the Internet for free, in order to attract listeners. Every musical artist has asked: How do I draw fans?

And it's the fans that drive the music off-stage. It's the fans that have driven everything that happens beyond the musicians: What people think about them, which music CDs people buy, what merchandise to buy. The people who don't make the music spread it. The market for music exists because people are different, and the buyers all have their auditory senses intact (or, mostly).

And the subcultures all have their own music. Whether the subculture defines the music or the music defines the subculture is a possibility to consider. Would the goth movement exist without death metal? Would the emo subculture exist without Bright Eyes? Or do 50 Cent and Aesop Rock define hip-hop and underground urban hip-hop? Do The Shins define indie rock? Simply, no, I don't think so. People are hard to categorize by genres, just as their music is. How could a person who appreciates multiple genres be limited to one respective subculture? Is it a crime for a goth to like TV on the Radio? If music defined the subculture, there would be a million subcultures, one for each unique identity. And what about the people who just like music? The people who generally belong to a culture and not a subculture? People with diverse tastes would be unclassifiable if music really summed up a person. Each man or woman has an identity that no one can duplicate.

Microsoft as a corporation

Are corporations really evil? Do "the corporations" want to brainwash you, control the media, and make themselves rich?

Do you really believe that?

As a student of economics, hearing people say stuff like, "Linux is better because it's not controlled by a corporation, and Microsoft sucks," makes me want to cry. Let me explain why.

There re four main types of businesses in the United States: Sole proprietorships, partnerships, corporations, and limited liability companies. The difference between partnerships (and proprietorships) and corporations is that corporations are not dissolved when the owners depart, corporations have to file more information with the government, and corporations are treated like people in court. Limited liability companies are small businesses (possibly with only one member) that - as the name implies - have less liability than proprietorships. Creditors can claim the property or assets of the owners of proprietorships and partnerships if the businesses owned by them collapse, but LLCs are not vulnerable to this.

So what exactly makes corporations evil? That's a serious question I'm asking. What's wrong with corporations?

The purpose of businesses, excluding non-profit organizations, is to make money; let us not delude ourselves. Companies don't exist to make the world a better place or provide children with flowers. Proprietors, partners, corporations, and companies all want to make money. So how do you make money? Thornton Wilder wrote it most plainly:

"A million is made by producing something that everybody needs every day."
--Horace Vandergelder, The Matchmaker

These are examples of useful things: Computers, breakfast cereal, paper, clothes. Not coincidentally, all those things are manufactured and sold by corporations.

Let's talk about computers. A while back, I claimed that Microsoft had a monopoly on the desktop OS market for two reasons: Microsoft has patents with which it can threaten other companies, and Microsoft has deals with major PC manufacturers. However, I'm going to correct myself. Microsoft does not have a monopoly on the desktop OS market.

Patents are not necessarily an indicator of a monopoly. Microsoft may have patents on code inside Windows, but other companies have patents on software (IBM, NTP, etcetera.). Microsoft's patents haven't threatened the development of Linux, Apple OS, or other operating systems. That makes it apparent that having patents does not automatically make a company a monopoly.

Microsoft's deals with Dell, HP, and other companies also don't make Microsoft the only game in town. Nothing prevents a person from dual-booting Ubuntu or FreeBSD, and Microsoft sure as hell isn't going to stop Apple from bundling Apple OS with its computers. Also bear in mind that it's possible to get a refund from PC sellers if you can prove that you chose not to accept Microsoft's terms of use when Windows' license agreement was presented to you. If Microsoft persuades PC manufacturers from bundling copies of Linux, that is Microsoft abusing its position as an oligopolist, not a monopolist. A small number of operating systems dominates the market: Microsoft Windows, Apple OS, Ubuntu Linux, and a few others. Microsoft is not the only game in town. They are not preventing other organizations from building their own operating systems.

So the crucial question remains: Is Windows a bad product if Microsoft is a bad corporation? But is Microsoft a bad corporation? No. The simple truth is that Microsoft intends to reduce its costs to a point where they can no longer spend any less - Just like ever other business, Microsoft strives for its efficient point. The people who run Microsoft will do whatever they think will make them the most money for the least cost. To Microsoft, this means the addition of restrictions and exclusivity - all in the name of profit. Microsoft isn't out to hurt the consumer and sing praises to the RIAA. Rather, I blame this on stupidity. Microsoft is afraid of lawyers. Just look at the Zune: If Microsoft enabled song sharing, the Zune would be technologically superior to the iPod, and it would have launched with a bang. But afraid of the RIAA and its member organizations, one of the most powerful companies in the world folded to a media distribution company, Universal.

It sounds like Microsoft doesn't care about the users, right? As long as management signs the OEM deals, nothing else matters, right? Wrong. Like every other software company, Microsoft has to convince you that Microsoft software is the best. There are two reasons for this: First, Microsoft knows that if it doesn't update its operating system, customers can and will move to one that does. Second, Microsoft, like every other software company, makes money when its product sells. Updating the product is an incentive to buy new versions.

I'm not excusing Microsoft for it's "embrace, extend, and extinguish" policy, nor for its shady influence on other companies. Microsoft is only as honest as the people that run it; a downside of corporations is that they give unscrupulous people a shield, since corporations are regarded as persons in the eyes of United States law.

I'm not going to get into whether or not Linux is actually better than a commercial product due to its non-commercial nature. I wrote this essay, because arguing that corporations are evil is just silly. I recognize the consumerist attitude that makes up modern America, but it's not inherently evil. Most Americans (and citizens of much of the rest of the world) want to make a lot of money, and for some people, that means running a business. Corporations don't love you, but they don't hate you either. It's important to remember that corporations are made up of people.

Free market education

I'm in high school. I don't particularly enjoy it - Who does? But I don't like the way the schools are run, either. There's a fundamental problem that's ruining the schools of America: No choice.

Schools today are more segregated than they were 30 years ago. In an age where desegregation orders are in effect, you would think that people of different skin color, religion, and creed could actually congregate together. But the fact of the matter is that we are segregated. Not by government order or charter - but by our homes. We live where we can afford it. Children go to school based on where they live - the root cause. School districts are ruining schools. By funneling property taxes only into the schools of their respective districts, politicians are segregating our children and dividing us - the rich and the poor, two wholesomely separate groups kept wholesomely separate without any command.

If you were a parent, and the school closet to you was the worst in town, and you had a choice in where you sent your child, would you choose a different school? Of course you would? Would the worst school in town then try to shape up and get better teachers? Of course!

Now, some people will say that the disappearance of school districts would ruin schools. But what if public schools got funding for every child that decked their halls? (Private schools of course would be barred from this benefit.) Suddenly, things would change for the better. Parents would start to shop around. Feeling the pressure, principals and administrators would find the best teachers possible, so that their school would the highest scores on the AP U.S. History test! Facilities would improve, and better materials would be bought - all in the name of competition.

If there's no competition among schools, the losers are the kids. By locking children into government-mandated natural monopolies, the school districts are lazy, bloated, and slow. Breaking these bonds would force schools to improve - or else. The No Child Left Behind Act cannot improve schools by requiring education institutions to meet and beat arbitrary standards. That doesn't accelerate the motivation to improve; goals like that simply change the material taught in the classroom by shifting the focus onto memorization skills and subjects the tests pinpoint. Teaching to the test is not an improvement in education!

So what can we do? Push school districts into the free market. Redistribute property taxes so that the funds are divided according to student population. Survival of the fittest won't kill schools; it will make them leaner, stronger, and healthier.

An Ode to Christmas (shopping season)

Tomorrow, at approximately 6 A.M . (6:30, perhaps, but if it's 7, then you're really pushing it), Christmas shopping season will end. Oh, to which aspects of life, accepted into daily life, will we bid farewell?

Let me say goodbye to...

...The endless traffic. Tucson, Arizona is quite the popular spot for snowbirds. So, not only are the streets - all of which are a lane or two too skinny - packed with the locals, but all the idiot drivers from the Midwest and the East are clogging our roads.

...The lines. Oh, joy. There's nothing like going out to breakfast, seeing a line going out the door, and discovering that the waiting time is half an hour. This is besides the lines in the stores, which are longer than the distance between San Deigo and Los Angeles. Again, this is the fault of the snowbirds - especially the old people. The old people really come out of the woodwork when Father Christmas rears his bearded head. Why don't I just say good bye to them? Yes, I shall.

...The old people. You don't know how to drive, you occupy all our restaurants, and the only thing you're good for is pumping cash into our winter tourist destinations until the Gem Show comes to town and really show us the money. Please, buy your grandchildren gifts in our town, but for God's sake don't go outside to do it.

...The transportation department. Honestly, you are the most retarded people to ever walk the face of the Earth, and you all work for the city of Tucson. The traffic lights are badly synchronized, and you obviously have no idea how to handle the high influx of tourists that arrive annually but nevertheless manage to befuddle you every single time.

...The War on Christmas. Bill O'Reilly spared us this year by barely mentioning it (Maybe Billo realized that he'd look more intelligent if he didn't get so angry over such an inconsequential item), but that didn't stop a number of newspaper articles that debated the ultimate fight - Happy Holidays vs. Marry Christmas. Honestly, I'd rather study a fight like Mr. T vs. Chocolate Chip Cookies.

...Christmas stores. Not that they concerned me - They capture my interest just as much as the Halloween stores do. (Try to guess how much that is!)

...Pie. Come tomorrow, all the pies will be gone from stores and bakeries everywhere. Of course, all the pie will come back on Boxing Day, but as we say goodbye to Christmas shopping season, we say goodbye to pie reservations.

...Christmas muzak. I don't care about Nat King Cole or Bing Crosby or Gallagher or whoever sings those Christmas songs. Frankly, as long as the lyrics don't say, "Accept Jesus or burn in Hell," I'm not very concerned.

...Christmas specials on The History Channel. Who cares?

...Doorbusters and whatnot. Congratulations, retail of America, for waking up many of our country's citizens at four or five in the morning to get 90% off deals, or something like that.

...PS3 shortages. This doesn't have much to do with Christmas, however. Many people now believe that the PS3 has reached market saturation. I think it's a bit too early to tell for sure, and I'm sure we'll see PS3 enthusiasts who were trying to avoid the long holiday lines coming out and buying those big black beauties.

...Mall Santas. This is the only time of the year when we've needed them.

...Christmas shopping season. You know, I thought it traditionally started the day after Thanksgiving, but this year I saw Christmas ads popping up as early as Halloween. Does it really take you two months to shop for gifts for your friends and family?

New American racism

America now boasts 300 million citizens, a quarter of the number of legal residents in China. Whether you see that as a positive achievement or a detestable one is not relevant to the matter at hand. My focus is on out status as Americans.

What does it mean to be American? 20 years ago, 50, or even 80 years ago, anyone would tell you that America is a mixing pot of different races and cultures, barring the anti-immigrant sentiment that was present a century ago. But despite all our different ethnicities, America isn't really like a melting pot; America is like a fruitcake. It's comprised of many different chunks, each quadrant featuring a unique mix of individual flavors with little in the way of blending.

But now there is a new fear, a fear of Spanish. Bluntly, America is losing its whiteness. I'm pro-diversity, don't get me wrong. It is in recent years that good, honest Americans, especially Americans in Arizona; New Mexico; Texas; and California have begun to show anti-Mexican tendencies. Groups that support making English the official language of Arizona and border protection groups like the Minutemen are clearly examples of this. Some might see the Minutemen as nothing more than border patrols, but there is an underlying racism present; if there was no social issue with Mexicans entering the country illegally, would the Minutemen exist? There is a real and present dislike and distrust of Mexicans, legal or not, by the white majority.

Now that the population has reached 200 million, I've begun to hear this joke being told in one form or another:

"Congratulations! You are the 500 millionth American!"
"Que?"

There is a genuine fear that illegal immigration will cause a culture shift. There is a whisper in the wind that whites are on the way out. There is a general, subtle fear of it - and why not? Why wouldn't the dominant race fear its supplantation? Indeed, who wouldn't be afraid of waking up to find their language no longer in use and their culture frowned upon? The status quo is continuously arming itself against anything that isn't the status quo.

But is there anything to fear? Besides the fear of irrelevancy, is there a reason to fear the new immigrants? Remember United States history; a long time ago Americans were immigrants. A long time ago Protestants were suspicious of their Catholic neighbors. A shorter time ago NINA. A short time ago America was whites-only. Fear and loathing of Spanish-speaking immigrants is the new wave of immigrants to see marginalization. I predict that there is actually no need to fear the growing minority. Some will argue that the primary difference between Mexican immigrants and the Ellis Island immigrants is the fact that many Mexican immigrants aren't assimilating. But of course! When immigrants in the 1920s came to America, they didn't assimilate either - Their kids did. That's why there's no cause for alarm; if history repeats itself, the children of the Mexican immigrants will learn English and be Americans, separated only by skin color.

Seventy percent of Arizona voted in favor of a bill that would make English the official language of Arizona on election day 2006. Arizona voters also passed, among others, a proposition that barred illegal immigrants from seeking compensation if they or their property were damaged in Arizona. Voters apparently failed to realize the harmful implications of such propositions. Those propositions will do absolutely nothing to keep Mexicans from crossing the border illegally. Instead, they will end up being demeaned and dehumanized as a result. The worst conditions in the United States are better than what the Mexican poor will see in Mexico. These new laws threaten to make illegal immigrants less than human beings. They are already strangers in a strange land; shouldn't they at least have some dignity?

Sex, violence, and perpetrators in society

Isn't it time we re-examined the United States of America? After all, it is the country with by far the greatest influence in the world. Decisions of the future, decisions of morality, and decisions of life made by the leaders of Earth are all affected by the United States. But taking a look at American society we see some major problems. There is for one a distinct schism between the acceptance of violence and the acceptance of sexuality. Specifically, violence is universally accepted or even welcomed by adults, but exposing people to sex is considered disgusting. How is it that movie theaters across the country clamor to carry a movie depicting several gory murders, but it is widely unthinkable to carry a film in which no one dies and the climax occurs on a bed? How is it that the miracle of life is considered objectionable, but no movie channel on television has a problem with showing a movie in which someone dies of gunshot wounds or a stabbing? Isn't it suspicious when a country appreciates the destruction of life over its creation? As much as America's leaders are loathe to admit, sex is a natural part of life.

No undeserved blame is laid when America's leaders are blamed for the current state of affairs. The administration of George W. Bush has declared a war on porn with several bills and devoted taxpayer money to fighting this war. Searching 'War on Porn' in Google reveals the devotion of FBI resources to finding and searching for obscene porn. Near the bottom there is one key sentence:

"The adult obscenity squad [in the FBI]. . . stems from an attorney general mandate, funded by Congress," she [Debra Weierman] said.

Alberto Gonzales made it a top priority to fight porn websites selling subscriptions for "obscene" material to consenting adults. What is considered obscene, why is it considered obscene, and what's wrong with it if adults have no problem with it? What is impressive about this case is that it is hypocritical in three ways: One, this is using taxpayers' money for an additional government project; whatever happened to fiscal responsibility? Two, this is more big government; an invasion of privacy cannot be regarded as little government. Three, whatever happened to the free market? George W. Bush won the presidency not once but twice based on the economic positions of fiscal responsibility, small government, and free market. Yet, when it comes to porn, economics take a back seat to morality and making sure that some adults can't see what they want to pay to see. Somehow the administration decided to interfere in the lives of its citizens for the arbitrary reason of enforcing arbitrary morality.

Even if some people have questionable taste in pornography, how is that worse than violence? While adults may have the opportunity to view pictures simulating situations of domination and submission, bondage, or other situations involving black leather, how is that worse than violence? After all, even if the sex appears violence, it's still simulated - just like in movies. But for some reason the fact that it's sex makes the content much more dangerous to the community. No movie theater will carry NC-17 movies. It's okay to be ripped apart by a chainsaw, but oh my God are they having S-E-X? Call the police!

And of course we cannot forget books. How could we forget books? Senate candidate George Allen produced a series of excerpts from challenger James Webb's novels - excerpts containing sex. Apparently headline-worthy material consists of politicians putting pen to paper and producing two people getting down and dirty. Disparaging politicians for writing simulated sex is hypocritical. Public figures like Barbara Boxer, Newt Gingrich, Lynne Cheney, Jimmy Carter, and even Bill O'Reilly have chronicled fictional sex. How can we criticize one politician without criticizing them all? Come to think of it, why criticize them? What's wrong with writing sex scenes? In eighth grade a novel writer came to my school and talked about her career as a novelist. One of the things she mentioned was that she was required by her publisher to write sex scenes. She was required to do so. Should I think any less of her for writing about two people taking their clothes off? If not her, why James Webb? In fact, why criticize anyone for writing a sex scene? Who would be traumatized by reading about two fictional characters having sex, versus reading about people being killed? Why is James Webb being criticized for writing about sex, but no one gives a damn that Stephen King has written scenes that include people being killed? While violence and even racism has been covered liberally throughout the history of novelization, some people feign illness at the mention of sex.

I am not criticizing artists, writers, or filmmakers who depict violence. There is nothing wrong with exercising free speech. Violence occurs in daily life, in different forms, so it seems only natural that people want to depict it on film. What's suspicious about violence in film is that people will trumpet this violence over the mountaintops but kick and scream when the sex appears too graphic.

Isn't a society that covets the destruction of life over its creation backwards? Isn't a society that believes in death flawed? While every person has a tendency to act violent, isn't it completely different to glorify it and abhor its opposite?