You Kids and Your Rock n' Roll!

One night as I was sitting on the couch watching T.V. with my mom, a commercial came on featuring a soundtrack with "electronic" type music. "What is this garbage you guys listen to these days?", she said. As I reflected on her comment, I realized that this represented a well-established pattern. The preferred style of music of the current generation is always met with disgust or mockery from the older generation. The music of a generation represents the prevailing attitudes and characteristics of these people - attitudes which are often misunderstood by the older generation, just as the music often is. While the older generation may not enjoy or appreciate the music of their younger counterparts, it's important that these Generation X'ers, Baby Boomers, and beyond, realize that while they may not relate directly to the music itself, they can certainly relate to the feelings and attitudes they had when they were younger. I would argue that despite the radical changes in technology, taste in clothing, music, political environment, and other things, the nature of humanity - our intrinsic wants, needs, and desires - do not change from generation to generation. This idea of a common sense of what it means to be human knows no boundaries, generational or otherwise, and ties all of us together. 

The Silent Generation, born between 1925 and 1945, consisted mostly of people who were too young to partake in WWII, but many had parents or relatives involved in the war. One of the most popular styles of music during the time was swing music, featuring artists like Duke Ellington, Benny Goodman, Glenn Miller, and Count Bassie. Their music focused on the flow of the songs, and was happy and upbeat, which offered an escape from the uncertain times of WWII. 

The Baby Boomers, born between 1946 and 1964, were all about personal freedoms. The Civil Rights Movement, the feminist movements of the 1970s, as well as sexual expression and experimentation with drugs were all defining aspects of this generation. Rock and Roll was the music of choice, much of which was highlighted at the Woodstock music festival during the summer of 1969. Jimi Hendrix, Santana, and the Beatles were among the most popular artists of the time. 

Members of Generation X were born between the late 1960s and late 1970s to early 1980s. This generation reflected an increase in diversity, through an increased acceptance of different races, classes, and sexual orientations. Although this generation were referred to as "slackers" at the time, studies have shown that they are now one of the happiest and most educated generations. This group was largely influenced by the rise in popularity of MTV, and enjoyed bands like Pearl Jam, U2, and other "grunge rock" groups. 

Although the official dates are disputed, Generation Y consists of people currently in their "tweens", to people in their late 20's. This generation has grown up in an increasingly globalized world, and because of such, they have become fluent with technology and communication. They emphasize individual expression and acceptance, much of which has come in the way of online video games, social networking sites such as Facebook, and social media sites like YouTube. Generation Y has had a wide range of musical types, from hip hop, to indie rock, and more recently, a shift to electronic dance music, as well as various spin offs such as "dubstep"which features aspects of electronic music with an emphasis on bass and unconventional rhythm. 

When examining the range of musical styles, from Duke Ellington’s swing music, to the electronic and dubstep genre of today’s DJ’s, the extreme difference of musical taste among different generations becomes glaringly apparent. However, as music can be thought of as a reflection of the era in which it is produced, we begin to see how we may not be so different from our parents’, or even or grandparents’ generation before us. Just as the swing music of the Silent Generation was an escape from the horrors of WWII, the electronic music of today gives Generation Y’ers an avenue for expression and escape from the harsh economic circumstances and uncertain futures that many of us face today. Parallels can also be drawn between The Baby Boomers and Generation Y. Many Generation Y’ers today attend events such as Electronic Dance Carnival, and Hard Haunted Mansion, which are electronic and dubstep music festivals that feature large, outdoor stage setups, and involve a widespread usage of drugs – many of the key characteristics of the “Woodstock style” of music culture that defined the Baby Boomer generation. Finally, we have Generation X, which gave rise to the MTV music culture – still a popular network and driving force in today’s youth culture.

So next time your mom harangue’s you for your musical tastes, just remind her that there was probably a time when her parent’s referred to the Beatle’s and other rock n’ roll as “garbage” – something that would be considered preposterous today. 

Legalize the Green to Keep America out of the Red

This past Friday, America's national debt hit $15 trillion. As our government continues to struggle to find ways of reducing this national debt, the issue begs the question: Why have we still not legalized marijuana in America? Although I personally do not use marijuana, I believe that it's legalization will not only help generate revenue for the government, but it would also allow adult citizens a freedom they should have had all along. 

Although the argument for the legalization of marijuana may not be a new one, it still remains as relevant as ever. With an ever-worsening financial situation, America needs to do everything it can to improve it's situation. Marijuana is a drug with a storied past, one full of governmental exaggeration and scare tactics.  What is the government so afraid of? 

As history has repeatedly shown us, banning a certain type of behavior tends to only drive it underground. While there is an obvious need to outlaw some things to maintain a safe and orderly society, marijuana is not one of them. 

As most people now know, weed is a fairly benign drug, one that can be used without fear for withdrawals or risk of an overdose. Furthermore, marijuana has a calming affect on most people - you never hear of criminals going on weed-fueled rampages, or fights among teenagers high at a party - unless alcohol is thrown into the mix. It's a generally accepted claim that individuals under the influence of alcohol are a much greater risk to the people and objects around them than people who are high on marijuana. Additionally, many of the concerns that marijuana use raises, such as the operation of vehicles or machinery under the influence, are issues already present with alcohol. Even the well known "munchie" phenomenon that many people experience while high on marijuana also seems to be evoked by alcohol as well, as I've witnessed many people flock to fast food joints after a hard night of drinking. 

A report by the Cato Institute found that decriminalization of drug use in Portugal has been a huge success, and that drug use rates did not increase under this change in legislation. While decriminalization is not the same thing as legalization, this case study on Portugal offers further support for the fact that America's hardline stance and "War on Drugs"campaign has largely been a waste of money and time - at least in regards to minor marijuana usage and possession charges. Efforts to detain, prosecute, and jail offenders has been a huge time and money sink for an already financially ailing America. The fact that we have the most people behind bars of any country - many for nonviolent drug crimes, is further proof that our current policies are not working. 

With the legalization, regulation, and taxation of weed, we can utilize another tool on our belt in fighting to reduce our national debt, as well restore what should be a personal choice to our citizens. 

For more information regarding the war on drugs and marijuana legalization, the Cato Institute offers a large amount of material and commentary on the subject. 

Cato Institute: Marijuana Legalization in California

Cato Institute: I Smoke Pot, and I Like It 

Cato Institute: The Politics and Science of Medical Marijuana 

The [Nanny] States of America

"A government big enough to give you everything you want, is strong enough to take everything you have." - Thomas Jefferson

After seeing this quote, I was shocked at how applicable it is to today's society. Although Jefferson lived hundreds of years ago, we now realize how far ahead of his time he was. Simply put, Jefferson was a philosopher-king - the very type of leader that Plato considered to be most adept at leading people. Put metaphorically, Plato described a philosopher-king as a captain of a ship: "A true pilot must of necessity pay attention to the seasons, the heavens, the stars, the winds, and everything proper to the craft if he is really to rule a ship." To Plato, a philosopher-king looked at the "big picture" of things, always re-examining issues from varying perspectives - and always putting the people first. When I look at the people who are in leadership positions in this country today, I see the opposite of what Plato describes. I see a government that exemplifies exactly what Jefferson warned us about.

We have all heard the age-old adage that says you learn best by doing; anything else in inferior. When I reflect on all the lessons that I have learned throughout my lifetime, I realize that the vast majority of them came from the act of actually doing something. Additionally, the best ones have come from trying and failing. To put it plainly, we learn from our mistakes.

In the context of present day American society, the opportunity for citizens to learn by doing has largely been stomped out - due in large part to the rise of what many refer to as "big government."In my opinion, good government should allow people the chance to make their own choices, and then learn from them. Today, there is a growing trend in which regulations, bans, and restrictions rule every aspect of our lives. Obviously, the element of law needs to exist to a certain degree in order to keep society from falling into chaos. However, the American government of today goes above and beyond this. Today, it exists at a level where people aren't even allowed the chance to fail. Rules and regulations constrain behavior to such a degree that citizens are often banned from doing something before they are even given the chance attempt it, and thus, learn from it.

When I was a kid, my friends and I started up a neighborhood business to make some spending money. We emulated the old "lemonade stand" style of businesses, in which people driving by could stop and buy some homemade refreshments and snacks. The first day we didn't do bad, we made a good amount of money, but probably not enough to justify standing outside in the sun all day. With this in mind, I came up with a plan: in addition to selling snacks and drinks, I got the idea to set up a car wash. So as people would stop for a drink or a snack on the way home from work, I would explain that we could wash their car while they sat and ate. After implementing this, our business exploded and we made hundreds of dollars the first day. The food and drinks are what got customers "foot in the door" so to speak. Once we already had them, we would be in a better position to offer them a higher priced service - the car wash, which is where we made our real money. While the first attempt could be seen as a failure, I learned from it and adapted my business model, and found that by offering both snacks and a car wash simultaneously, I could make much more money than by running either aspect of the business alone.

Now, fast forward a decade to 2011. Four-year-old Abigail Krstinger, tried to run a lemonade stand in Iowa, in which she was selling cups for 25 cents each. Before long, the police arrived and shut her down for not having the proper permits to run a business. This isn't an isolated incident either. In Maryland, a group of young children set up a similar neighborhood stand selling beverages, with the plan to donate half of the money made to a non-profit organization that fights pediatric cancer. In this case, police not only shut down the stand, but they fined the parents $400. After reading about this ridiculous war on the childhood tradition of selling lemonade, it made me appreciate the fact that I was able to experience what it was like to run a business of sorts. Additionally, it made me sad that these children were denied a great life lesson, one that I have remembered dearly to this day.

While these stories don't exactly make for front page news, they are an important reflection of the prevailing cultural zeitgeist of our time. Government today exists in such a way that people are often times denied the freedom to take a little risk, in exchange for the hopes of gaining some sort of favorable outcome - be it monetary gain, or more importantly, a fulfilling learning experience. While there are certainly scenarios in which these business permit laws serve their purpose, the cases of these neighborhood lemonade stands are not among them. Law and order today operates in the form of what can essentially be considered a bureaucratic machine; rules are automatically and thoughtlessly enforced uniformly, without regard for special circumstances. While the laws themselves are enacted by various levels of government, the stories of these lemonade stands shed light on the way in which these laws are actually implemented in real life, by real public administrators - in this case, the police. As stated above, while these two occurrences are only a "drop in the pond" so to speak, they are a representation of the greater overarching attitudes of the government today. Furthermore, they serve as testament to the fact that this existing "nanny philosophy" that has been adopted by our government is an outright failure to the American people. We need to wake up and smell the coffee, or in this case, the lemonade, and vote in people who will lead this nation of individuals, not hold them back.

How Not to Lose Friends

At 4:37 in the afternoon, Mike told me that he’s going to take a nap, Sara said she’s watching TV, and John explained how he’s been in the bathroom “for like, ever.”

Now why did I just share these enthralling tales with you? Because they shared them with me. Now, you must be thinking that I have the most boring friends on the planet.

But wait! These people are not my friends, and they did not talk to me.  They thoughtfully provided these fascinating little windows into their lives to not only me, but to their 700 “friends”, via the Facebook news feed.

Now, don’t get me wrong, I’m all for keeping up with what my friends are doing. But John, I barely even know you, and something tells me that even the people who do, probably don’t care how long you’ve been on the loo either. With the ability to instantly broadcast every detail of our lives over Facebook, it’s important to realize when not to click that ‘share’ button.

Facebook can be a very convenient and efficient way to keep in touch with family and friends – there’s no denying that. However, every social media user can also attest to the fact that, in addition to all the people you love to hear from, there’s also a handful of “friends” that make you roll your eyes every time you see one of their posts pop up on the news feed.

Of all the Facebook offenders, perhaps none are more well known than the person who has to post every single detail of their day online:

Awesome! Kelsea, thank you for sharing that with us, we are all better off for knowing that you practice basic hygiene just like everybody else in the country. But wait; was the water too hot, too cold, or just right? Did you condition or just shampoo this time? Please tell us more!

Next up, we have the “Shameless Self-Promoter and Spammer”. This person posts things like, “Wow, I studied less than John and still managed to beat him by 15%!” Or even, “Got the promotion as expected! What am I going to do with all this extra money?” While people have the right to brag about their achievements when appropriate, this is the person who is constantly filling up your news feed with posts about how awesome he is. This Facebook user may even take it one step further by consistently spamming his friends with invites and links. “Vote for me in the Battle of the Bands survey!” “Check out this link to my photography site.” “Please ‘like’ this page and support my friend’s sister’s former roommate’s new clothing line!” We understand what you are trying to do here, but if you could wait more than 5 seconds between each spam message that’d be great.

Additionally, there’s always someone who managed to successfully graduate from school, yet still can’t seem to use basic grammar and spelling on Facebook:

Daniel, I think you mean “that” instead of “day”, and “passing” instead of “passion.” I bet Whitney would agree with me that you should at least know how to spell “passing” in order to receive a likewise grade in English class.

Another type of post we have all grown to hate is the “Overly-Generalized Sweeping Statement” status update: 

There’s always one person who loves to make posts that are so ridiculously broad and oversimplified that they become downright annoying. Zoey’s post is a perfect example of this. Sometimes it might take a response like the one above to make this person re-examine her own behavior before broadly criticizing an entire gender of people. Touche, Toby.

Finally, we have the “I-don’t-know-the-difference-between-funny-and-inappropriate” poster:

While there are certain things you might not want to post to Facebook, this guy takes it to a whole new level. For obvious reasons, broadcasting the fact that you committed a crime to your 800-plus “friends” online is probably not a good idea. This is the same guy who uploaded pictures to your wall of you projectile-vomiting at last weeks party, even when he knows that Facebook is the main way you keep in contact with your family back home.

Facebook, Twitter, and other social networking sites have developed into a fantastic way to easily stay connected with all the people in our lives. However, just because we can share everything with everybody, it doesn’t mean that we should. Let the posts discussed above serve as a stern reminder to us all: As social media users, it’s everyone’s duty to think before we click.

The Audacity of Stupidity

Driving drunk? Check. Skirting court-ordered duties? Check. Stealing retail merchandise when you have enough money to buy the entire store? Check.

Despite what her recent absence from the limelight might suggest, it appears that Lindsay Lohan is hell-bent on reminding everyone that she has all the necessary makings of a Hollywood celebrity after all. However, with all the negative publicity she has received, maybe there is something society can learn from her after all: What not to do.

Coming off the heels of an early release from a July 2010 stint in jail – in which she was allegedly in the infirmary every day for “medical treatment”, Lohan continued her insulting display of audacity earlier this week when she was turned away from her community service appointment at the LA County morgue for showing up almost an hour late. The only thing she could do to make her blatant disregard for the law more apparent would be to run for Senatorial office (Charles Rangel, anyone?)

At the ripe old age of 25, “LiLo” has already built quite the resume of breaking the law, and then arrogantly attempting to escape the consequences of her actions. Prior to her mandated work assignment at the morgue, Judge Sautner stated that Lohan had intentionally skipped hundreds of hours of community service at a downtown women’s shelter.

Lohan’s actions are not only an insult to the average law abiding citizen, they are an insult to all those who are struggling to make ends meet in this economic downturn. Lindsay, how do you make tens of millions of dollars, and then only a few years later, wind up in a situation where you need to steal store merchandise? Although, we really shouldn’t be too judgmental here: with all the news of financial bailouts being handed out like candy, maybe Lohan just expected one too?

While all of this banter regarding the actions of one young actress may seem like simple bullying, it’s really just a convenient exemplification of what’s wrong with the political and financial institutions of today. Some of the broader phrases tossed around are, an absence of accountability, fiscal irresponsibility, and a general lack of prudence in regards to providing for the future.

While much of this may be beyond the perceptive scope of children and teens, the life and actions of Lindsay Lohan certainly are not. As the saying goes, “a child’s brain is like a sponge.” Do we really want our younger generation absorbing what Lindsay has to offer?

So what exactly can be done? Society must stop empowering her, as well as other public figures that set poor examples. In the case of Lindsay Lohan, there appears to be a step in the right direction, as Hollywood’s infatuation with her seems to have dwindled as of late. However, the media’s obsession with incessantly covering celebrity scandals offers us some assurance that the “plights” (and I use that word loosely) of Ms. Lohan, along with those of many other celebrities, will continue to be rammed down our throats indefinitely.

So with this in mind, we must change the way that we perceive these people. Lohan can be thought of as some sort of anti-role model, a case study in how not to act. Although human society in general has historically put a lot of emphasis on the importance of good role models, there seems to be a lack of understanding in regards to how visible examples of what not to do can be just as beneficial. Remember how Flick gets his tongue stuck on a frozen pole after being “triple dog dared” by Schwartz in the movie A Christmas Story? Had my mom warned me against pulling such a stunt, I probably would have gone out and tried it the next day. However, simply the sight of this scene alone made a younger version of myself solemnly swear never to follow suit.

Orange County Register Op-Eds

"Drunken Driving Bill Goes Too Far"

- Op-ed is opposed to Assembly Bill 2784, which would force California judges to punish "both drivers charged with driving just a sip over the limit with the same sentence given hard-core offenders: vehicle-ignition interlocks."

"Government Intrusion Into Broadband Hasn't Worked"

- Op-ed is opposed to a government stimulus plan that will help underserved / unserved areas in America develop broadband internet. 

Google World

In the years before the internet, people were usually forced to consult separate, unrelated sources in their quest for information: Newspapers, television stations, academic books and essays for a research paper, etc. Today, with the advent of the Internet, the search engine has seemingly replaced the need to utilize other avenues of information.

In 2007, a group of Austrian researchers stated that many people tend to think of Google as a “reality interface.”

The report found that journalism today is increasingly a direct result of a “googlisation of reality.” It stated that 94.8% of Austrian journalists begin research for stories on Google, and 60% used it “continuously.” The researchers state that this data is applicable to most countries world-wide, with some exceptions, such as South Korea.

This raises some concerns about how much influence large search engines, namely Google, have on the distribution of information throughout the world. “Google has become the main interface for our whole reality…with the Google interface, the user gets the impression that the search results imply a kind of totality. In fact, one only sees a small part of what one could see if one also integrates other research tools.”

The Austrian study raises some important concerns in regards to our reliance on search engines. In order to get a more balanced perspective, it’s critical that people try to utilize other sources and methods of research, and to understand that Google should not be considered the “be-all, end-all” information authority.