Not 21? Clearly You CANNOT Be NEAR alcohol.

This is one giant rant about how crazy age limits are in this country.

It began when I was 18. One of my favorite jazz guitarists and arguably one of the best jazz guitarists of all time came to my home town, minutes away from my house. Well, this venue only allowed people 21 and over, so I had to pass on it. At that time, I felt it was somewhat fair that I was jipped out of my chance to see a great performer because I was still a little underage.

Later, the person who caused me to discuss my pain with you, Mr. Victor Wooten, came to that same jazz venue when I was 19. Again I was jipped and could not go. My frustration was still there, but again, I can understand it. For some reason being two years younger is a decent justification.

So now, I am 20 years old, and my birthday is in two months. Mr. Wooten is coming to Bloomington, IN on September the 19th to perform has magic on the bass guitar, and I cannot go because I am 20 years old still. I want justification, America. I want to know why, a person like myself, who is far more astute and responsible when it comes to the consumption of alcohol, who has never been drinking and driving and finds those that do absolutely disgusting and, most importantly, is only ONE MONTH away from being the legal age to enter a bar cannot attend an event.

Here is my problem with age limits: The hard arbitrary link between being a certain age and having a certain privilege is never going to be perfect. We live in a country where you can smoke your lungs away and have guaranteed problems after just one week of smoking, you can gamble all of your money away in lottery tickets, you can vote for your leader, and you can drive a two ton automobile and risk killing yourself and others but you cannot drink a beverage in public. You cannot even go into a place or area where alcohol is served. I understand that there should be some limit clearly, because we would not want 10 year olds drinking or smoking, but then there is still the issue of 9 and a 1/2 year olds…why are they exempt?

Perhaps one way of restricting alcohol use is some signed consent by the parents or guardian and the user to be noted on an ID. If the parents believe that their child is competent enough to drink alcohol, or at least sit in a location where there is alcohol served, the minor should be allowed to assume whatever risks that entails. But the issue here may be that the minors would perhaps “ruin the fun” of the adults by being around. I’m sure older adults want to only associate with other older adults. So in this case, the age limit is really a social thing. If that’s the case, then what stops a guy like me from entering a bar, or others who are just that close?

So then why not make restrictions based on certain groupings? I am a college student on the campus, and I do not think that 21 year old would have a problem with a 20.9 year old sitting there enjoying music. Perhaps in a general area, 21 and up is the way to go, but on a college campus, maybe upper classmen only? This might be stretching because I really just want to be in the in-group. Which is probably the reason why this solution would not go so well, because there would be fights over who is in and who is not.

None of this musing will get me what I want in the end anyway. I really need your help! If you understand my plight and support the fact that the standard does not make sense, post a comment!

Filed under: Random, Society

Pink Floyd: A Musical Overview

It’s not often that I take a break from science writing to discuss something totally random, but in this past week of music exploration, I have really realized how truly great a band can be. Pink Floyd is arguably one of the greatest bands of all time, and has skyrocketed to be such a favorite of mine that I have to write about it and give you a musical exposition as to why this band deserves a first look or a rediscovery.

As many people know, the band as a primarily “classic rock” band, but that term umbrellas several movements. Particularly, Floyd is known for their progressive rock movement in the mid to late 70s. Progressive rock is really a label for songs that are extremely long, contain multiple movements, and probably have little to no meaning in the words whatsoever. The songs showcase the particular talents of the band members while telling some grand story that was created on an acid trip. To appreciate progressive rock, I’d say a good long listen in a long car ride would suffice. Kings of prog rock also include Yes, Dream Theater, and Rush.

The earliest band members included Syd Barrett, Nick Mason, Roger Waters, and Richard Wright. All of the band members except Syd are what composed the modern Pink sound, but Syd seems to serve as an anchor for much of the music that they composed from the beginning.

The 1960s began with many new waves of music. Since the Beatles, you saw rock greats come out of every corner of the Earth, wanting that equal chance in the limelight. With Pink Floyd, they followed a similar pattern and tried to explode into the scene with the typical flavor of British psychedelic rock, with sounds similar to The Guess Who. While this was trite and appeasing, the sound that we all know them for wouldn’t come until years later. A founding band member, Syd, goes away because of heavy LSD use, and David Gilmour takes the reigns and helps take the band to where it actually needed to be.

1970 was the decade that Pink Floyd would gain the sound that really inspired me to write this. “Atom Heart Mother” is released, becoming number 1 in the UK, but not quite gaining the success it should have world wide. While this album has some neat sounds, particularly with the title track (heard on “A Clockwork Orange” title screens), it wasn’t addicting enough. The band was gaining focus, but not quite where the public wanted. The next album, “Meddle“, really begins the band’s prime. The intense epic prog song “Echoes” is a great mixture of moody dark sounds and hard rock sounds that the 70s called for, while the other songs like “Pillow of Winds” and “Fearless” give the album a nice, acoustic feel. There was meaning and the quality, unique sound in the music.

Two years later, after what I think was a hiccup with “Obscured by the Clouds”, Floyd releases the album that has become the symbol of the band: “Dark Side of the Moon”. If DSotM proves anything, it is that the whole is greater than the sum of its parts. Sure there are the great number ones like “Time” and “Money“, but the entire album is best listened to straight through, as it seems to tell a grand story without actually needing to “mean” anything. It can mean basically whatever you want it to and would still sound fantastic. This is easily in my top favorite albums list, and definitely a great listen for anyone interested in representative 70s music. I think the best part about the band is the diverse instrumentation. You can find heavy alto sax, catchy guitar riffs, and amazing bass lines throughout the album. The synths just give it that texture that solidify why this album is fantastic.

To top DStoM would be a foolish thing for any band to try and do, unless you are super awesome like this band. “Wish You Were Here” has everything the last album had and even more. “Shine on You Crazy Diamond” (Part 1, Part 2), an affectionate tribute to Syd, is a really great song the whole 30 minutes through. It really isn’t a challenge to put this on and give it a full listen. Unlike “Echoes”, the song contains no random, long weird pauses, and rocks the whole way. “Shine On” sandwiches three great hits, “Wish You Were Here“, “Have a Cigar” and “Welcome to the Machine“. These songs are awesome listens. The first song is a nice acoustic number. The second is somewhat an acquired taste, but the singer and the guitar riffs make it definitely worth a listen. And the last song is one of my favorites of Floyd, as it has some really neat synth effects (Gilmour took his voice artificially up an octave because he couldn’t reach it singing himself, but it still sounds like he did it naturally!).

“Animals” is the next album, which is supposed to be a musical journey of Animal Farm. I’ve never read the book, but I can tell with the lyrics the symbolism of each animal. “Dogs” represent the blue collars, and the song seems to be a blueprint of how a person’s life is with that designation. Very neat acoustic beginning but awesome organ and guitar anchoring in the middle and end. “Pigs” are the executives, I guess. And “Sheep” are the rich people? I’ve never been good at song meanings; I just really like the sounds. “Sheep” sounds sort of wall-streetish in the beginning, so that makes some sense.

“The Wall” to me is the last major album released and begins the downfall of the band. The whole album is definitely an acquired taste, but it definitely has some bright, mainstream spots: “Comfortably Numb“, “Hey You” and, of course, “Another Brick in the Wall” are great songs by themselves, but the context around the rest of the album made me appreciate them even more. The album is actually a rock opera (a big thing back then), and you can view the video online. It may be hard to sit through, though.

Floyd released three more albums, but there are only a couple big hits in them: “Learning to Fly“, “Sorrow” and “Keep Talking” are my favorites.

Okay so that’s all I have here. I hope you enjoyed it! I’m looking for sounds similar to Floyd, with saxophone and guitar marriage like that. The thing is, I’m weary that anyone else could even get close.

Filed under: Random , classic rock, music, pink floyd, progressive rock

Why I Think Darwinian Evolution Makes No Sense

Okay scientific pundits of the world, while I have subscribed to your opinion many times, I need to abstain from the idea that every single living organism (or non-living, for that) evolved from a single cell millions of years ago and all the correct circumstances have propagated the millions of animal species we have today. My position is of course biased from the onset, as I am non-secular, but I must implore you to consider some basic observations that we all have made and consider both sides of the coin, instead of just stick to a certain dogma, whether that is science or spirituality.

Let me back track, the other day I was watching a tv show (on the discovery channel) detailing an octopus species in deep waters and its mechanisms for hunting and survival. The octopus species mentioned has the one of the most advanced feeling and smell sensors on its body for any animal, and it is capable of complex motions like moving, stealth, and other interesting instinctual and yet seemingly behavioral actions in their everyday lives.

I wonder, how can there be so much divergence from one cell. I do not care if there has been two to three billion years of time to evolve, because the time course begs questions like “How come there isn’t anything more advanced” and “Why did we just need that sort of cell to start things off?” And besides, why have so many types of species anyway, as many of them just sit there. Literally just sit there as plants that provide no environmental significance. Is this such a bold claim to make? Not everything on the Earth can have direct benefit or specific purpose. Maybe their purpose is more contrived or derived or something else. How does a natural selection mechanism account for organisms that have a random occupancy on the Earth and have outlasted many living species today? Species of kelp that were not required for 99% of organisms may exist (I have not done extensive research to be honest, but for the sake of argument, let us imagine that on the huge expanse of Earth there may be some plant down in the depths of the ocean that fits this description) simply due to the divergence. Now, while natural selection would simply posit that the kelp would die off, more useless kelp will be made in the process. This is horribly inefficient in my opinion.

So then what is a better answer? If you are religious at all, you can take the extreme “God planted it there” or you can take a middle ground approach, that I will attempt to explain. Consider natural selection that is motivated by divine influence. This type of selection would be more purposeful, or at least can help fill in the gaps in explaining why there are millions of types of species, instead of 50-100 “fit” ones. Sure most species do not need to exist for our direct benefit, but a higher being may necessitate these species, rather than just let them live with no purpose.

Something else to consider is that why bother having higher order cognition in certain animals? Why does the octopus have the need to adapt such high levels of camouflage in order to survive? What made all the other species around him smart enough for him to become smarter? You can use natural selection to explain why species go extinct, but not how other than “after a long time, it just happens because they don’t pass on these traits.” What makes certain traits prevalent on the offset?

The thesis of Darwinism is a little incomplete, and if we want to really understand the nature of things around us and the reason for their existence, further application of ideas outside of that science should be implemented.

Filed under: Biology, Science , darwin, evolution, higher-order cognition, nonsecular, Religion, spirituality

Everyone Has a Story

I am a firm believer that a lot of people have such fascinating backgrounds, and no one life is a boring, dull, or monotonous one. Some people think they have pretty mundane lives, but it is only mundane because you constantly live it! That’s why I think it is important to get to know people.

Thankfully in this age, it is so easy to get in touch or to stay connected to another person. The usual suspects include twitter, facebook, myspace, blogs like wordpress or blogspot, and chat programs like AIM. With just a click, you can find out all the information that the other person wants you to know. Amazing how things have changed from just five years ago, where people mainly only had AIM, and had to wait for the other person to get around to have something “conversational”. (I put the period after the quotation, because the quotation only was for one word, for emphasis. I think italics and quotations are almost interchangeable…maybe that is why I put it after.)

I like to meet new people a lot, but rarely ever have time to ask people about their lives. That seems to be the disadvantage of the social networking devices we use. Luckily since there is a huge history of what people say on websites like facebook and twitter, one can become somewhat acquainted with a person’s past. Some people call this stalking (italics this time). I do not believe it is stalking, but I think it would be nice to know if someone was doing that, just so I can clarify some things.

The other day I ran into a CEO of a company, and it struck me that it all started with just small talk. Small talk is a great way to gauge someone else as long as it seems like it will go somewhere. For instance, just saying “hello” is not something to do…it is really useful if you get going on a question. The CEO asked me what game I was playing on my iPhone, and before I knew it, I learned this guy’s background in 3 minutes. It really is amazing how quickly we can learn about a person.

Not only do we learn about people relatively easy, but we also learn to trust people quickly. But, our judgment is not quite accurate (the basis of game shows like Friend or Foe). We tend to throw ourselves onto the other person, thinking better of people. I used to be pretty cynical about trusting others, but really it all depends on the situation. If there is a common goal between two people, and you cannot get hurt, why be not trusting? By trusting someone else, it also makes their story interesting. If someone said they once ‘hiked the Amazon Trial and was taken in by a bunch of Indians to be feasted on,’ you may not want to trust the statement, and therefore you may not even want to get involved in the conversation. The first step to getting to know someone is giving them a little breathing room. Otherwise, it is a waste of time.

Sometimes it is not enough for me to just meet someone and then break ties…I want to network. Networking is the reason people get to other places. Think of a situation in a workplace, where the CEO introduces you to a new co-worker. The co-worker, whom you do not know prior to your first conversation, was once the CEO of another company, who sells great chairs! You have been looking for a chair, so when that passing remark is made, the co-worker suddenly networks you to your desired goal. Think of how this would have never occurred if you never had that job, or never met that person. If humans want to work together, maybe the first step is to simply open the door.

Filed under: Society , friends, social, social networking, web 2.0

Unemployment and a Mildly-Uninformed Opinion on “Change”

Today while in my car I saw a man with a dress shirt and pants on with a sign that didn’t say “Looking for money because I’m disabled” or “Donate because I’m out of food.” No, instead this man had a sign that said, “Need a job: xxx-xxxx.” That simple. Rather than trying to ask for money in an economy where no one really has change to spare (supposedly, though one can argue in my town that isn’t the case…totally fair).

Has the situation gotten really this bad? As many people who watch the news, we read the same scare journalism: Unemployment raise on the sky high rise, ecnomogy at its lowest since the depression. But, did you know that our unemployment rate isn’t even in the top 100 countries? It isn’t even close! Canada has a worse unemployment rate than we do, and yet we do not hear much about it.

So why are we freaking out? I think it is something to do with all the kool-aid we drank during the election season. Our great king and poobah Barack Obama was ushered into office with the highest approval ratings since Kennedy and is likened to that of Abraham Lincoln without even starting his office term. After his first 100 days though, as a 20 year old citizen of the United States comparing the past to now, I don’t really see a HUGE difference. Many of the things that Obama has done has a huge long-term impact, but nothing right now, or so it seems. Again I am quite apathetic towards politics up until this recent election, but that is only because of all the “historical precedent” we surrounded ourselves with. We ate, slept, and freaked out at the idea that we would have a liberal minority at office, and now we are all waiting for the consequences.

There is a famous story of a man who told his people that the impending doom of the world is near, but God is coming to Earth in this spot. He told his followers to come back at the moment he told them to so that they may receive divine providence. Well, the moment came and the place was there, but no God showed up! The greatest part about this story: The followers still believed in the man. Even though their wish was not granted and their messiah did not come, they still believed that one day, God will come to liberate their souls in the final days of the Earth (it is a theme of many religions, really).

Well, this parable is very similar to what is happening right now. We have ushered in the President to do all our biddings for the country but we have yet to see any large, noticeable impact. Sure he’s on TV more than any president, he seems to keep us informed a lot, he does have the big ecnomic recovery and reinvestment plan, but these things are not really what the common people want, or at least it is not what I want. What am I looking for? Well for one, I am looking for lower tuition rates! School is expensive even for the in-state student. I am looking for scholarships that are given to students automatically based on merit, not something that I have to apply for by bureaucracy.

But on a more general note, I’m looking for lower gas prices, like $2.00/gal. I am looking for the electric car. How about no sales tax on food and clothing? Some states already do this…why not the entire country? The famous “health-care” benefits that people are waiting for — where are those? I want us to stop meddling in other countries’ business. I want the war to end now. Fighting never solves anything.

I am aware enough to realize that many of things I look for and that others look for are not answered by the President because it is not the way our system works. We have to tell our senator to pass legislation within the state and push this same legislation in the Senate, and then we have to tell our legislators in the House to pass the same legislation. With any luck the two houses will agree and then pass this legislation to the President, which may or may not be important enough to sign into law. With all the complicated loop holes and bureaucracy, it is a miracle that anything gets done at the national level. So, if we really want all the things to happen locally, we need to push for this legalisation locally. On the other hand — who is going to push?? How can a person like me get a person who makes all the decisions to listen to a 20 year old? I think this is what obviously makes people not push on politics — it is extremely impersonal and just busy.

Anyway, while I am a bit jaded, I still back our President, but out of some patriotic side of me….not because I agree with what is going on. Because there really is not much going on. On a side note — why are people still boasting “NObama” stickers and similar paraphernalia? He is already President so why not be a part of a United country? Conservative politics, or at least extreme right politics, really confuses me sometimes.

Filed under: Politics, Society , change, government, Obama, Politics, unemployment