To Spotify or Not to Spotify

As both a musician and an avid music listener, I can empathize with both sides of the recording industry; the consumer and the producer. The listener wants to listen to the music they like as easily as possible, and the artist wants to be fairly compensated for their art. So what happens when one side is completely fulfilled at the expense of the other? What happens when the consumer has everything, and the artist, nothing?

Enter, Spotify.

When I first heard about Spotify, I was ecstatic. Pretty much every artist I'd ever want to listen to (save the Beatles,) unlimited playlists, radio, recommendations; all for merely $10 a month? AND I can access it all from my phone without losing any memory? Sounds like the best service I could possibly ask for. And I enjoyed that fantasy guilt-free; for a while. But pretty soon, I started hearing people talk about Spotify, and not in a good way. Other musicians didn't have Spotify, and some claimed it was bad for the artist. At first I didn't believe it. I didn't want to believe that my favorite music streaming service was screwing over the artists it represented. Unfortunately, that's when I stumbled upon this NPR article. The headline could almost tell the whole story: "How Musicians Make Money by the Fraction of a Cent on Spotify." The article tells of Spotify's low royalties while mixing in the personal tale of Erin McKeown, a musician who puts up her albums on Spotify. The exact figure she makes per play, she says, is $0.004. Many can tell that this extremely low, but some say, well, with all the people using Spotify, I'm sure she makes a decent amount of money. Think about it like this: a thousand people listen to one of her songs. That's a lot of people. If all those people listen to her song once, she gets $4. If a thousand people bought her song on iTunes, she would make closer to $500. 

Perhaps if I weren't a musician this wouldn't bother me so much, but I know how it feels to pour out your heart into a two hour show (in addition to countless hours rehearsing,) and get paid $30 in tips to split between five people. But I also understand the plight of the consumer; you shouldn't always have to take the moral high road while sacrificing convenience and ease.

And after all this, I will openly admit, I still use Spotify. But I can justify it. For one thing, many of the artists I listen to through Spotify are people like The Doors of Pink Floyd, and they certainly aren't taking any big hits by losing some money. However, the main way in which I can justify my use of Spotify is the fact that I support the artists I listen to through the service in different ways, in addition to streaming their music. If I listen to artist I really like on Spotify, I'll buy their album on vinyl, or I'll go to see their show. Take the band "The Main Squeeze" for example. I discovered them through Spotify this year, but instead of only streaming their music, I purchased their record so I could listen to it off the web, and I've already seen them live twice. Because of that, I think it's fair for me to use Spotify, but I still have a lot of misgivings. I'm always asking myself, should I be using Spotify, or am I just hurting the artists I love?

Bill O'Reilly Goes (Against) Between Two Ferns

For those of you who are familiar with the internet, you may know that Zach Galifianakis, star of "The Hangover," has his own web-series entitled "Between Two Ferns," in which he interviews celebrities in a deadpan comedic style. I became of this show last year after I saw Galifianakis' hilarious interview with Justin Bieber, in which he makes such jabs as, "You've had three hair styles. What's next for your career?" However, this show was recently brought to my attention when I found out that President Obama actually appeared on the show. I was surprised, to the say the very least, when I found out that the President actually sat down with Zach Galifianakis for an interview, and I wasn't sure what to expect going in. The clip nearly brought me to tears. If you have not had the acute pleasure of viewing it, I strongly urge you to do so right now.

The video really surprised me for a couple of reasons, with the first being that I never thought our president could crack me up like that! I was also really impressed that he was able to navigate through the humour and still plug his new Healthcare initiative (while skillfully dodging insults from Galifianakis like, "Why would you get the guy who created the 'Zune' to make your website?") Finally, I was mostly just amazed that Obama would even participate in the creation of the show. But after I thought about it, it made some sense. One of the main facets of the Affordable Care Act is to get younger people health care, and Between Two Ferns most certainly appeals to a younger crowd. So I say, well done Obama.

Not surprisingly, not everyone shared my opinion on Obama's appearance on Between Two Ferns, most notably Bill O'Reilly (what a shocker.) In a section of his show entitled "Talking Points," O'Reilly made many desperate attempts to criticize the President's appearance, including saying that "Lincoln would not have done it." I would say this made me lose all respect for Fox News, but that happened a long time ago. This is an outlandish claim not only because no one can predict what a president would have done centuries ago, but because Lincoln was one of our funnier, warmer presidents, and would have quite possibly done something like this! O'Reilly's feeble attempt to criticize Obama only cements my opinion on his participation on the show; it was a smart, personable move.

Bill Nye v.s. Ignorance

In a live debate this past February 4th, the world watched as children's science icon Bill Nye "the science guy" debated Ken Ham, founder of a creationist museum in Kentucky. Ham was arguing the position that creationism should be considered fact (and taught as such,) while Nye was arguing the opposite. In case you don't know what creationism is, I'll explain it for you: it's simple the belief that the world was created by some kind of supernatural being. Specifically in the context of Christianity, it's the belief that god created the universe about 6,000 years ago. While Nye's lifelong goal has been to teach kids science through facts and logic, Ham's has been to advance this absurd theory, which is why he opened the museum. And while I believe a debate between these two is interesting to watch and discuss, I think it's ultimately futile for two reasons: first, and most importantly, it's not really a debate. A debate requires both sides to present a rational case backed by facts with sources, and when one side's "evidence" is a fictional text, the "debate" becomes more of a heated exchange. Secondly, no matter what kind of reasoning Nye provides, religious peoples who are entrenched in their stubborn, faith based beliefs will never change their opinion.

However, this debate means more to me than just Nye v.s. Ham, science v.s. faith, fact v.s. fiction. To me, it's a matter of good and evil, with science being the good. The reason I describe creationism as "evil" is its effect on children. Ken Ham and his followers are essentially spreading ignorance to America's youth by placing the bible, a mostly fictional text, over fact. The Christian view of creationism itself can be quickly debunked by well-known information. We have discovered artifacts of greater than 6,000 years of age! It's just that simple! Glaciers, fossils, rocks... we know that these things were crafted by nature or by man over 10s of thousands of years ago (in the link is but one example of many.) My problem with Ken Ham, and most creationists, is not the fact that they choose to ignore all science and logic, but that they present their viewpoint, as fact, to children. Ken Ham runs a museum based around the idea of "educating" people, and children, about creationism. It's fine if you choose to ignore every reasonable conclusion about the world and make your own, but these creationists are infecting impressionable minds with their flawed worldviews. Kids with developing brains should have the opportunity to choose what they believe in, and if they want to forgo science for a life of faith, that's fine, but it should also be their right to know the things we can prove. And while a child's parents should give them the ability to formulate their own views on life, school is not the place to teach creationism. School is a place for fact, not fiction. How can our country produce intelligent minds is we place faith equal to or above fact?

Free Speech v.s. Hate Speech

Whenever I think of the 1st amendment, I think of South Park. It may not seem like a natural connection, but for me, it is. For the last 20 or so years, South Park has been the envelope-pushing show. Over the time it has been the air, the show has constantly gotten more vulgar and inappropriate, which causes many fans and critics to ask, what's ok to say? I thoroughly believe in the right to free speech, so when people criticize South Park for using crass language or enacting a disgusting scenario, I often scoff and point them in the direction of the Bill of Rights. But free speech has its pitfalls. When any TV show, movie, or song uses language that could be thought of as un-allowable, I ask myself, could they, or more importantly would they, do that on South Park?

Recently I read a blog post by my friend Erik in which he talked about the rapper Eminem and his new album. Erik listened to the album and heard many anti-gay slurs and wrote a blog post in response to that. He singled out the song "Rap God," in which the rapper uses the word "faggot" several times, and on top of that, specifically makes a threat (though presumably an empty one) against a homosexual person in the lyrics. The point he makes in the post is that Eminem should most definitely not be using this language, not only because it is hateful, but because it sets a bad example for a younger generation of listeners. I wanted to agree with Erik, but I was conflicted. Free speech is such an important right, but unfortunately, it can't only be applied to certain cases. You've either got it or you don't. I obviously didn't want to condone Eminem's hateful lyrics, but at the same time, I didn't agree limiting free speech only in certain cases. So I thought about it in the context of South Park. It's a show about a bunch of foul-mouthed, vulgar kids, but you would never hear them going around saying "faggot" (unless it was being used ironically, in Cartman's case.) Why? It's hateful. South Park may be a racy show, but it isn't a discriminatory one.

If there's a lesson to be learned from this, it's that free speech does NOT include hate speech. Just because you have the right to free speech, you can't go around saying whatever you want. People who bash homosexuals, people of different races, and just about anyone who is different from them are not protected by the 1st amendment. And with that being said, I've come to the conclusion that Erik was right. Eminem may just be trying to regain some of his old audience or trying to sound angrier than he really is, but it doesn't justify the type of homophobic language he uses.

The American Sports Craze (Is Destroying Our Schools)

China. Singapore. Finland. South Korea. These are the countries that score highest every year on advanced placement tests and academic assessments. The U.S. is not mentioned in the same breath as these nations. Why? Because of tests like this one, where America scores 25th out of 34 countries math/science test. Politicians and education officials offer various reasons for this. Not enough money, uncooperative parents, and uninterested students are among the many. But in this discussion. one sacred topic is left untouched: sports. They're expensive, time consuming, and dangerous, but everybody loves them. On average, the U.S. spends $1300 per football player, but only $618 per math student. It's this kind of gap that is holding our schools back, and sports are a big factor.

The high school in the town of Premont, Texas, is a perfect example. I read about this school in a recent article in the Atlantic, and the data was stunning. The school was hemorrhaging money and was on the verge of shutdown, so an outside superintendent, Ernest Singleton, was brought in to rescue the district. He described it as the worst school he had ever seen. The teachers had no power, students were cursing in the classroom, and everything was in a state of chaos and disarray. The most striking fact to me, though, was that even after the school had laid off employees, closed the middle school, and sealed off science labs, the school still competed with teams for more than 7 different sports. In fact, the school used over $150,000 every year just on sports. This disgusted me; the school just competitive sports over a good, useful education. So Singleton did what had to be done: he cut all the sports team. To many of my competitive peers this may seem like a drastic reaction, but the results justify it completely. 80% of students passed classes, instead of the previous year's 50%, and during parent teacher conferences, 160 people attended, compared to laughably low attendance of only six parents the year before.

These are just a few examples, and the article goes much further in depth. Sports are clearly embedded in American culture and are a big part of our education system (despite their near non-existent educational value.) With this data, I'm surprised more struggling schools don't cut sports, but at the same time I see why they might not. Kids love to compete. But do the pros of school organized sports really outweigh the cons?

Colorado's Green Initiative

In case you didn't get the joke in the title, I'm not referring to an environmentally friendly program, but rather to Colorado's recreational marijuana. In recent years (despite California being the first state to make the drug available medically and Oregon being the first to decriminalize it,) Colorado has been the marijuana trendsetter. And that role gained new meaning when, on November 6th, 2012, Colorado voted in favor of Amendment 64, making marijuana legal in the recreational sense. On January 1st, 2013, dispensaries opened across the state to anyone 21 and over. And while many people oppose this decision, what can't be argued is that it's going to make Colorado a lot of money. In just the first day, 37 or so operating dispensaries reported collective sales of over $1 million, despite the 25% sales/excise tax. What does this mean for the Colorado government? The state is projected to rake in $70 million in tax revenue from weed sales this year, much of which is going to fund schools.

Despite the enormous tax revenue, many disagree with the decision to legalize marijuana, and both sides of the argument have strong points. However, in my opinion, the pros far outweigh the cons. I could go on for days and days about pro-legalization arguments, so I'll just give what I believe to be the three most important ones: racial profiling, tax revenue, and freedom. Two of those are very general, so I'll elaborate, starting with the least vague of the three, tax revenue. I've already spoken briefly about this, but the bottom line is that marijuana will make millions, possibly billions, for the government, which it desperately needs. The $70 million figure is just the very beginning, and the good that money can do in schools is near incalculable. In a down economy, and one in which marijuana users have been willing to pay absurdly high prices illegally, the government can throw very high taxes on legal weed and still see business boom.

My other two arguments, racial profiling and freedom, seem very vague at first glance, so I'll begin with the former. The U.S.'s draconian drug laws are something I have written about before, and they have an impact on more than just the big drug dealers. These drug laws have an extremely negative impact on casual drug users, especially with a drug as commonly used as marijuana. And when the criminal possession amount is so low, it's very easy to pick and choose who is persecuted for possession and who isn't. And often, the people who are "chosen" are poor minorities. Drug laws are, frankly, abused. They are abused to constrain minorities, and without these laws, the rate of minorities (and people in general) who are jailed for non-violent offenses will go way down, saving lives, and saving the state a lot of money. My final point, very blatantly put, is freedom, and this argument is backed by a very libertarian philosophy; people should be able to do what they want, as long as they don't hurt others, and this includes the use of marijuana. The government shouldn't be making our decisions for us. If people want to use a drug, especially that is less harmful than legal drugs such as alcohol and tobacco, they should be able to, plain and simple.

Colorado made history last November, and we are seeing the effects very clearly already in the new year: legalization is working. The state is making money, people are happy with their new found freedom, jobs and being created, and Colorado jails will soon be without many non-violent offenders. We'll have to wait and see how this turns out, but so far, the forecast is sunny (green) skies ahead.

For more info on how legalization is working so far, click here.

I Left My Rights At Home

In 1969, in response to the "Tinker v. Des Moines School District" case, the supreme court ruled that "student do not shed their constitutional rights at the schoolhouse gate." So why can a school official go through my possessions WITHOUT probably cause? Why can I be told what not to wear and what not to say? With all these "slight modifications" to our most basic constitutional rights, schools have become more like private institutions than government-run facilities. I say this due to the fact that very basic rights such as freedom of speech, freedom from unreasonable search and seizure, and at times freedom of (or from) religion, are all heavily restricted.

Perhaps the most abhorrent of these violations is the change from "probable cause" to "reasonable suspicion." I would say that in America, one of the rights our people value the most is the right not to be searched unless there is some tangible evidence against us. In school that rights is stripped from us. Instead, it is replaced with "reasonable suspicion." Does that sound very, very, VERY vague to you? That's because it is! "Reasonable suspicion" could be anything from photographic proof to an anonymous phone call, but regardless of what it is, it gives school officials the right to search just about all of your stuff. That includes your locker, phone, backpack, laptop, pretty much anything you have on you. If they find something, you're screwed, and if they don't, they say "sorry" and go on their merry way.

This all begs the question: why are students' rights taken from them, and why are people not up in arms about it? Why are students' most basic constitutional rights taken from them "at the school house gate?" And what can we, as students and concerned citizens, do to combat this?