So, due to extensive lobbying and their own dirty greed, the RIAA has forced certain legislation into law that places higher fees on internet radio services. This means that one of my favorite internet sites, Pandora, will be forced to shut down.

For those of you that do not know what Pandora is (or was, depending on when you're reading this), here's a brief explanation: Pandora is a free internet radio service that helps listeners find new music by asking them what songs or artists they like and playing music that is similar to that song or artist. They define what is "similar" by carefully analyzing each and every song and breaking it down into over 400 genes. It builds your stations around the songs you give, playing songs that share genes with the song you entered or the library of the artist you entered. It really is both a beautiful idea and a flawless service, playing all nature of music with no critical judgment and the world's most polite flash application ("I'm sorry, but I couldn't find the artist you were looking for. If it's not too much trouble, could you either check your spelling or please try a new search?").

Fighting the RIAA's decision seems idiotic on the surface (like those nuts that tried to argue Napster was legal). However, on Pandora (and others like it like Last.fm ), the RIAA actually recieves a unique service. Pandora allows listeners to listen to full songs, but they cannot choose which songs they want to hear (for example, if you wanted to hear "Machinehead" by Bush, you couldn't, but you could hear songs like "Machinehead"). Pandora is not attempting to let listener's hear the same songs they love, but rather introduce them to new artists and songs. They offer links to buy the songs on either Amazon or iTunes, as well as a place to order the physical CD itself.

This is free advertising for the RIAA, and they're attempting to shut it down. Pandora introduces millions of people to quality artists on RIAA labels. The normal RIAA business model (that of constant touring, plays on the radio, and music videos) is stupid in comparison. Here, Pandora is allowing free advertisement for both popular artists and obscure artists. The RIAA is spending money on obsessively-corporate advertising when Pandora is reaching millions of listeners for them for free.

Why would the RIAA do this? Are they really that stupid that they would deny themselves free advertising?

Of course not.

The real problem the RIAA has with services like Pandora is something called EPT, or Equal Playing Time. Corporate terrestial radio gives very little playing time to independent artists. For example, the radio station around my town, 105.7 The X , only gives two hours a week to independent music on a program called the Sunday News. Every other time of the week, every song they play (and I do mean EVERY SONG) is owned by the RIAA. The RIAA has a monopoly on rock music for that market.

Services like Pandora, however, replace the need for terrestial radio by offering listeners free personalized stations. The only problem is that they give EPT to both independent and major labels. This is a real threat to the monopoly the RIAA has struggled to build. If people hear as much independent music as the major-label-music, they might start buying independent albums and going to independent concerts, taking away business from major labels. By forcing legislation that shuts down these services, the RIAA isn't protecting its own rights. It's protecting its own monopoly.

(NOTE: Something I used to do on my old blog was a weekly Scripture Lesson every Thursday. As an atheist, I feel I am in a unique position to critique Scriptures from different religions as I do not believe in any of them. If I offend you, I am not sorry. Everything I will talk about here will be factual and from the books themselves. They will be blunt enough in their message that what translation I use will not be an issue. Screw the innocent. Not really, I love the innocent, but I've always wanted to type that.)

The following are taken from the Qur'an:

"And Lot! (Remember) when he said unto his folk: Will ye commit abomination such as no creature ever did before you? Lo! ye come with lust unto men instead of women. Nay, but ye are wanton folk."--7:80-81

 "What! Of all creatures do ye come unto the males, And leave the wives your Lord created for you? Nay, but ye are froward folk."--26:165-166

 "Will ye commit abominations knowingly? Must ye needs lust after men instead of women ? Nay, but ye are folk who act senselessly."--27:54-55

"And Lot! (Remember) when he said unto his folk: Lo! ye commit lewdness such as no creature did before you for come ye not in unto males."--29:28-29

 Perhaps it is unnecessary to point out that Arabs are not fond of Homosexuals. Saudi Arabia, the home of Mecca, institutes the death penalty for homosexual acts. Sudan, Yemen, Iran, and Mauritania all are predominantly Muslim countries and they are also the only countries that hand out the death penalty for gay sex. The United States hasn't had laws like those since...well, actually, Texas still handed out hangings until 1912 and lynchings of homo/bisexuals was always overlooked by police across the country. LGBT communities across the US complain a lot about our status now, but the truth is that we should really be thankful for what we have. As much as Christians lack acceptance for gays, they aren't Sir Iqbal Sacrenie , an avid anti-gay Muslim speaker who is notable for saying, amongst other things, that homo/bisexuality "does not augur well" for the foundations of society and that same sex civil partnerships are "harmful and immoral."

The lesson? Be thankful, fellow LGBT's. There are worse places we could be. 

The great George Burns once said that analyzing a joke is like dissecting a frog. It's gross, nobody enjoys it, and it kills the frog. 

A new study by Florida State University is trying to prove that laughter is not, what many consider, a natural response to something innately funny. Rather, they've found that it is a response to our need to advance in social circles. By laughing, the study has said, we are trying to please the person who made the joke. People who are of a higher caste are less likely to laugh at a joke made by an underling and people of a lower status are more likely to laugh at a person with a higher status' joke.

On the surface, this makes perfect sense. If a boss makes a joke, all the employees laugh to show they approve. If one were to not laugh, they are showing their disapproval and, therefore, are verging on insubordination. Just as likely, most bosses will not laugh at an employee's joke because they feel as if they are the one in the situation to be impressed.

So what if a boss laughs at your joke? This could be good or bad. The boss might be very humble OR he may feel endangered by your growing status. If he knows something you don't (like a possible promotion that could put you above him), he may laugh at your jokes to get on your good side.

Then what about more social situations? If you and a group of friends are sitting at a table eating lunch and one does a bad impersonation of Borat, whether you laugh or not depends (according to this study) on your status with that friend. If you are at odds with them, you may not laugh. A friend may nudge you and say "C'mon, you know it's funny." However, they laughed to stay on the person's good side. Your pride is blocking you from laughing at that person. As you are all friends and equal on the social plane, you expect them to laugh at your jokes so they submit they are lower than you. It's similar to how elephants bow to the alpha male. When you laugh at someone, you are submitting that they are higher on the social plane than you.

 A harder subject that this study only briefly confronts is laughing at movies or stand-up comics. It has often been said of some music (particularly Fleetwood Mac) that people only enjoy it because of the grand status it has achieved. For example, it is a taboo to express discontent with Nirvana's Nevermind, and only because it has been revered since the day it came out. However, if that album were to come out today, it would probably sink.

Perhaps the same is true for comedy. I've seen many people force laughs at Monty Python movies because they feel that if they are not laughing at the movie, something is wrong with themselves. Society has built a halo around certain works to the extent that, if they are not enjoyed, then something is wrong with the person that did not enjoy it. 

So perhaps laughing at movies and comics is a social move, not so much pleasing the actors but the people around you. This would easily explain why you are much more likely to laugh with a crowd than when sitting alone.

In circles of friends, all one has to do is bring up a shared experience and everyone will be consumed by raucous laughter. This laughter is securing the group and keeping the group close by allowing them to share a secret (perhaps the reason people hate explaining inside jokes).

So what now? Will laughter, like George Burns' frog/joke, become dissected and meaningless? Will we lose all humor once our reason for laughing becomes common knowledge?

Of course not. Laughing is integrated into our instinctual habits, much like the desire to reproduce. When humans found out flirting's sole reasoning was to carry on the gene pool, did it stop? As much as science finds out about the way socializing works, it will never be enough to resign any of these habits because they all work towards one goal: reproducing. If laughing carries you along the higher rungs of the social ladder, it ipso facto renders you more capable of reproducing in the eyes of possible mates.

So laughing, like flirting, stays intact, despite FSU's gross examination. Normally I'd end on a joke, but I know you'd only laugh to win my approval.

(NOTE: This is a post I wrote on my old blog a couple weeks ago whilst watching Annie Hall. It covers a lot of my writing topics and styles, so I chose it as a first post for this new blog, RUWF).

There's something about Woody Allen movies that give me a great sense of comfort, and I find myself at a loss as to suggesting why this is. One might say that I think like Woody Allen, and I enjoy the narcissistic ideal of watching somebody like me make love to someone like Diane Keaton. However, I'm neither neurotic nor explicitly nervous. On the contrairy, I find myself incredibly comfortable in my own skin (as a matter of fact, it is sometimes my greatest weakness that I can only absolve things through my own mind with limited idea as to how others may perceive it).

The only reason I can possibly devise in watching Annie Hall is that it is a warm sense of comedy that is both light-hearted (not Pixar but more Garrison Keillor) and tragic ("in the end, we all need the eggs."). Allen, when he speaks to the camera (as in the dinner scene), he makes you feel as though you are his world.

I do, perhaps, find some solace in the comparisons I could make between Allen and myself (I make no statement saying that I am anyway as or even near talented as Allen; he is a god). His love for Freud, his snide remarks as a working of self-defense, his weird association with other people's families.

Just a note from Allen: "Don't knock masturbation; it's sex with someone I love."

Perhaps I want to be Woody Allen. Completely possible, as I've dreamt of being other people (Chuck Klosterman, for instance). The dark intimacy of Annie Hall makes me want to live where my only trouble is deciphering Annie's dreams about Frank Sinatra and trying to fail at tennis. I need a carefree life, which, despite what it may seem, Alvie Singer has. He may seem troubled (his neurosis and inability to handle his relationship), yet women troubles are all of his troubles.

I remember the scene where he goes to the concert with the reporter for Rolling Stone. She is incredibly ugly and has no sense of humor, but I can't help but imagine that I could've caught her on the rebound from Alvie. She knows a lot about music and takes really long to climax. She is fucking perfect.

My mom loved this movie (put down your Freud notes; I loved this movie before I knew my mom even heard of Woody Allen). She loved all Diane Keaton movies. Hmm.

One of my favorite scenes in Annie Hall is when Alvie has to run over to Annie's house to kill a spider "the size of a Buick." Before he goes into the bathroom, he says "I've been killing spiders since I was 30." I can't help but think that the spider is a metaphor for women, if not all of life. Alvie runs into the bathroom, only to march right back out: "A really, really big spider," he says. What if we only gain control of life at 30, and even then some troubles might just ask us to run right back out of the bathroom?

Perhaps all I need is someone to sit down in Central Park and make ethnic jokes with.

There's a scene in the movie where Annie is singing in a restaurant. Her voice rings clear next to the Martha-Wainwright-style piano, yet there is constant chatter, spilling dishes, ringing phones, and awful mic-feedback. "It had to be you," she sings, as the world clatters and drains her out. It reminds me of what Trent Reznor once said in an interview with SPIN magazine (I've had NIN on the brain for two weeks, ever since a song was released via a flash drive in a bathroom). He was referring to the end of the song "Hurt", where his voice is lost in heavy, atonal guitar and synthesizer fuzz. Reznor said that he hoped to simulate the world, "that time when our world is louder than our emotions."

Every relationship I've seen end, it was blatantly the fault of one person. Either a lack of communication, a lack of commitment, or a lack of willingness.

Pride kills relationships. A common thing women do is refuse to say what is bothering them. This is furthering the argument beyond reason. What most women (through my experiences, most) do is make an argument about something completely different when they see that they might be wronged. It is a powerful tool. For example, I was once talking with a girlfriend about Johnny Ramone (this was around his death). I said that he was a very untalented guitarist (I should note that this is a powerful opinion in music circles; by suggesting that a punk guitarist is untalented, you are only stating the obvious, but if you do it with reverence, you seem to negate every thing people think about music criticism, that the best are just that; the best). In any case, my denial of Johnny Ramone's talent sent this girl, an avid Ramones fan, into an hysterical fit (by "avid Ramones fan," I'm implying that she had "I Wanna Be Sedated" as her ringtone and loved "The KKK Took My Baby Away"). She asked me as to how I had the gall to deny Johnny his due, and I asked her as to how she had the gall to deny that their are only four original riffs on Rocket To Russia. She then asked me why I always had to be right.

I hate this statement. I do like arguments (or "futile debates", in this case), but I do not always need to be right. If I always needed to be right, I wouldn't argue things that are based on opinion, because there is no "right."

I drifted.

In any case, the issue is that she took a relatively civil conversation (I realize how one-sided this seems) and turned it into an examination as to why I think the way I do, a direct attack on my character. In doing this, she greatly annoyed me and tried to insult me without giving a direct and valid definition as to what I was doing wrong. People, keep arguments about what they are about. You will be shocked what it will do for not only your sanity but your relationships. When you bring up a person's character or behavior in an argument about, say, the merits of Charlie Kaufman (when the both of you are already on opposing sides), then it polarizes and alienates the other person, removing any and all hope of rational discourse.

This does not mean avoid talking about issues that you have with somebody. Quite the opposite, in fact.

I suggest talking about issues as soon as they arise.

Let's say Pat and Taylor are dating. Pat has a problem with the way Taylor talks to other people. As soon as it is noticed, Pat brings it up to Taylor. Taylor decides that this behavior is crucial and is unwilling to change it. A sacrifice must be made. Either Pat must put up with Taylor's behavior, or Taylor must stop this behavior. If only one of those things happens, the relationship will continue. If neither of those things happens, the relationship ends due to irreconcilable differences.

Either pride keeps people from sacrificing something or it keeps someone else from putting up with it. Either way, if the pride exists, then civility will not. Pride kills relationships.

A tragic effect of being a young bisexual is that, as everyone is used to you dating girls, and, as you yourself is used to it, you find yourself at a lost at to what to expect when you date the same sex. Living in Central Pennsylvania has not provided me with prime opportunities to meet gay or bisexual men. The only man I've ever kissed, in fact, was at a Static-X concert in Las Vegas 3 years ago. What worries me is that the above complaints about women will not be valid. Normally, people might find comfort in not having to deal with the irrational thoughts of a nervous woman. However, my worry is that I'll have a whole new set of problems with men.

My female friends share with me their issues with men. They're belligerent. They don't talk enough or share what they are thinking. They don't take anything seriously. Some of these issues (in fact, all and more) I've had with women. However, how can I assure that gay or bisexual men will have the same issues as straight men? Are problems really universal in that, despite who you are dating, the same problems will always arise? Is there some nature of universal chart that counts every problem that can be had? And would/does it apply to everyone, no matter sexual orientation or gender?

A few months ago, one of the major advocates for gay marriage (who himself was married under the Massachusetts law that he fought for) got a divorce after only two years. Pat Robertson fought that this was an example of gay marriage being unholy unions. Right, because heterosexual marriages never corrode.