Used around the world, the guitar is one of the most popular musical instruments of all time.  Although there are various types of guitars, they nearly branch out to two categories.  For the most part, a guitar can either be electric or acoustic.  What’s interesting is the guitar was not always called a huge commodity.  During its early years, the guitar used to be called a simple tavern instrument.  Now a days, we have two kinds of guitars, and they both are huge commodities.  Since electric and acoustic guitars make such broad topics, it’s imperative to understand a little bit about them before comparing and contrasting them.

The earliest documented guitar was in the 14th century but it had three pairs of strings and a fourth single one instead of the modern guitars today.  It can be deducted that this first guitar was acoustic for an obvious reason: the history of electronics began in the 19th century, therefore electric guitars are out of the question.  It is also theorized that the guitar originated in Spain with its counterpart, the vihuela.  A vihuela is an acoustic guitar with twelve strings instead of two.  The acoustic guitar started to spread and became very popular amongst European countries in the 16th and 17th centuries.  By the late 17th century, a fifth pair of strings had been added below the other four.  In the 18th century, the acoustic guitar attained its modern form.  Instead of having strings come in pairs, they came in singles.  So unlike the vihuela, which had twelve strings, the acoustic guitar ended up only having six with the final sixth string added in the 18th century.  Anything beyond the 18th century only improved the construction and the model, which will be mentioned later.

One of the only similarities in acoustic and electric guitars is that they are played almost the same way.  The electric guitar is very new in terms of musical instruments.  Although the first one was introduced in 1931, it is a young ling compared to the acoustic guitar.  This was an early prototype, more like an experiment than a breakthrough.  Then in the 1940′s, a man named Les Paul started developing the solid body guitars seen today.  As Les Paul started making more models, more people started buying them.  With the sound of the guitar electronically amplified so it could be heard throughout a large distance was unheard of at that time.  Les Paul later had the guitar model he made named after him, which today is known as a “Gibson Les Paul”.  There are many other brands that use the Les Paul model besides Gibson, but they were the first.  With the electric guitar out in the streets blues, jazz, and then later known as rock n’ roll begun to be amplified along with perfection of this instrument.

Now oddly enough, the acoustic guitar has many different companies manufacturing it.  Along with the mass production of this instrument come different types of models appealing to the public.  In terms of style, looks, and construction, the acoustic guitar has poor variety compared to its counterpart, the electric guitar.  However, in terms of subcategories, the acoustic guitar wins by a long shot.  For example, acoustic guitars branch off into several different types of guitars such as: renaissance, baroque, classical, flamenco, flat-top (or steel string), arch top, Selmer, resonator, 12-string, acoustic bass, Russian, guitarron (large Mexican guitar), Tenor, and harp.  All of these are considered acoustic guitars.  Since originally the idea was so broad, acoustic guitars were able to be modified into these unique designs that are seen and played today.

To understand anything further on a guitar it is better to first learn the basic anatomy and construction of one.  Below is an image of a Gibson Les Paul that shows the basic components of the electric guitar.

The key parts to refer back to in this picture are the body, the pickups, the knobs and the pickup selector.  These alone are what make the electric guitar and the acoustic guitar two entirely different instruments.

As said earlier, the biggest difference between the acoustic guitar and the electric guitar is construction.  Acoustic guitars are noticeably built in a much simpler way than electric guitars.  All acoustic guitars are simple hollow bodied guitars with a neck, strings, and body to sum it up.  Instead of electricity, acoustic guitars rely on acoustics oddly enough.  The body of the acoustic guitar itself is the sound chamber.  Pickups, knobs, and pickup selectors do not exist for acoustic guitars.  However, there is such a thing as an electric-acoustic guitar.  Even then, the only difference is the acoustic can be plugged into amps while maintaining the acoustic sound.

Electric guitars are much different.  The body on an electric guitar acts as a sound chamber as well, but it’s a closed sound chamber instead of an open one like an acoustic guitar.  Since electric guitar bodies are enclosed sound chambers, pickups are placed inside to compensate.  Pickups are simply magnets that “pick up” the vibration caused when the strings are plucked.  This signal is then sent straight into the cord which leads outside of the guitar into the amp (or amplifier).  The knobs on the guitar simply control the volume and tone.  This is the difference in electric guitars.  They are much louder when plugged into an amp, but acoustically the sound is much quieter than an acoustic guitar.  In short, electric guitars are for people who like their guitars to sound louder and acoustics are if you want to save some money and still have a decent volume.

Pickups have their own science behind them as well.  The quality of the pickups is usually what makes the electric guitar so expensive in the first place.  Top notch pickups are around $150 per pair.  Some people may even go a step beyond that and purchase a single pickup for $150.  All around whenever a guitar is priced, the most expensive parts on the electric guitar are the pickups themselves.  The next most expensive part would be the body.  Since the body on an electric guitar is made from wood, they are constructed differently depending on the type of wood used.  Usually, mahogany is the most expensive wood to be placed on a guitar due to its density.  The body actually makes a huge difference in the sound produced by the guitar, which is why different types of wood can heighten the cost of the instrument.  The denser the wood, the greater the sound wave that can be produced.  For example, in an electric guitar the sound chamber is completely closed off.  Even though the sound chamber is completely closed, sound can still escape through the wood.  With dense, high quality wood less sound will escape which leaves a better tone to be “picked up” by the pickups which inevitably sends the sound to the amp.  Together, with great pickups and a high quality body, the guitar will create the ultimate sound.  The same can be said for an acoustic guitar as well.  Since the sound waves will not be scattered, it produces a much cleaner sound when played.  People may believe that the strings are a deciding factor in how the guitar sounds, but in reality that’s not true at all.

Guitars use strings made out nylon, nickel, copper, and steel.  Although there are a variety of strings that can be chosen, the only difference is price.  Better strings simply make the guitar easier to play, but they do not play a huge role in sound.  The only drawback is strings get dirty and dull after being played awhile and that’s when they affect the sound.  This is why people who play guitar regularly should change their strings every two to three months.  Knowing these facts makes some people choose acoustic guitars over electric because they are easier to maintain and keep clean.

After taking a look at both types of guitars, it can be concluded that both are extraordinary and are key components to musical history.  Today guitars continue to thrive, being bought by people of all ages.  It seems quite difficult to imagine any improvements to the guitars seen today, but throughout history there has always been some improvement needed somewhere.  Therefore, the peak of guitar lineage is yet to come.

The Electoral College goes by a system that has, for the most part, infuriated the citizens of the U.S.A.  The electoral system is basically set up to where the popular vote has no meaning.  In some cases this is a good thing, but in the idea of freedom it is unethical.  So I would suggest two things: the first being where the population decides the president, and the second being I would change the process in which the electoral votes of each state are given to the presidential candidates.  These two modifications of the Electoral College would not only guarantee a fair election but also keep the public content with their votes.

These two suggestions coincide to guarantee satisfaction in the public.  The very first thought of having the popular vote win does not necessarily turn an election into a popularity contest, this is where the two go hand in hand.  By changing the electoral votes given to each state, it also changes the way votes are given to the presidential candidates.  Have each electoral vote represent a certain amount of people in a population, for example:  1 electoral vote=20,000 people.  The conclusion may not end up to 1 electoral vote equaling 20,000 people it is just an example to understand the idea.  By having a population to electoral vote ratio, not only would the number of electoral votes change but they would be able to be dispersed as well instead of the entire state’s electoral votes going into to only 1 candidate.  The one flaw that may be questioned is, do you need an entire 20,000 people (again for example) exactly to guarantee 1 electoral vote?  No, in fact if the number is something along the lines of 19,980+ then that would be enough to round up to exactly 1 electoral vote.  The same is true if the number were to be 20,000 with a remainder of people not enough to get another electoral vote, it would round down to stay at 1 electoral vote instead of a decimal number.

This would undoubtedly, once again, change and benefit the Electoral College while keeping the public in mind.  This system would encourage non-voters into voting since they know that their vote will truly have an effect no matter what political party the majority of the state belongs to.  While those non-voters may still need many people to give that third party candidate an electoral vote, it won’t matter in a big state such as California or Texas where the most electoral votes lie because they have a big enough population to give their votes to more than 1 candidate.  With these changes, the votes of the states will all be ambiguous, the public will be happy with the system and so will the candidates.

In the United States there are three branches of government: the executive, legislative and judicial branch.  These branches of government are to keep order and peace.  There are all the little aspects of politics that people argue over but eventually the goal is to function as a whole society without any unnecessary disturbances.  In this case the branch to silence these disturbances is the judicial branch, for the police force and the court are to carry out justice.  The people do not carry out justice, but the court and police do.  In society justice is defined as being morally just or right.  However, what that justice in society should really be defined as is punishing those who break the law.  Other countries have this “justice” to carry out as well.  However, another country may also be run by a different form of government.  Nevertheless, if people break the law justice will be carried out, or so the law declares.  The consequences may be more severe and they may differ from place to place, but the punishments for breaking the law is still considered justice.  How can that be considered justice?

As a child, did you never once think it was strange?  Yes, I am talking to you, did you never once wonder why it was wrong to do such a thing?  Often times children are corrected for their so called wrong actions.  These wrong actions could include bullying, stealing, or being disrespectul.  The person who is correcting these actions could range from a parent to a teacher to a police officer.  People hardly ever explain to these children that if they steal, the store selling the products will lose money and therefore not be able to pay their expenses in the process.  No, in society’s eyes it is called “breaking the law” and nothing more.  Bullying is also considered wrong.  As a child it is not breaking the law, but at the age of 18 and beyond it can be charged as “assault”.  Disrespect towards a government official or a police officer is also considered “wrong”.  A police officer in the United States can confine someone for 48 hours without reason.  In Japan, a police officer can confine someone for 28 days without reason.  Please explain to me how that is justice.  Children are innocent and have yet to learn of the world.  It is not carrying out justice when such children are free and unaware of the law.  Adults will say “we will simply educate them about the law then”,  but how can they not remember such confusion as a child?  A lot of the children that perform these “wrong” actions are stunned themselves that they are considered “wrong”.  Eventually these laws will overwhelm the young with confusion, focusing on why they are wrong in the first place.  The only thing to do with this confusion is shove it aside and eventually just accept that it’s wrong because the law says so.

When the law declares something to be wrong, it must be wrong.  Police officers will talk about their sense of justice like they are doing the world a great and honorable service.  However, police officers are needed in society.  They are not needed for justice, but are necessary to keep peace.  Words such as crime and criminal should be tossed aside.  These words are nothing but a way to make those who work for the law feel righteous.  A detective or a prosecutor will without a doubt look down on these convicts as though they were inferior to them just because the law was broken.  When this is the case, the prosecutors and the detectives have failed to do their job.  A prosecutor is to simply find evidence and logically prove the suspect guilty and nothing more.  A detective is to assist with the prosecution.  However, some go a step further by blending their sense of justice into the fray instead of simply doing their job.  Do not stand proud with a sense of justice thinking that the world is becoming a better place just because one person who broke the law is behind bars.  This is not the job of enforcers of the law.  Pride is the double edged sword that will forever slay those who live in hypocrisy.  These people will believe their sense of justice is bringing peace.  Sorry, but justice and peace do not intertwine.

There is a reason justice and peace do not intertwine, just look at the definitions of each.  Government exists to establish peace not justice.  The court exists to maintain peace, not justice.  Justice was built on a human sense of morals and nothing more.  In other words the foundation of justice is built on simple human emotion.  So in reality when someone speaks of a “sense of justice” it is nothing more than their own moral code.  When a district attorney is striving to jail to someone I would like to think that they are doing it because it is their job.  The fact that the district attorney may believe it was wrong of the “criminal” to do such a thing may add passion to his or her work, but passion was not a requirement to fill the position of a prosecutor.  The first thing a law enforcer should realize is that they are nothing more than tools of the government.  It may sound harsh or out of line, but it’s true.  These jobs were created to ensure the safety of people and forge society into a peaceful environment.  People brought a sense of justice into their job just to use as a proverb to assure others they are not tools of society.

Justice and peace are two separate entities.  Within justice lies right and wrong, two things that humans will forever hold high as they are a sign of freewill.  Being able to choose between right and wrong  is viewed as freewill because people get to choose what is right and what is wrong.  So then does this mean justice and freewill are related?  Perhaps slightly, but this would also imply that everyone has a sense of justice.  That is not true, there is a difference between having a sense of morals and trying to project those morals on to others.  This is the true definition of justice, projecting morals on to others.  When enough people believe in the same morals, they will then congregate and make those morals “laws”.

The laws of the land were not originally intended to be forged from the hands of justice.  These laws simply evolved into moral code as time went on.  So then, what is the purpose of laws?  The answer is simple, to maintain peace.  John Locke’s social contract states that people will give up some of their rights for the price of safety.  If everyone has a sense of security and safety then people can wander without worrying.  This might eventually lead to peace, but the law enforcers bring their own morals into the fray which disrupts the balance of peace.  The reason there is a law against killing is to limit casualties so humans can survive as a race and continue their lives at the top of the food chain.  The same can be said with almost any other law.  Laws are created to benefit people and keep society functioning as an ecosystem.  If a murder is to occur, someone may say what the murderer did was wrong and that’s why they should be punished.  That is incorrect, the murderer is being punished because the law was broken and people need to follow the laws to maintain any sort of organization or peace.  Right or wrong, disregard these things when thinking of crime and think only of the law.  Justice is not the law and the law is not justice.  People can side with justice for some sense of pride, or people can side with the law to prevent chaos.  So which would you rather have in our society, justice or peace?

In the northern part of Haiti, Royal Caribbean (the Caribbean cruise ship company) decided to make Haiti a cruise stop for passengers on these cruises.  Since Haiti is a poor, rundown and corrupted country the Royal Caribbean had a difficult problem in making it a safe stop for cruise passengers.  When the company decided that Haiti was too unsafe, they concluded that they would build an “island” off of Haiti t0 make it a cruise stop technically in Haiti, but also a safe stop for customers of the Royal Caribbean.  The dock was named Labadee and although it is a small part of Haiti, people were still opposed to the idea.  A topic of controversy sparked immediately when Labadee was finished and the debates haven’t stopped since.

Just the fact that Haiti was considered to be a stop upset some of the customers themselves.  However, after deliberating the topic for two decades  Royal Caribbean decided that since Haiti was in fact in the Caribbean Sea that it was only fair to make it a stop.  Now this might sound dangerous, but realistically it is quite safe.  Since Labadee is located in the northern part of Haiti, it is separated from any dangerous parts due to a low key mountain range and what looks like a forest.  All in all, this stop has proved to be a positive step for Royal Caribbean.  Haiti’s poverty was recognized as well by the Royal Caribbean and that was also a factor in the decision to make Labadee.  All the expenses that were put into Labadee seem to be returning quite swiftly.  Hundreds of jobs for Haitians have opened because of Royal Caribbean’s decision.  There are Haitian flee markets, zip lines, beaches, and water sports all with Haitian employees.  This allows Haiti to have some contribution to their economy without having to lift a finger.  There were much bigger problems recently that involved Haiti other than Labadee.  The earthquake that took nearly 200,000 lives did not spread to Labadee.

The earthquake in Haiti left thousands homeless, hungry, and lifeless.  Labadee, however, was not affected in the least by this 7.0 magnitude earthquake.  This became an unprecedented problem for Royal Caribbean to deal with.  Labadee can easily be considered the wealthiest part of Haiti but it was still unaffected by the quake.  This must have lead to angry Haitian citizens to say the least.  Since Labadee was built to be a large dock for customers and nothing less, it is safe to say there are no homes that were made for permanent lodging.  This means that there are no residents in Labadee as far as sources say, which makes it an open space to shelter people and become enstated as a temporary port.  However, Royal Caribbean refused to shelter people and use Labadee as a port for emergency food and first aid relief.  This not only infuriated the government of Haiti but the citizens as well.   The U.S. military had to confirm that Labadee is not suitable to be a port and is not held up to standards to be considered one either.  It should be reasonable to treat Labadee as an emergency relief port until the crises is over but instead Royal Caribbean has their own way of compensating.  Royal Caribbean has offered to provide at least one million dollars towards humanitarian relief in Haiti.  It is generous to be sure, but was it really necessary for them to keep Labadee?

The controversy doesn’t stop there.  Royal Caribbean higher ups disputed over whether to resume cruise stops in Labadee or not a few days after the earthquake.  The decision they came to was to continue making cruise stops to Labadee.  Not only that, but Royal Caribbean proceeded the route only a week after the earthquake!  Inevitably Royal Caribbean lost customers temporarily and some even refuse to leave the cruise shit while in Haiti.  Some passengers described it the experience to be “sickened” because of the fact that being on Labadee enjoying a vacation while so many others in the country are suffering and dying “sickened” them.  On the other hand there was quite the opposite as well.  Cruise critics found that most passengers were supporting Royal Caribbean’s decision to resume port calls to Haiti (Al Jazeera article).  With this in mind, it’s hard to consider whether this decision is morally wrong or unethical.  What ever the case with Labadee, we can only hope that each and every customer of Royal Caribbean has the well-being of Haiti in mind.

America has always been proud to call itself the land of opportunity, and with this opportunity comes life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.  There is a reason it is called the “pursuit of happiness” instead of happiness alone.  What happens in America while pursuing happiness varies with the individual.  The individuals that strive for a future, the individuals that migrate over to this country to make a future all come to America visualizing their dream of finally being able to grasp happiness instead of just pursuing it.  With this in mind, parents send their children to school to be educated and sent to college where they can finally begin in their dream career.  Even if these kids are not going to college or are achieving their dream in some other way, they are still striving for that dream future.  However, some of these individuals went through their lives and ended them just as quickly because of one giant miscalculation.  The one question they never bothered to ponder, what if someone came in and took my dream away?

On, December 1st, 1969, the first draft lottery of the Vietnam War was announced on national television.  The first draft in 27 years (since WW2,) was taking place on this day.  Oh how many families must have sobbed, oh how many friends must have been sulking since that first announcement.  These young males had a future, the ages only ranged from 19-24.  So indeed we may ask, did the government come in and steal the dreams of thousands of young soldiers?  The obvious answer would be yes, but is that a reason to hate the government?  I’d say no, in fact there’s a different side to all this negativity.

America, in all of its wars, has relied on the draft each and every time to get the job done.  So far, America has yet to lose a war.  It is a tragedy indeed when these young soldiers get their lives taken away, but it can’t be helped.  It may sound rude, arrogant, or insensitive but it had to happen, somebody has to do the dirty work.  People may advocate peace and say nay to the military and war but it just has been a necessity in all of history.  The military is a requirement, and wars are always fought whether we like it or not.  It can even be assumed that war may never cease.  There’s always something wrong with another country’s leadership, or somebody attacked our allies, or someone became to egotistical and power hungry that they tried to conquer the world.  In the eyes of these leaders, a draft, war, and the lives of so many young soldiers are merely tools to carry out their plans.

There’s always going to be power hungry people in the world and as long as there are, the world or their country will continuously be looked at like a chess set.  In war, we merely draft the pawns.  The king stays in his own hideout to avoid checkmate while the queen, or the general, commands the rest of the pieces to train the pawns to strategize and slaughter their way to the other side of the board to be promoted into a useful piece.  Even then, a chess game without pawns does not exist.  Therefore, even if these young soldiers are described as pawns, it does not make them useless, it in fact makes them a necessity.  Drafts are rough because of this.  The pawns are well aware they are pawns, so they must plunge forward to become a bishop, knight, or a rook to go back to their families with their head held high.

I admire with all my heart any soldier who fights in a war.  No matter what the attitude, I believe that if they were taken in involuntarily without resisting, that they deserve to come back with everyone treating them with the utmost respect.  Soldiers are a step down from those who are on “Dirty Jobs”, the people who make civilized life possible, they are forced to put their lives on the line every day to guarentee safety in their country.  This all leads back to the draft, a way to help the country, but a way to destroy families.  Nothing’s perfect, and we all grieve for the lives who have been taken by war.  However, if we spend all of our time grieving for lives and complaining about the leaders who took them, not only will the draft have been for nothing, our grattitude for the people that gave their lives for our safety will fade away as well.

Articles I commented on:

An Article on Freedom

Stoplights

Actually I did, and I really couldn’t care less what it was about either.  The news/media is cluttered with bias, gossip, and criticism.  At one point it’s even hard to trust the news with things such as natural disasters.  During a hurricane, for example, where the facts are only required, reporters and editors twist the story around to make it more “exciting” for the reader.  Seriously, how ridiculous, to what extent to these news stations need to perform such childish acts?

CNN

Fox

The first network is a very well known liberal news station, CNN.  The second is a conservative news network, Fox.  Even in the event of hurricane Katrina, the facts from each network are different.  What’s wrong with these corrupt stations?  Is the fact that there was a hurricane not interesting enough?  They have to make it more juicy, by gossiping about the political quarrel that was going on between the president, the governor of Louisiana, and the mayor of New Orleans.  An American citizen, I would hope, is interested to know if the people are getting the help they need and making sure the government is pulling their best efforts to keep casualties to a minimum.  Even so, the news keeps talk of these efforts very quiet and advocates arguments between officials.  This is only one example, but it proves the point.

Hopefully a day will come where these news stations can report nothing less than the facts.  If it’s unethical or controversial topics, the news should not be bias and start defending or attacking one side, they should simply present the controversy to the public and then it’s up to the public to decide what to think from there.  Once upon a time it was happening but not anymore.  Even though the media is divulged in getting attention, people still keep feeding them.  Until the public realizes that these stations have no morals and stops funding the news by watching it, only then will the media start presenting itself with a new line of respect for the reporting.  And then we’ll all finally live happily ever after… right?