Mac or PC?

Recently, in response to my brother getting older and having to use the family computer more often for school, I got my first laptop.  There was a bit of discussion even before researching the best computer because it was a large purchase and I of course did not want to hastily make the wrong decision.  Before researching, I talked to my parents about whether or not I should look further into Macs or PCs.  My dad is a big PC believer and strongly urged me in that direction and I'd heard from other adults that from a practicality standpoint PCs are the way to go.  So, I ended up getting a Dell and am happy with it.  

At my high school and even back in my junior high school, Apple products are and always were the preferred choice.  In junior high, surprisingly all of the school's computers were Mac products and nowadays, my friends tend to like Apple products over PCs.  So what really is better and what do Americans really think about when making a purchase of anything?

A friend of mine told me that anything you can do on a PC can be done on a Mac in response to m telling him my understanding that the majority of the working world uses PCs.  I had a hard time believing, however, that the whole world uses Mac products over PCs but have always wondered why someone would pick one over the other.

According to a couple of sites, it seems that Mac products are simply better.  The OS S Snow Leopard operating system beats out the Windows 7 system according to laptopmag.com.  The older Leopard OS beat out Windows Vista in a study conducted by Popular Mechanics' website.  According to these sites, there are a number of technical reasons they found the Macs better than the PC but what was interesting to me was the Popular Mechanics opening paragraph where the author writes that the guy in the Mac commercials is a, "hip, sport-coat-and-sneakers-­wearing type of guy who uses his computer for video chatting, music mash-ups and other cool, creative pursuits," and PC users,"probably think that Mac guy is a smug slacker with an overpriced toy that can't do any serious computing anyway."  The article does say that both of these stigmas are incorrect, though.  

So maybe my dad's original idea that PCs are more practical and Macs are a bit more artsy is incorrect, but what does the popularity of Macs suggest about the changing tides of American culture?  What do we care about?  The following is from an article titled, "You Can't Innovate Like Apple" on Pragmatic Marketing's website:

This is straight from Jobs’ mouth: We do no market research. They scoff at the notion of target markets, and they don’t conduct focus groups. Why? Because everything Apple designs is based on Jobs’ and his team’s perceptions of what they think is cool.

During the Industrial Revolution, Thomas Edison's goal wasn't to make something "cool" but was instead focused on making something practical and helpful to society.  Apple definitely does this and people will always tell you that their Apple product is very helpful, but there is another element essential to Apple's marketing ideals and that is aestheticism.  Mac products are cool, sleek, ergonomic, and appeal to a creatively-driven audience.  Mac products are unparalleled in this appeal and Steve Jobs has obviously built up an enormously successful company.  Looking at this somewhat apparent shift in what Americans look for in their purchases nowadays, what do you think this could mean?  Or does it mean anything?   

The Faster the Better

In America we're all about getting there fast.  This is a theme brought forth by many other students in my American Studies class for which this blog is for.  Businessmen and women will look for the fastest flight to get to a meeting (which they hope will go quickly) and then look for the fastest flight home so they can quickly move on the next day. Cell phones are always advertising "the fastest 4g yet", online directions are automatically calculated for the most direct, fastest route, and we do not like to be kept waiting for our food (thus we created the appropriately named "fast food" to fulfill this purpose). 

Americans are always on the move because a general statement about us is that we are always looking towards the future.  A "Pre-departure Orientation for ChineseStudents" off the Association for International Educators site says under the heading of 'Time Consciousness' that Chinese people pay, "Relatively more attention to the past and to the longer-term future" and American people are, "Less interested in the past; eye on near-term future."  In other words, Americans want to see what's next so they can move on as soon as possible.

Perhaps this is the reason we as a country have developed so much so fast.  The United States is 236 years old and grew from a laughable, loose settlement of former colonies to a booming superpower in that time.  The people that came/come to American, no matter where they were/are originally from, have a drive towards something and work to see that future dream come to fruition.  It's a stretch, but maybe that mentality has made its way into our regular minds.

My 5th grade teacher told us a story that for some reason I still remember today.  He described a trip he took to Italy where the dinner he ate was multi-coursed and lasted hours on end deep into the night.  In Spain, a siesta or a generally accepted "nap time" is commonplace in the middle of the day, everyday.  A camp counselor I had in 7th grade recounted a time to our cabin about when he was in Tanzania, he and his friends went to a restaurant and waited about an hour for a hamburger at a restaurant.  At first, they were infuriated and took the matter personally.  They brought it up with the waiter and he laughed at them saying something along the lines of, "You silly Americans are so caught up in moving forward, you do not appreciate the moment you are in right now."

This whole topic came to my mind during homeroom one day.  The guy sitting next to me was talking about his essay for English class where he argued  high-speed rail trains should make their way to America to replace the traditional style Amtrak currently uses.  An article from The Hill.com says, "Obama has argued that a high-speed rail network could eventually rival the interstate highway system that was built in the 1950s under former President Dwight Eisenhower."  The article talks about how creating high-speed rails can create jobs that are desperately needed in today's economy.  Aside from that aspect, however, this push for super fast trains, trains that can get you from Chicago to San Francisco (a roughly 2000 mile trip) in close to 11 hours as opposed to a day and a half by car.  It seems that we're always looking to go faster.    

"Joe Pa" and Penn State Spiraling Downward

My mom's family used to live in the Pittsburgh area and although much of her immediate family has since moved away or currently lives in different parts of the country, her brother continues to live there with his family.  My uncle Mark went to Penn State, met his wife there, and they are both HUGE Nittany Lions fans.  I'm not sure how they're reacting now to the abundant media coverage following the Penn State former assistant football coach Jerry Sandusky molestation disaster.  

I do know that my uncle Mark (along with basically ever other Penn State student) loved Joe Paterno and he even had a life size poster of him in his dorm20 years ago. Joe Paterno is going down with this spiral, however, and the longtime most prominent man on campus was fired on Wednesday because of accusations that he didn't report sexual abuse violations made by Sandusky to the proper authorities.  Paterno even said, "With the benefit of hindsight, I wish I had done more."  According to the New York Times article that is linked in the beginning of this paragraph, Paterno has the most wins out of any other coach of a major college football organization and despite his lack of action in the.  The students love him despite the fact the his name in a dark light during this massive scandal.  Just look at this video showing kids protesting Paterno's firing.


    

This video also focuses on the fact that the victims' struggle is overshadowed by football because the kids are only rioting for their veteran football coach to be back.  I found it sickening that this entire scandal ever even happened and am disappointed that Joe Paterno, such a large part of Penn State culture, did not turn in his colleague to the authorities and as a result has been ousted from the coaching staff.  In the video it does mention that one of the sisters of a victim is not upset at Paterno but more at Graham B. Spanier, Penn State's president who was also fired.  I'm disgusted nevertheless by the fact that such a heinous crime would even happen at Penn State by one of its former employees and am distraught that kids are not paying enough attention to the victims.  The video mentions jokes about Sandusky and an overall lack of sensitivity to the issue that has really put a dark light on their school.  What do you think this says about college culture in the US?  What do these riots specifically say about college football culture in the US?

Rap in Suburbia

Rap was started by African Americans in the Bronx and continues today to be dominated by black artists. Through my observations as a white teenager in a predominantly white community, I've seen that rap is one of the most popular music forms among my peers. According to an article from the Wall Street Journal, Mediamark Research Inc conducted a study to see what the main demographic was that bought rap music. The WSJ article talks about how "70% of rap listeners are white" was a thought that people commonly felt was accurate. This is what the author of the article, Carl Bialik, found through the Mediamark Research Inc study:

"...for 1995, 1999 and 2001, for both adults 18 to 34 and for all adults. For both groups, the percentage of recent rap buyers who are white was about 70% to 75% for all three years."

Bialik does, however, talk about how some parts of the research could be flawed due to various reasons (these can be found in the link above). No matter how accurate or inaccurate the research may be, I've seen for myself how popular rap is among my white peers and I've always wondered why. Much of rap is about lifestyles that are so different from the ones people live here in suburban Chicago so logically, why would people gravitate towards something so different? I do not disagree with this trend, but am only curious to understand plausible reasoning.

In an essay written on Magazine Americana's website or www.americanpopularculture.com, the author, Fiona Mills discusses her experiences researching this idea in rural Vermont. She says, " the hyper-masculine aura which surrounds rap music appealed to their [young men she talked with] adolescent desires to rebel against the constraints of their parents and white society, in general." Mills goes on to explain that her informants said they most often listened to rap music with friends, usually in a group, which could elaborate on the idea of masculine pride being a driving force as to why young, white males listen to rap.

Mills mentions that in the cases of the people she talked with, their like for rap declined as they grew older. This adds to the argument that rap music's different culture and often more prolific themes appeal to the individualizing, growing mind of a teenager growing up in what can be called a stifling, mainstream society. Overall, Mills found that it is often the case that teens want to prove their parents or their society wrong by liking something so different from what they're used to.

I find these themes of rebellion and power to the individual fascinating parts of American culture. People all have different reasons for why they like or dislike rap, but the reasons Mills discussed above somewhat align with what I believe to be fundamental American themes. Very much in the same way that American patriots rebelled against the overpowering British Empire, kids try to escape what they feel smothered by. It may be a far stretch of an analogy, as many of the reasons for the American Revolution were rooted not in a desire for individuality as much as a desire for change, but the idea of rebellion holds true. The question is, however, is it right to make your own path and seek out new things or to play it safe? How American do you feel revolution from the norm is juxtaposed to being more conservative and secure by following the "rules" a bit more?

American Football in the UK

I've been watching part of the Chicago Bears vs. Tampa Bay Buccaneers game today and recently found out that it is being played in London.  It was very interesting to me that the sport of American football has become very popular among British fans.  According to the British American Football Association (BAFA), there are currently about 11 million fans of American football in Great Britain 2 million of which are considered "avid fans".  This is a rise of 32% from two years ago.  Also, television ratings have skyrocketed in the UK: Sunday football game viewership has increased by 91% and Super Bowl viewership has increased by 74% (both since 2006) according to the online article.

It is kind of cool, to me, that American football is taking flight in a country I usually associated with cricket and soccer.  There is a somewhat ironic yet exciting unity that is formed between England and the United States when NFL games are played, "over the pond".  Following the American Revolution, we have tried to distance ourselves from Great Britain in many ways (despite now being on friendly terms).  We do not use the metric system, use Fahrenheit instead of Celsius, and created our own currency that has no pictures on it connected to England.  Now that a purely American sport and a large part of American culture has gained substantial popularity in England, it is ironically unifying the two nations that have been separated a bit.

In a similar way to how the World Cup or the Olympics bring people together in friendly competition, the new popularity of football in England can be interpreted as an encouraging sign of human unity and overall connection.  Sharing cultures and appreciating differences through a common enjoyment over sports, art, or music can be a great way to stay positive in a time of economic strife and controversial war.

The New Generation

As many things once always in print are starting to become digital, we are slowly walking away from the days of the past and moving into a new, electronic realm.  In a previous blog post about baseball I wrote about the argument between tradition and innovation as it relates to technological advancement.  In the case of baseball, the technology seemingly helped one organization succeed.  But in the case of this recent CBS Early Show clip, it can be difficult to tell what is the better choice: iPad or magazine?

In this video, a baby is playing with an iPad comfortably, but then when handed a magazine tries the same thing, poking it with her finger only to find that it wouldn't interact with her.  Of course, a one-year-old would never be able to read the magazine anyways or be able to tell what you exactly do with it.  But the idea that something with images on it should come to life and be interactive has been instilled in her mind at a very young age, proof that a new generation is sprouting right now.

This baby will grow up in a world where digitized mediums are more prevalent and accepted than print.  I'm not saying that that is wrong nor am I saying that we should shun technology.  I'm also not saying that we should dismiss old traditions all together either.  I'm simply interested in why we as an American society have a constant desire to progress.

In the prologue to Jared Diamond's book Guns, Germs, and Steel he discusses the puzzling question on why certain primitive societies are what he believes to be genetically more intelligent than more developed societies.  He talks about how Western children are often passively amused by such technology as television and radio which doesn't stimulate the mind in the same way as some New Guinean children who don't have that technology but instead socially and physically engage more.  I understand that Apple products try to increase interactivity with touch screens and "face-time", but even still, why do we want a society of more and more technology when people in more underdeveloped societies are often very happy themselves?  Besides trying to get that "wow factor" of a new technology or trying to get better medical technology, why do people want to advance and constantly change? 

America's Pastime in a New Time

I went to the movies a couple weeks ago to see the recently released "Moneyball" starring Brad Pitt.  I'll be honest, I wasn't expecting much for some reason.  But after seeing the movie, I was shocked by how well-cast Pitt was and how well he acted out the part of Billy Beane, the General Manager of the 2002 Oakland Athletics who with the help of a young Assistant General Manager (Peter Brand) had a very successful season, even with the lowest payroll of any team at the time.  

After seeing the film and liking it, it got me thinking (as any good movie should).  One major theme brought up throughout the movie was that of tradition versus innovation.  Beane revolutionized the way baseball teams scout, manage, and organize their players through a system that used statistical data and straight numbers to predict a team’s ability to win based on its players.  Beane and Brand with this computerized data figured out odds to construct a baseball team based on stats instead of intuition and scouting reports to fit their meager payroll.

This innovative methodology of choosing a baseball team is so radically different from what baseball scouts believed passionately in for generations.  In the film, Beane gets into a heated argument with Grady Fuson (A's Head Scout), an older man, who says, "You can't put a team together with a computer, Billy."  Beane responds by saying, "Adapt or die."  

The movie is, of course, dramatized for Hollywood effect, but I feel that the same ideas hold true.  Americans tend to hold very romantic views about baseball, I've noticed.  We call it our national pastime and associate its best old-time players with almost legendary status (Babe Ruth, Joe DiMaggio, Honus Wagner, etc.)  There's a certain sense of baseball lore and true sense of American culture that is difficult to explain but nonetheless rooted in the humble beginnings of the sport.  

I've always had the idea that old-timers would go out and scout the young blood on the field, handpicking and crafting a cohesive team based on a traditional, handed-down method of intuition mixed with personal experience.  This idea was supported by Fuson in the movie "Moneyball".  This process also is, to some, a more gritty and traditional yet pure and old-fashioned charm that has kept with baseball since its start.  

What many swore by for years was shot down swiftly by Billy Beane, who replaced it with what the traditionalists believed was shallow and non-nonsensical, computerized garbage.  I believe there is a conflict of American ideologies here because as some in the U.S. value tradition and stability others value innovation and progress as well. 

I initially felt that there was something wrong with Beane’s approach; it just seemed kind of impure and too far-off from the traditions of baseball.  But, as I thought about it more, the themes of innovation and progress using technology as a guide have always been a key part of the intrinsic, American way.  Therefore, I was and still am conflicted on how to feel about Beane’s method, however successful.  Yes, it did work for a great season, but Oakland didn’t win the World Series and haven’t yet.  What is the best way to approach a difficult situation?  Is it to rely on your ancestors’ passed down teachings or on the up-and-coming, most creative technology to-date?  Or maybe a mixture of both…