Economics from a Dummy

**DISCLAIMER: If any of the following appears strange or offensive in any way, please assume that it is intended as exaggeration or hyperbole.**

Although I know almost nothing about economics, I shall present my economic theory here. Thusly, it shall, quite literally, be an idiot’s guide to economics, in that I am the idiot.

My Lack of Credentials

I was forced to take an economics course in high school – a whole semester of a course! I was told at some point in my life that I should love economics, for it is a social science infused with math, and these are two things I have been known to enjoy, excluding of course, my K-12 (minus 8th and 11th grades) difficulties with actual social studies courses. However, not only do I not love economics, I rather detest it. I find it painfully boring, and I find myself unable to grasp most economic concepts. It’s very possible that the former is causing the latter; in fact, I would argue that it most certainly is, as evidenced by my love of hardcore neuroscience and hardcore physics despite my inability to grasp things in those fields of knowledge. This is evidence because my lack of understanding with interest feels entirely different from my lack of understanding without interest. Furthermore, even when I do understand something in economics, I am still intensely bored by it, and I think it might be impossible for me to have any real interest in it.

Anyway, the point is, I don’t understand much of anything that involves economics, and I think I got a B or less in that economics class I was forced to take. Thus, I am by no means, an expert or qualified in any way to postulate any kind of economic theory or even thought.

My Theory (or Quasi-Theory, or really Non-Theory)

My Non-Theory has three nearly unrelated parts.

Part One: It’s All a Gamble

Something suddenly occurred to me today that I am quite sure no other human on Earth has ever realized before. In fact, I am so sure of this, that I am not even going to Google to confirm my statement.

It occurred to me that the whole stock market is nothing but institutionalized, society-encouraged, legal gambling. One is expected to invest money in something with the hope that that money will grow, but it’s very possible that the money will shrink significantly. One is expected to continue gambling that money, and decide at what point the stock should be sold, which is also a gamble. One is then expected to continue this never-ending loop of buying and selling stocks, and thus, the gambling never ends.

One of the few things I remember from that economics course that was forced upon me in high school was the claims of the importance of investing, particularly in the stock market. I believe it was a guest speaker that explained that it is best to start early, and that our parents would likely help us. Clearly, these stock-pushers wanted to get the kids started young on their new legal gambling addictions, and clearly they wanted to get as many of us involved in it as possible, while we were young and impressionable, by having an authority figure that we were to inherently trust to tell us of all the wonderful things that might happen if we invest early. This very clearly indicates the degree to which our society encourages stock market gambling.

Since I couldn’t help myself, I did Google, but I will just pretend that this wasn’t the first Google result of many that indicates that the stock market being a form of gambling is a commonly held belief.

Part Two: Commodity Stocks will be our Downfall

Some time ago (I don’t know how long ago, hence the use of  “some time ago”), I saw a video on the interwebs that explained commodity stock trading. I don’t know what that video was, and I am far too lazy to find it for you. As you should expect if you read the beginning of this blog posting, I failed to understand the bulk of what the video explained. However, I did understand one thing (that might or might not have been explicated in the video): The commodity stock trade will be our downfall.

The man in the video and people that I have seen on the TV after I saw the video explained that commodities are things like oil, sugar, coffee, and most importantly, cocoa. From what I gather, it seems that Wall Street people make presumably psychic speculations about the future of these commodities and then pretend to trade them via the stock market. Their pretend trading causes real things to happen to the prices of these commodities in our real economy, and I am therefore quite sure, will inevitably cause real problems and our real downfall as a society that once had a real economy.

The gambling of the commodity portion of the stock market is far worse than the normal stock market gambling. It’s a game involving imaginary trades that result in real changes that affect real people and real chocolate. I therefore suggest, with my complete and utter lack of credentials and nearly complete lack of economic understanding, that we abolish the commodity stock trade, and that alone will fix our economy. I’m sure of it – as sure as I am of the originality and pure novelty of Part One of my Fabulous Non-Theory of Economics.

Ultimately, I felt bad that I didn’t look for the video that first taught me about commodities, so I tried to find it, but I could not. While unsuccessfully searching for it, I saw several snippets that seem to agree with me in that commodity speculation is damaging, and I won't pretend those don't exist. Here are some French people talking about the need for regulation of it. This suggests that I might have understood this better than I thought I did. I go girl!

Part Three: Simple Taxes for Simple and Also Not Simple Folk

A few months or a few years ago, I had a brilliant thought. Instead of arguing about different groups of people being taxed different amounts, and instead of having horribly confusing tax laws and forms, why not have a simplified theory on taxation. Since I’m playing fast and loose with my misuse of the word “theory,” I figured I should continue with that trend. Anyway, my simplified taxation non-theory is as follows:

Pick a percentage, and require all the people to pay that particular percentage of their net (or would it be gross? I'm not entirely sure what these things mean) income to the government as their sole taxes. That way, the wealthier people will end up paying higher taxes, the poorer people will pay lower taxes, and no one will complain because it will be 100% fair. Perhaps a few tweaks here and there would be necessary, but I think this could work really well.

For someone who knows nearly nothing about economics, I sure am smart, with my brilliant ideas! But I won’t run for president, and you can’t make me.

Poor Weiner

Well, it seems another politician has another sex scandal. Often funny and friend of Jon Stewart Congressman Anthony Weiner admitted that he sent a picture of his weiner in his undies to a woman on the Twitter. He says he meant it as a part of a joke, and that he has done other inappropriate things on the interwebs and the phone, both before and after marrying his wife. He also says he has never met any of these women in person, clearly implying that the hyper-flirtation only happened from very long distances.

I think that as far as political sex scandals go, this is really quite ethical, assuming that Congressman Weiner is not still lying. It’s really nothing compared to Eliot Spitzer and his adulterous use of hookers, or Bill Clinton and the jobs he had his interns doing while he was married. As Congressman Winkie, I mean Weiner (sorry, I had to) said, he didn’t break any laws, and he will cooperate fully with an ethics investigation insuring he didn’t break any House rules. He also didn’t make his wife stand there with him while he confessed as some Eliot Spitzers did. He mentioned that his wife understandably thinks he’s an idiot, but is not divorcing his dumb a**.

I’m comfortable making these statements about Congressman Weiner’s relative morality, assuming that he is not still lying, because, like David Letterman, he took full responsibility for his immoral actions; he made a point to state that the woman who was the recipient of his bulging photo is not responsible for this at all, and should never have been dragged into this mini-scandal. His apologies, his remorse, his shame, and his tears seemed sincere to me. Of course, he could be a good actor, or I could be an idiot who feels bad when boys (or anyone) cry and take responsibility for their actions. Conversely, as much as I love Bill Clinton for his politics, his intelligence, and the nice things he does for the world, he is a good example of a disgusting immoral sex-crazed adulterer who tried desperately not to take responsibility for his actions.

Anthony Weiner didn’t admit to his tweet until, I assume, he realized his past inappropriateness was going to be disinterred. According to the NY Times blog, he made his announcement after another bout of inappropriate internet behavior from a month ago was revealed. Nonetheless, less than two weeks of lies followed by a full confession is really rather impressive for a politician.

If you’re sensing that I hold politicians to much, much lower moral standards than I hold normal humans to, you're absolutely right. Thanks to people like Bill Clinton, Eliot Spitzer, and probably millions more, I have learned to assume that all politicians are either evil in some power-hungry way, or are whores. Perhaps the hunger for power facilitates the slutty behavior, since the slutty behavior might simply be another way to gain or use their power. I don’t know if this hunger for power is a pre-existing condition for politicians, or if it’s something that happens after a person has been in politics and the power they are inherently given morally corrupts him…or her I suppose, but we never seem to hear about female politicians being adulterous sluts. Perhaps the direction of the power-politics causality depends on the individual.

Anyway, the point of all this is that while Anthony Weiner’s wife is absolutely correct in saying her husband is dumb, and while he clearly does have some moral issues, if he is not lying, it’s really nothing compared to the real sex scandals out there, and in my mind, it does not and should not affect his ability to do his job well, and to do good things for the world. If the far-more-sexually-immoral Bill Clinton could do it, then the much-more-moral-because-he-accepts-responsibility Anthony Weiner can definitely do it. I’m glad he is not resigning.

(Note: I added the link to Jon Stewart's coverage of this scandal after I published this blog posting.)

UPDATE June 14, 2011
Here's someone else who doesn't want Anthony Weiner to resign, and who also feels bad for the remorseful virtual adulterer.

UPDATE July 14, 2011


On June 16, Anthony Weiner unfortunately resigned.

A Very Gaga Future

Since Lady Gaga’s latest album is now almost two weeks old, I’ve been thinking about what her next brilliant album will hold, and I have thought of two fantastic ideas (pardon the reflexive horn tooting). I hope you’re reading this, Gaga! I love you!

Gaga reminded me on an MTV interview of what I had already learned previously – that she was trained as a young Gaga in classical piano. So it occurred to me that glorious and magical things could happen if Gaga were to infuse her music with classical stuff (I’m partial to Beethoven and Mozart, but just about anything would be cool). I almost always love when genres collide, and I think a Classical-Gaga marriage could be spectacular.

My other brilliant idea came to me some time ago (I have no idea how long ago). Gaga has mentioned in various interviews that I’ve seen on the TV that she is a fan of Metallica. I have read somewhere recently, probably on an Amazon review of Born This Way, that metal fans enjoy the Gaga. As a metal fan who also enjoys pop, I assumed my Gaga love came from my taste in pop, but perhaps my rock/metal taste also had something to do with it. Anyway, this suggests that Metallica might in fact enjoy the Gaga (that is pure speculation). If Gaga’s love for Metallica is requited, then it might be fun for the world if Gaga were to collaborate with Metallica to create something beautiful. I can imagine the voices of Gaga and James Hetfield duetting beautifully, and some mixture of the music of both could be beautifully interesting. Maybe they could even throw in some rockin’ Beethoven!

I should mention that the collaborate-with-Metallica idea is not new to me. I have previously thought that Metallica should collaborate with Evanescence, Avril Lavigne (because she performed Fuel surprisingly well, I think on the MTV), and probably others that I can’t remember now. I have also joined Josh Groban with various other artists in my brain (again, Evanescence comes to mind). Oooo, Josh Groban would also sound great with Metallica and/or Gaga!

I hope all these people read my blog and take my fabulous advice! I wonder if any of them Googles themselves. If they do, maybe they’ll find this…

Is Gaga Self-Censored?

***WARNING: The following contains foul language, though it does not contain language about fowl. Viewer discretion is advised.***

I initially became irritated upon hearing the bleeps in the amazing Lady Gaga song “Government Hooker” from the amazing album Born This Way, because I am not a fan of censorship on things that I buy. This had happened before, when the word “bitch” was censored on the allegedly explicit version of “Bad Romance” from The Fame Monster that I bought. Clearly, that drove me crazy, as I searched desperately for a truly explicit version (I eventually found one somewhere, but I don’t remember where). As I heard the bleeps at the end of “Government Hooker” on Born This Way, I thought I had another annoying search for foul language on my hands.

However, I have decided that this time, the censorship might have been intentional. In “Bad Romance,” the word “b*tch” was altered to sound like “bit,” thus creating a clean version of the song that sounded clean and not too edited. However, in “Government Hooker,” the words “f*ck “and “f*cking” are covered with actual beeps that are disruptive to the song and don’t blend in the way the “b*tch,” altering does. If one doesn’t pay attention to the lyrics of “Bad Romance,” the censorship goes unnoticed; however, there is no doubt at all about whether there is censorship in “Government Hooker.” The censorship of the expletive is clearly explicated in the latter song.

Because of the apparent intentionality, I realized the censorship, particularly of the word “f*ck” fits perfectly within the song’s meaning. The song seems to have several complex meanings, according to this website, but one meaning (that at the time that I am writing this) is not mentioned there explicitly. The song seems to be about government hypocrisy. The government (via the FCC) censors the word “f*ck” as symbolized in the song with the bleeps, yet so many politicians are often found f*cking hookers and mistresses (“I wanna f*ck government hooker”). The hypocrisy continues, as so often, the government figuratively f*cks the people it represents as well as the people it doesn’t represent (“Stop f*cking me government hooker”).

Gaga, nice work, adding at least one layer of thought to your fantastic music. This is yet another of many reasons for why I heart Lady Gaga.

Unfairly Idol

I’m somewhat irritated with the people who build the American Idol contestants and their careers. On tonight’s competition of the final two, the third song of each contestant was the single that was selected to launch the winner’s career.

Scotty McCreery’s song, while performed with a beautiful voice, was a rather boring, childless song that has no emotion for the singer or audience to connect with. Scotty is young, but he is not a toddler proclaiming “I Love You This Big.”

Lauren Alaina’s song, on the other hand, was a lovely, passionate song about a mother; obviously, that song has a clear emotional connection for any singer who has or ever had a mother and any audience. In this case, that is even more true, since Lauren’s mother was in the audience, so Lauren would have to be a callous psychopath if she didn’t emotionally connect with the song and the audience. Needless to say, she sang “Like My Mother Does” beautifully, and she sang it with loving emotion. She also sang it with a sprained voice, as Ryan Seacrest explained a the beginning of the program, which is impressive.

I can’t help but think that the American Idol gods recognized the obvious superiority of Scotty’s talent, and therefore provided a vastly better song for Lauren to try to even the scales. However, disparate song quality tips the scales in the wrong direction, and masks the talent of the singer who deserves to win.

I do think Lauren Alaina is talented and deserves to have been in the top four. However, Haley Reinhart, James Durbin, and Scotty McCreery are all more talented than she is, and were and are more deserving of the American Idol title. Regardless of who wins, obviously, all of these people will have fabulous careers.

UPDATE May 25, 2011
***SPOILER ALERT: AMERICAN IDOL SEASON 10 FINALS RESULTS WILL BE EXCLAIMED BELOW***

Woohoo!!! Scotty won despite the crappy song they chose fore him! His talent won! Woohoo!

On a side note, I think Scotty and Lauren are dating and/or in love. That's adorable if that's the case. How cute would it be if they were to get married in a few years and have some country babies? Whether or not they actually are dating or in love, I'm glad Lauren was clearly happy for Scotty, and didn't appear to be devastated. I look forward to Scotty's, Lauren's, and some of the other contestants' success.

UPDATE May 26, 2011
Scotty and to a lesser extent Lauren deny that they are dating, and claim to just be BFFs. I think and/or hope they are lying; they're adorable together and they sing well together.

Gaga Farming

My obsession with Zynga’s FarmVille has finally amounted to something undeniably worthwhile and wonderful, in that Lady Gaga and FarmVille have joined together for the best promotion ever. The awesome GagaVille promotion allows us farmers to listen to the whole Born this Way album three days early.

I absolutely love this album, and I think it’s the only thing I’ve been listening to for the past couple of days. About half the album made my brain rejoice immediately, and the songs that I didn’t instantly love grew on me very quickly. The songs range from good to amazing.

GagaVille itself is pretty awesome too; with all the cool crystals, unicorns, and electric roses, my Gaga-fied farm has become quite shiny, and the GagaVille farm is the most bizarrely beautiful farm ever. This promotion makes me wonder if Gaga farms too, and I bet she does! That makes me love her even more! It’s nice when two obsessions join together to form one ginormous sparkly obsession.

UPDATE: May 23, 2011

Now that this magnificent album has officially been released, I have discovered that what was streaming in GagaVille was not the whole album (that is if I’m remembering the stream correctly, which I might not be). Anyway, now that I have the complete album via my GagaVille game card (which also came with remixes of “Born This Way” and “Judas”), and now that I have the tracks rather than a trackless stream, I can tell you which specific songs are amazing, in my opinion. Yes, I realize I could have easily found the track listing and done this before, but I didn’t so stop complaining.

Before I get to that, I feel that I should address the “Express Yourself” similarity of “Born this Way,” since it was just brought back to my attention by Weird Al Yankovic’s wonderful and funny parody, “Perform This Way.” I have noticed that at least one other song on Gaga’s album also sounds reminiscent of Madonna’s “Express Yourself,” and I think that elucidates the probable intentionality of Gaga’s invoking of that song. A large part of Gaga’s message is to be yourself, to show the world who you are, and thus, to express yourself. Gaga was very obviously influenced by Madonna, and I had assumed that was the extent of the “Express Yourself” similarity, but hearing Weird Al’s allusion in the context of his parody somehow crystallized for me that the similarity is likely not accidental. I heart Weird Al, and I heart Gaga.

Getting back to my thoughts regarding the Born this Way album, the following songs are amazing, and I think they are the same ones that my brain loved instantly. I will parenthetically refer to track numbers on the regular edition (the special edition comes with three additional songs and some remixes):

“Marry the Night” (Track 1)

“Government Hooker” (Track 3)

“Judas” (Track 4)

“Americano” (Track 5)

“Hair” (Track 6)

“SheiBe” (Track 7)

“Bloody Mary” (Track 8)

“Highway Unicorn (Road to Love)” (Track 10)

“The Edge of Glory” (Track 14)

That leaves the other songs that I either instantly thought were really good, or that grew on me to become really good. These opinions obviously refer to how I feel now, and that could obviously change in the future; as I listen to these songs ten billion more times, they might grow on me more to become amazing (or I might get sick of them). Nothing on the album sucks, or is even less than really good. That said, these are the just-very-good-right-now songs, in my arrogant opinion (just kidding, it’s humble):

“Born this Way” (Track 2)

“Bad Kids (Track 9)

“Heavy Metal Lover” (Track 11)

“Electric Chapel” (Track 12)

“You and I” (Track 13)

The three additional songs on the special edition version seem to fall under the “just really good and not yet amazing” category, which might be why they are not on the regular edition.

“Black Jesus + Amen Fashion” (Track 9 on Special Edition)

“Fashion of his Love” (Track 11 on Special Edition)

“The Queen” (Track 15 on Special Edition)

I heart Gaga.

It’s a Conspiracy!

The TV once told me that people like conspiracies because they are more interesting than reality is. I agree with the TV (I think it was the History channel), and I think there’s more to it than that. I learned many a year ago in an anthropology class that people like to find patterns since it's what our brains were built (by aliens I presume) to do, because without patterns, things like sensory stimuli such as lights and sounds wouldn't make any sense and thus couldn’t become objects and words that we perceive. I think, as this thing from CNN sort of suggests, conspiracies also add more meaning to coincidences, which, again, makes thing more interesting.

With all of that being said, I think one thing is clear: Conspiracies are all just one big conspiracy to distract us from the truth: the TV talks to me and aliens built us for their amusement. Isn’t that more fun than reality?

Musical Mediocrity

I’ve been doing a lot of complaining about today’s music, and in doing so, I have addressed the quiet lack of passion in some of it, and the tween-specificity of another sector of it. What I will discuss here resonates with those aspects of the crappy music of today, but also addresses an issue of mediocrity.

Why on earth is Train so successful? That is not to say that I think they’re bad or that they don’t deserve their success. They are probably good people and they do have some good music and talent. However, they are not, in my opinion, as great as everyone seems to think they are. Their songs are either kind of nice until you get sick of them, like "Calling all Angels," or not so great and I was somehow sick of them instantly, like "Drops of Jupiter."

One of their more recent songs, “If It’s Love,” seems to be a list of clichés that are almost chanted and that sound very much like the list was thrown together nonsensically, amidst very catchy choruses and a handful of meaningful lyrics. I'm not suggesting that clichés never belong in songs. When used well, a cliché can provide deeper meaning than new phrasing could, such as Jay-Z's modified use of "If you can make it in New York you can make it anywhere" in "Empire State of Mind." Phrasing that sentiment without the use of the cliché wouldn't have the same potent meaning that it has. Train on the other hand, uses countless clichés in “If It’s Love” to create a meaningless list. Clichés should be used wisely and few and far between (see what I did there hahahaha).

Perhaps the catchy choruses are the key to Train’s success. Britney (Spears) had that song, "Womanizer," that seems to be nothing but a catchy chorus repeated incessantly, and people appeared to like that a lot. I didn't; I liked the chorus once or twice, and then could no longer tolerate it for the duration of the song. Therefore, Train's insertion of lists of clichés between catchy choruses in “If It’s Love” is definitely an improvement compared to Britney's abuse, I mean use of the catchy chorus, which makes the former tolerable and at times even enjoyable. However, by no means is it a great song, nor are they a great band; they are merely good.

UPDATE July 21, 2012

I heard a new Train song and I liked it!  It’s “50 Ways to Say Goodbye,” and while it is yet another list of things rattled off to a catchy tune, I actually like it!  I like the Phantom-of-the-Opera sound in the verses, and I like the Mariachi-band sound in the chorus.  I often enjoy merging genres, and this quasi-merger of show tune, pop, and Mariachi created a nice, strange sound that I find myself enjoying, and I’ve only heard it once so far.  Of course it helps that I rather enjoy the occasional funny song.  Well done, Train, you’ve risen above your mediocrity for this song, despite maintaining what appears to be a lazy approach to music creation.  Please note, as a person who is incapable of humming in tune, let alone creating music, I am not one to judge.  But I will anyway.

(Later that day…)

In a flash of glorious, wondrous, and grossly exaggerated epiphany-imbued brilliance, I suddenly understood where the band name Train must have come from!  It very obviously refers to their sometimes-used style of music writing.  The lists of things are but a train of thought!  Get it?  Train of thought…Train…Get it???  I know, I’m a genius.  Thank you for your kind applause.

I feel that I should defend Train.  I have never purchased their music except for “50 Ways to Say Goodbye” and I think I might have purchased “Calling All Angels” at some point.  Thus, I have never purchased nor heard their non-radio songs.  It is therefore very possible that what doesn’t make it onto the radio could be better-than-mediocre.  I have noticed that some non-radio and otherwise less popular songs of other artists are billions of times better than some of the most popular and radio-friendly songs.  For example, Kelly Clarkson’s “Addicted” is vastly better than her “Stronger,” though I do enjoy “Stronger” as well.  Therefore, there does exist the possibility that while Train and perhaps other mediocre bands and singers are great at appealing to popular tastes in mediocrity, they might in fact be great composers and songwriters with depth beyond their shallow puddles of popular music.  Perhaps the real question is: why do popular audiences prefer so much mediocrity?

Music through the Ages

I don't understand the extent of Taylor Swift's success. She seems like a nice girl, she's pretty and blonde, she's been writing her own music since she was a teenager, and she obviously has some talent. The problem is, I'm not under-exaggerating the latter quality. It's just some talent; her voice is only ok, her guitarring seems good, and her songwriting is decent. But there's so much monotony in her melodies, and there's so much of a formula that she seems to follow. I'm not even complaining about her excessive use of fairy tale-like plots. I will say that I think she might beimproving and growing as an artist with more experience that she is having as a person and as an artist, so perhaps she will eventually manifest or at least approach the level of talent people think she has now.

I'm also baffled by the Bieber and his enormous success. Perhaps the arrogant, not-so-talented Justin Bieber will find his way into a blog posting of his own. Nah, I think I covered everything about him. I will only add that I saw some clear evidence of the far less than brilliant nature of his talent in an interview he had with Access Hollywood Live, where he was asked about Christina Aguilera’s botching of the National Anthem. He explained that since he is Canadian, he doesn’t know the American anthem too well, which I think is understandable, given his youth, though if he is going to continue to be famous here in America, he might want to learn it. Anyhoo, he then proceeded to sing the Canadian anthem in both English and French, and well, he sounded extremely mediocre – so mediocre, in fact, that there is no way he would get through the first round of American Idol auditions with that singing. When great singers with enormous talent sing impromptuly (hahaha, that’s not a word, but that never stopped me before), such as Christina Aguilera, Lady Gaga, and Steven Tyler, beautiful and flawless singing comes out of them. Bieber’s lack of brilliance in his impromptu (I wish there was another word for that, I’m sick of it already) renditions elucidate the mediocrity of his talent. Also, that one song I keep hearing (“Baby”) sounds like something I could’ve written with my black hole of talent, and he doesn’t sound so great there either. (In that song’s defense, I’ve heard the chorus about three gazillion times, but I’ve only heard the actual song once or twice.)

I don't dislike all of today's music; rather I enjoy a lot of it from various genres. However, it seems that the things that seem to gain the most popularity are the things that I guess I'm just too old to get. Or maybe it’s just not my taste.

After speaking about this with my sister, I have learned that I am, in fact, old. She pointed out that the music industry markets the Taylor Swifts and Justin Biebers of the world specifically to the young’uns, just as they marketed Britney Spears and the like to the young’uns of the late ‘90s, and the Debbie Gibsons and Tiffanys and the like to my generation in our youth. It seems this breed of pop music artists are created specifically for the young demographic, such that each generation of tweens will always enjoy the music marketed to them. They love and obsess over the music when it’s fresh, and think fondly and nostalgically when they grow up and the teen idol has either grown with the times and become integrated in the more general pop music or has lost all popularity except with that one special cohort.

The originally tween idol music is so specifically directed at the youth that most older teens and adults simply hate it and can’t comprehend the popularity of such silly sounds. My sister was absolutely right about this, for as she spoke of the marketing only to the targeted demographic, I remembered that my mother who generally has good taste in music has always found Debbie Gibson to be squeaky, and while I hear what she means, I love her 80’s music and I always have. To confirm, I asked my mother what she thinks of Debbie Gibson and Tiffany, and she reacted with equal disgust towards each, exclaiming that she hates their music and always has.

This phenomenon is rather interesting, especially if you consider the reaction of later teens to the music directed at tweens. Based on my own experience, I think older teens might fall in the middle of this spectrum of emotion toward tween music. When Britney Spears first came into my consciousness, I liked her music; I didn’t hate it and I didn’t obsess over it. I still like her music, and yes, I still don’t love or hate it. I had a similar reaction to Christina, however, she musically matured better than Britney did, or perhaps her talents exceed those of Britney, because I grew to love Christina as she matured and the beauty of her voce shined through and rose above the teeny-pop. My mother once again confirms this, in that she hated Christina and Britney, still hates Britney, but now loves Christina.