Last Generation Gamer: Satoru Iwata 1959-2015

Last weekend Nintendo President Satoru Iwata was laid to rest. His death was a very large news story because Nintendo is one of the giants in the video game industry. There are some great features on who Satoru Inwata was, and why he is so important (my favorite piece came from Kotaku). His career, his accomplishments, and his love of video games (check out his interviews with Nintendo employees ) makes his passing one of great loss to everyone who has loved video games.

Thinking of Satoru Iwata and what he has meant to my life long love of video games makes me appreciate how influential he was not only to me, but also to my child. I am old enough to have played and enjoy an Atari 2600. It was my third favorite thing, Star Wars was number one followed by Superman comics. When I first saw the Nintendo Entertainment System, video games became my second favorite thing, still behind Star Wars. Once I entered college, the scholars I associated with were die hard Sega devotees. Nintendo fell by the wayside and I started to get interested in more modern games. The Sony Playstation was the future of my gaming life.

In the first part of the 21st century Nintendo did something different. They learned that the kids who grew up with the NES were now adults who had young children. These adults were not going to let their kids play Grand Theft Auto or Halo (even if those adults still played those games). In came the Nintendo DS, mobile gaming's father (the Gameboy is the great great grandfather). The DS had touch controls, over internet multiplayer, and incredible games. The adults who played the original Mario Kart could now play Mario Kart DS, anywhere. I had a pink DS Lite (it was a Christmas gift and I was too lazy to return it for a different color). I was working as a lobbyist and would spend a lot of time waiting for meetings in government offices. Brain Age, Animal Crossing, and of course Mario Kart were always with me and my trusty pink DS in the halls of power. 

In the spring of 2007 I was leaving a public hearing in Dayton Ohio and decided to make a stop at the local Best Buy to check out some of the goods. When I was looking at Playstation 2 games I saw a cart with four Nintendo Wiis sitting in the aisle. Suddenly I was a kid on Christmas morning, I was so excited. In less than ten minutes all of those Wiis were gone, one in my hand. I raced home and played Wii sports until after midnight with my wife. It was the second happiest day of our marriage up to that point. Shortly after we acquired our Wii, my wife and I had downloaded Super Mario Bros, Super Mario Bros 3, The Legend of Zelda, and Metroid from the virtual console. Super Mario Galaxy, Mario Kart Wii, The Legend of Zelda: Twilight Princess, Super Smash Bros: Brawl and Super Mario Galaxy 2 were soon added to our gaming library.

In 2010 my son was born. In 2013 my small family moved out of our city condo into a suburban home. While we were unpacking I decided to hook up the Wii to play some Mario Kart. Within a few months my young son was regularly winning races against his mother and me. His love for Mario Kart (Peach and Luigi were his racers) was immediate. We, I mean Santa, got him a 2DS for Christmas (the kid is young, I do not need the 3D messing his eyes up). Mario Kart 7 was the first game to be loaded into the system. A few months ago we gave him a Wii U and Mario Kart 8, plus a Luigi Amiibo. The kid uses the Wii U not only to play Mario Kart, but he is getting into the old Wii games. The other day he wanted to play Super Mario Bros, the one from the NES.

This is why Satoru Iwata's passing hit me. He is the man who steered Nintendo during the early part of the 21st century. He brought me back to Nintendo. He is the face behind the DS, Wii, and Wii U. He is the man who ran the company with not all the good games, Nintendo had the best games. Mario Galaxy 2 is far and away the best video game I have ever played. Mario Kart has no equal in the racing game genre. Any Zelda game can go toe to toe with Final Fantasy. Super Smash Brothers can never be beat down by the Mortal Kombats or Tekkens of the time.  Satoru Iwata was a game maker and a game player. The gamer press has always wanted to knock Nintendo for being a kid company, and for many years they were right. Satoru Iwata took Nintendo's reputation, and used it to build a gaming environment that my young son, my wife, and myself will participate in.

Rest in peace Satoru Iwata. Your love for the industry, and your connection to my life will be missed. The legacy you left will assure Nintendo in this home. Thank you.

RD Kulik

RD is the creator of Seed Sing. He loves video games, but is not very good at them. Come write for Seed Sing.

Welcome to the Future: Kirk looks at self driving cars Part 2

The new Tesla? Code named T-Edsel?

This is a follow up to part 1 of Kirk's look at self driving cars.

I cannot say I particularly enjoy driving. I enjoy the convenience that comes with driving. I like being able to go anywhere I please at a near whim. But the experience could be improved as far as I am concerned. I could find better use of my time than staring at the road. Sometimes, if I have the extra time, I take public transportation because it is not the commute that I dislike, but the bore of it. I love to have the opportunity to read a book or interact with my partner or my kids while I get to my destination. The passengers of the vehicle that I pilot get this. The technology is soon here for me to get this too. And it can be public transportation but with the same privacy I now enjoy. When thinking about self-driving vehicles, these are some of the ideas that delight me.

How about I start with the public transportation aspect. As of right now, if I want a fast way to get to my destination I need to own my vehicle. This means several things. I need to have insurance. I need licenses. One for myself to drive and one for the vehicle to be on the road. I need to have a place to put this vehicle when I am not using it, which happens to be the vast majority of the time that I own it. I need to maintain it; gas, oil changes, and the like.

Contrarily, once self-driving vehicles are widespread, I no longer need to own the vehicle. Transportation will be a front door service and it will be much faster, cheaper, and more versatile than taxi cabs currently are. There will probably be periodic rates for frequent users to benefit from. I need to run to the store because I forgot the milk? A couple of smart phone taps and I will have a vehicle in my driveway within minutes. This comes with exactly the same privacy that I already have with my own vehicle and with the other aspects of owning a vehicle obscured into the cost of the transport and taking no physical effort on my part. Because we do not pay a driver, this will cost less than a cab. The economic implications are definitely something to consider here, but I will wait for another post to get more into that.

Another thing that excites me is the environmental impact. Once the use of public self-driving vehicles is set in we can start making all sorts of cuts in where we currently have waste in exchange for convenience. One example is that it is no longer going to be one vehicle taking you or your party everywhere. Right now I drive a SUV, but I am no where near using all the space and power that requires a SUV every time I drive. Many times it is just me. Cut to the self-driving vehicle service, and I can specify exactly how many seats and storage I will need. Getting groceries? A one seat vehicle with enough storage for a bag or two will do. Going on a date? A two seater with no storage works. Family vacation? Four seats and lots of storage. Taking the dogs along? Special storage options available. A lot less energy wasted. I could go on.

An added energy benefit is the fact that a human is not navigating. Some drivers are certainly more efficient than others, but all of us are have emotions. Those emotions necessarily affect our driving. We misjudge how much time we have we have to make the gap, then in attempt to recover we slam on the gas. We switch back and forth between lanes in a jam on nothing more than a hunch wasting countless energy. Not only can computer give up the emotional aspect of driving, but the can also communicate telepathically. Self-driving vehicles can communicate with other self-driving vehicles in a way humans never can. Need to merge? There is no guesswork, just a seamless merge. Traffic jams on the interstate? Reroute X number of vehicles to a secondary route.

The last benefit I want to address in this post is the additional freedom of the youth of tomorrow. Say your ten year old wants to go to a friend’s house but there is no one to provide the ride. With a self-driving vehicle service, there is.

This may scare some parents. I certainly know more than a few parents who want to keep their kids locked down as much as they can for as long as they can. For these parents, there will probably be ways to secure the service to only be used with particular amounts of permission. There will also be kids who get around this as they always is with technology lockout systems. (Another topic for another post I suppose.) And sure I think that a certain show of responsibility should exist before a kid can set out in a self-driving vehicle alone, but this takes down a lot of barriers to those kids who are deserving of that responsibility. They do not really need to be responsible enough to drive a vehicle in order to benefit from the geographical freedoms associated with it.

How do you feel? Are you excited about the changes to our world that self-driving vehicles might mean? Are you concerned about some of the details that have yet to emerge into our collective consciousness? Let’s discuss it.

Kirk Aug

Kirk is getting settled into his virtual cubicle of internet journalism. He is looking for ideas on other near future technologies that will change your life. Follow him on twitter @kirkaug 

Do you know what stinks? Radio really stinks.

Back when I had true choice over the music playing

I want to take my time today to talk about the state of pop music currently playing on the radio.

It's terrible and way too repetitive. I swear, they're playing the same songs from a year ago. I guess there's very little in the way of new pop music. On the rare occasion they do play a new song, it's from a band from last year and their new song sounds exactly like every other song they play. I know not a lot of people still listen to the radio since we have ipods, iphones, androids, windows phones, so on and so forth, but, some people still do listen to the radio in their cars.

My wife and son are two of these people. I can't really listen to a lot of the stuff on my devices because I'm a stay at home dad and I have my son with me 99 percent of the time. I listen to a lot of hip hop, so the curse words make it impossible for me to listen while he's in the car. He does like some of the rock music I listen to, but it's usually the same couple of songs over and over again. A lot like the radio. My wife only likes about half of my music, so when we are all in the car together, I'm not going to make the two of them listen to my music, it's not fair to them. This leaves us listening to the radio.

I've had it up to here with song selection and the DJ's that host their respective shows. Most of these DJ's are just terrible. The song selection is just as bad, if not worse. I'm sick and tired of hearing the same Taylor Swift songs over and over and over again. I don't like her as a musician AT ALL and as far as her personal life goes, she's a terrible girlfriend to her many different, famous musician boyfriends. I swear, she only dates these poor guys so she can get new writing material for her next album. She's a bad person and really annoying. If I have to listen to a "pop" star on the radio, I'd much rather hear Meghan Trainor. At least Meghan Trainor's music is fun and danceable. I'm sure she's a better person too. Taylor Swift is UNBEARABLE!

Which brings me to one of her ex boyfriends, whose songs have been playing on the radio for over a year now, and I'm done with them, they're awful. I'm of course talking about Ed Sheerhan. I swear, if I have to hear "Thinking Out Loud" or "Don't" one more time, I'm going to rip my stereo out of my car. Those songs are very, very bad and have been played WAY too much. I feel like George Ezra, the new "pop" star, song "Budapest" is heading towards Ed Sheerhan level. This makes me upset for him. George Ezra has a unique voice and he writes his own stuff, but "Budapest" is getting into the repetitive play on the radio, and I'm getting sick of this song already. The single came out about 3 to 4 months ago, but just recently it's getting over played. The other day, while in the car for less than an hour, I'm pretty sure I heard "Budapest" three times. THREE TIMES IN LESS THAN AN HOUR! THAT'S TOO MUCH!

Lastly, I'm so done with the band Maroon 5. Every single one of their songs sound exactly alike. I can't tell the difference between, "Sugar", "Animals", or any other song they may have on the radio right now. Adam Levine is no Freddie Mercury, no matter how much he might think he is. His band looks like a bunch of rejects from the Foo Fighters. The Foo Fighters also happen to be a much better band than Maroon 5. Dave Grohl is ten thousand times cooler than Adam Levine. He's a much, much better musician too. Oh, by the way, I'm not even a fan of the Foo Fighters. It upsets me that a band like the Black Keys, equally as famous as Maroon 5 or the Foo Fighters, has grammy awards, plays arenas, just like those two bands do, get little to no air play. Their songs are way better and different. Their songs actually make an album because, each song is unique in it's own way. Each song doesn't sound the same. Revelatory, right? But, if you're just a bit different, play your own instruments and write your own songs and have your own style, no radio play for you because you don't fall in line with the rest of the pack. You're unique and radio stations are afraid of that. Another band, TV on the Radio, falls into this unique territory. They write and play songs that are radio friendly, but do they get air play? Of course not, they're too different and that scares these dumb ass radio execs. That's a crying shame. I just hope in the future, for my son's case, radio changes it's way and starts to get some original people with original ideas working there.

Diversify and you will get new listeners. The very same listeners who are fed up with your playlist right now.

Ty

Ty is the Pop Culture editor for SeedSing. He is this close to paying for a streaming music service, but is afraid they will pull the same crap as traditional radio. Follow him on twitter @tykulik.

Welcome to the Future: Kirk looks at self driving cars Part 1

Art department discovered stock photos

Welcome to the Future is SeedSing's look at trends and technology that are shaping the world we will live in. Submit ideas of interesting sociological or scientific ideas that are altering our current lives to seedsing.rdk@gmail.com .

We are quickly coming to a point in time when vehicles will be driven by computers in addition to humans. Once this point comes and takes hold, it seems the vehicles that are driven by humans will be the biggest safety risk on the road.

As many are aware, Google has been testing self-driving vehicles for six years and counting. The vehicles have driven about 1.9 million miles since they hit the road and have not caused any collisions. Of the 14 collisions that they were involved in, 11 were caused by human drivers rear ending the robot vehicles. Although, I am not sure that you would get that impression if you happen to merely skim the tech news headlines.

Every time that I hear about one of Google’s vehicles being involved in an accident, before reading the article, I am tempted to think that Google’s vehicle must have caused the accident. For what other reason would the involvement of a self-driving vehicle warrant a mention in the headline?

The following are examples of headlines related to the most recent such accident: “Google Self-Driving Car Involved in First Injury Accident” - ABC News. “Google self-driving car has 1st accident causing injuries” - CBC News. “Google Sees First Injury Accident for Self-Driving Cars” - TIME. “Injuries in Google self-driving car accident” - CNN Money.

If the self-driving capability is not an element in the accident, as has been the case in all incidences with these vehicles, I am having trouble coming up with a reason for them to be part of the story at all. It nearly always seems that once I get past the headline, the story is much more of a couple sentences in the weekly accident report of the local newspaper. Something like: “Rear end accident on 12th & Maple. Minor injuries.” That’s the whole story.

So why do we add in the part about the self-driving vehicle getting hit and expand it to a full article? And why do we often have a vaguely suggestive headline about Google to go with it? My suspicion is clickbait. If there is a way to squeeze an element of fear into a headline, people are more likely to click. New technology, as with any change, is scary. Handing over control of our transportation to a machine that has been proving itself to do a better job than humans is degrading. Many humans want to think they are superior to the machines. They want to believe that the machines will fail. They do not see the machines as an extension of ourselves, but a scary other to fear and conquer.

This fear is only human. These machines, while built by humans who are specialists in building and programming machines, are meant to be used by humans who do not understand them. There is a big divide here and the only way it will be overcome is through time. Just as historically with any new technology, time will bring comfort. People will start to see the convenience and benefit over their fears. They will start to understand it better and trust it more. In fact, as baiting as these headlines may be, those who do actually read the article are going to keep seeing this new era of self-driving vehicles to be safer.

I am not saying that self-driving vehicles are perfect and the day will not come when a self-driving vehicle will be the cause of an accident. I expect that it will. To some, I am sure, that will be all that it takes to dismiss those vehicles entirely. It is my hope, however, that the majority will see some of the major benefits to be gained from these vehicles. It is for those reasons that I am excited. You can read more about that in the second part of my musings on this topic tomorrow. (Read Part 2 here)

Kirk Aug

Kirk is still excited about the New Horizons data. His excitement has led him to be the point person on SeedSing science and technology insights. Follow him on twitter @KirkAug

Libertarians need to declare freedom from religion

Do you consider yourself a libertarian? I did at one time.

Boy was I wrong. But you there, you are a true libertarian. Government needs to get out of the way of progress. The government has no right to tell us what to do. If it does not hurt others, I can do what I want.

Smoke a joint? Cool.

 Conduct business without regulation? We are job creators.

 Shoot off high powered firearms? Hell yeah, AMERICA.

Be cool with a former decathlon Olympic gold medalist being transgender and winning an award on national television? Wait a second what about God and the Bible. 

Sorry bro, you are not a libertarian. Libertarians do not believe in the idea of except when...

But taxes, less government, freedom, Rand Paul, I am a true tea party libertarian.

No you are not. The problem with the new wave tea party libertarians is their fidelity to religious zealotry. Getting the government out of people's lives includes all aspects of people's lives. This includes gay marriage, abortion rights, and gender identity, and many other issues. I am going to talk about the first three today.

Gay Marriage

The Supreme Court did the right thing throwing out all the idiotic bans on gay marriage. The government has no right whatsoever to tell anyone who they can choose as a partner. Why are we as a nation, in the 21st century, denying american citizens rights? Being a libertarian is about gaining rights, not denying them.

Abortion

What is the deal? Why do the libertarian heroes like Rand Paul still yell about abortion? The thought of allowing the government to control a woman's decision over her own body seems to be incredible anti-libertarian. The hero of the libertarian movement, Ayn Rand, was very pro-choice. If you are pro-life, you are not a libertarian. Sorry Senator Paul.

Gender Identity

Recently ESPN handed out a Courage ESPY award to Caitlyn Jenner. The right wing hate machine went into overdrive. There are some legitimate arguments for why someone else deserves an award for courage.That is not the argument. The national narrative from the "conservatives"  and "libertarians" is how upset they are because Caitlyn Jenner is shoving it in their face. Shoving what? Her freedom (there is that word again) to accept her identity? If you want to be a true libertarian, you better star accepting the LGBT community. They want freedom, and they tend to have some disposable income.

Why do these three topics seem to trip up modern libertarians? The answer is simple, religion. The libertarian contingent of the country tend to be republican, and the Republican Party has gone all in with the right wing christian community (that is the only religion republicans care for). Libertarian politicians feel the need to cater to the christian zealots. Hating the LGBT community, demonizing women's health and fighting to control marriage identity seem to be the main focus of religious republicans. The libertarians need the religious activist support, so true libertarian beliefs are being sacrificed. With the political sacrifice, the libertarian politicians give up their authentic beliefs. These true believers become regular old political panderers. Their libertarian philosophy was only an act. These thinkers are politicians who only care about being elected. Once elected, their philosophy falls off and "practicality" takes over.

Many millennials have strong libertarian views. They are philosophically connected to libertarians and care less for the antiquated religious views. When politicians like Rand Paul move away from philosophy and start embracing political opportunism, he loses this new powerful voter group. True libertarian (freedom) philosophy can gather up a large part of the millennial vote. Dump the religious right of the 20th century and embrace a future of true personal freedom. That is the key to winning elections as a true libertarian. Hate never wins. Freedom is a powerful message.

Be republican or be libertarian. There is no in between. If you want to embrace religious thought as absolute, you do not believe in freedom. Sorry bro,  you are an old school zealot. You are not a beacon of personal freedom. Ditch religion, become a disciple of personal freedom. There is the path to social victory.

RD Kulik

RD Kulik is the creator and Head Editor for Seed Sing. He enjoys finding the hypocrisy in modern politics. He would really enjoy if you would write for SeedSing

Cloves and Fedoras: Ty believes in Joe Dirt 2: Beautiful Loser

Cloves and Fedoras is SeedSing's reviews for little known pieces of pop culture (or older pieces).  Feel free to contact us with your own submissions of undiscovered gems that must be known.

I just finished watching "Joe Dirt 2:Beautiful Loser" and on the heels of my blog earlier this week I have a review.

This movie was exactly what I expected it to be. It wasn't as good as the first, but how many sequels are better than their predecessors? Maybe, only "Godfather 2" is equal, if not better than "Godfather"(ed note - The Empire Strikes Back is the greatest sequel of all time). That's about it though. "Joe Dirt 2:Beautiful Loser" was basically a goof around, everyone just have fun type movie. In a good way. There was no one saying, we have to make this one of the great comedies of the 21st century. They weren't fooling themselves. It's funny, stupid material and that's how you should watch this movie. If you're expecting some type of revelations, you're watching the wrong movie.

It may sound like I'm criticizing it, but I'm not. I genuinely enjoyed this movie. It was just under two hours and it was not a waste of my time. David Spade reprised probably his most well known, if not most famous, role and did just as good a job this time around. He was funny, witty and charming as Joe Dirt. Brandy was back and she was cute and fun this go around as well. Even showing a teeny tiny bit of range, playing a different version of herself in an alternate universe. She was a drug user, alcoholic money grubber. That's not the Brandy that I know and Brittany Daniel did a decent job playing both Brandy's. Dennis Miller was barely in this movie, basically only narrating parts that needed narration. You get one scene with Kickin Wing, who now has become a drug dealer during one of Joe Dirt's dream sequences. Christopher Walken is back, and his performance was the only one that actually underwhelmed me. He was so good in the first movie, but he's barely used in the new one. That's not his fault, that goes on the writers and director. He does get to say his famous line, "Does your mother sew? Tell her to stitch that!" twice in the movie, so at least there's that. Patrick Warburton plays a guardian angel and he just plays an angel version of Patrick Warburton.

My biggest worry was the addition of Mark McGrath. He took over the Kid Rock role from the first movie. I don't care for Kid Rock as a person and I vehemently disagree with his political views, but he was really great as the bully that's in love with Brandy in the First "Joe Dirt". But, playing essentially the same role, Mark McGrath does a pretty decent job. He's rude and crass and mean to Joe and I hated his character by the end of the movie. The fact that he got me emotionally invested, means he must have done something right.

The plot of this movie is basic. Joe is sitting at a bench, a la "Forrest Gump", and he starts to tell a lady his story. This movie involves Joe going back in time after being trapped in a tornado. He gets trapped because he's trying to save a toy for one of his three daughters that she left in a trailer. That's right, Joe and Brandy end up having triplets in this one. He wants to prove he's brave, hence him risking his life in a tornado to save a toy, because people still pick on him and Brandy has to fight his fights. So, he gets trapped in the trailer and the tornado takes him back in time. This, it turns out, is all a dream to show Joe that Brandy and their daughters love him for who he is. He doesn't have to be some tough guy or some rich guy or a jerk. They love him because he's a genuinely good person. A lot of crazy stuff happens while traveling through time. I suggest you watch it to see all the craziness. Some of it is very, very funny.

If you're reading this review and thinking, it's not in the theaters, how do I watch it? I found it, for free with limited commercials, on a website called Crackle (check it out here). If you're a fan of the first, you'll definitely like the second. Turn the movie on and turn your mind off and just laugh at the silliness that is "Joe Dirt 2:Beautiful Loser".

It's a great way to kill two hours on a rainy day.

Ty

Ty is the Pop Culture editor for Seed Sing. He will always be up to listen to some Van Halen, not Van Hagar. Follow him on twitter @tykulik.

Ty finds Nick at Night and the Jim Gaffigan Show

Last night the "Jim Gaffigan Show" had it's season premiere.

The program was on Nick at Nite at 10:30/9:30pm. I have to say, I was pretty impressed with the pilot episode. The show's premise is basically Jim Gaffigan's real life. He's a stand up comedian, but also a dad to five young children, has a wife that's way out of his league and they live in a 2 bed room apartment in Manhattan. The pilot episode was about vasectomies and, should Jim get one or not. The topic of vasectomies was brought up when his wife Jeanie, played very well by Ashley Williams, thought that she may be pregnant, adding to an already over crowded apartment. Turns out she wasn't pregnant and then the idea of a vasectomy was talked about, with many different people throughout the episode. We see Jim at lunch with one of his buddies Dave, played by Adam Goldberg, chatting. Dave is a single guy that lives with his mom in a nursing home that, as he points out, is only a block away from the strip club. Dave lives with no attachments or responsibilities. The exact opposite of Gaffigan. Dave tells him, better yet warns him, about the dangers of getting a vasectomy, saying that it's a terrible thing to do to your body. Later, Jeanie and Jim go looking for an apartment with Jeanie's gay ex boyfriend, played hilariously by Michael Ian Black. He of course knows that Jim is looking into the procedure because Jeanie tells him, and everyone else for that matter, their personal business. Jim eventually doesn't go through with the procedure and all's well that ends well.

This was a pretty decent pilot episode, and a little risqué for a show on Nick at Nite. It reminded me of a mash up between "Maron", "Louie" and "Seinfeld". Those are three pretty great shows to model your show after. All three of them have professional comedians as the lead actor and writers as well. That's a great idea, especially when basing a show after your own life. The "Jim Gaffigan Show" is going to be good. I just have a really good feeling about this and being on Nick at Nite is the perfect channel for the show. Gaffigan works as a clean comic and, even though I said it was risqué earlier, it's only feels that way because of the channel it's on. Any other cable channel and it would be like any other show. If you're a fan of Gaffigan, as I am, when you watch this show you'll like. As of early reviews, the critics seem to enjoy it to. In my overall opinion, this show is good, with the chance to be great.

Watch it.

Ty 

Ty is the Pop Culture Editor for Seed Sing. This is the first time he watched, or heard of, Nick at Night. Follow him on twitter @tykulik.

When bad movies are really good.

With the release of "Joe Dirt 2: Beautiful Loser" coming tomorrow, I'd like to take time today to talk about movies like these. 

By this I mean, movies that critics don't like all that much, but a lot of people really like. They may not be good, but these movies have a ton of fans and are a lot of fun. Let's call them "beautiful disasters". These are the movies I will be speaking of today.

Back to "Joe Dirt 2:Beautiful Loser", I'm sure that critics will pan this movie and it will rate very low on the rotten tomato meter. That doesn't matter to me, I will see this movie because I LOVED "Joe Dirt". I was hesitant to see the first "Joe Dirt" because of what the critics were saying, but a friend of mine convinced me to watch it and boy am I glad that he did. "Joe Dirt" is hilarious. David Spade is at his best in this role. I'd say it's his best role since any movie he did with Chris Farley. With the mullet wig and his never die spirit, he's funny throughout the entire movie. The movie is a simple story, kid becomes orphaned, looks for his family, finds them and they're terrible. He meets some friends and his eventual wife on the way. Very simple story, but the actors are so good and funny, I don't care what the critics had to say. This movie is great. This is my favorite Christopher Walken role by far.

  I want to single out three more movies that may be deemed "beautiful disasters".

 First, we have "Southland Tales". This epic disaster of a movie is so insane. I don't really know what it's about, even though I've seen it at least a half a dozen times, but the fact that I watched it that many times proves that I enjoy it on some level. It's a totally incoherent plot, I don't even think director Richard Kelly knows what it's about, but it's a beautiful movie. There are some exceptional shots with beautiful colors and images. The acting in this movie is pretty good too. Dwayne Johnson is the lead actor and, as always, he oozes charisma and you can't take your eyes off him on screen. Justin Timberlake plays a crazed ex soldier. He's not a typical pretty boy in this movie, he is messed up. Great acting is done by Timberlake in this movie. Seann William Scott is no Stifler in this movie. He's a cop that finds himself in a lot of jacked up situations. This is easily one of his best acting performances. Comic actors like Jon Lovitz and Amy Poehler are unrecognizable in their roles. Lovitz is a crooked cop and Poehler is a crazy political activist. There is so much going on in this movie, almost too much, but you have to see this movie for it's sheer craziness.

 Next, we have "Hot Rod". This is one of favorite comedies of all time. Andy Samberg plays the lead character Rod, who thinks he's a stunt man, but he can't even do simple stuff like, a wheelie on his scooter. He finds out his step dad is dying, so he and his "crew" go out to make money for the surgery so Rod can kick his step dad's ass, so he will finally respect him. Another simple plot. This movie was canned by critics again, saying it was unfunny and seemed like an SNL sketch stretched out too long. I couldn't disagree more. The supporting actors in this movie are excellent. Rod's "crew" is made up of his step brother(Jorma Taccone), and two friends of his friends(Bill Hader and the always funny Danny McBride). There are many shenanigans along the way and it's all very funny. Hilarious lines are written for this movie too. One that always sticks out to me, Rod is watching the news and you can hear the broadcaster in the background saying, "the dog walked itself home, ate a pizza and took a nap". I crack up every time I hear it. I love this movie and will defend it to my grave. It's a comedy classic in my eyes. 

 The last "beautiful disaster" I will mention is, "Pootie Tang". I adore this movie. It's about, for all intents and purposes, a super hero that speaks his own language and can beat people up by simply using his belt. The movie is just a hair over an hour long. After the end credits, Bob Costas shows up and says to Pootie Tang, "that was the longest trailer" I've ever seen. You have people like Chris Rock, playing multiple roles in this movie, Wanda Sykes as a hooker with a heart of gold, JB Smoove as Pootie Tang's right hand man and Dave Attell as the bad guy. This movie is bizarre on so many levels, but in a very good way. You get scenes of Pootie Tang as a child having a grown women crying hysterically as he leaves her home, Pootie's dad being mauled by a bear, but it's literally just a guy in a bear costume, Pootie rubbing hot cherry pie on his body to seduce a farmer's daughter and many, many more. It's so ridiculous, but so awesome. Critics once again destroyed this movie, calling it dumb and saying it was impossible to understand. I wonder how they would feel about it now if they went back and watched it knowing that Louis CK wrote and directed it. Everyone loves "Louie"(you can count me as one of these people, it's the best show on TV) and lauds how Louis CK has such a fresh, yet bizarre take on the world. Much like the movie "Pootie Tang". Watch it again, with the knowledge of who Louis CK is now, and I bet you that you'll love it. "Pootie Tang" is great.

 There are many more movies I've left off my list, but I know that everyone has a "beautiful disaster" movie that they watch and love. Let me know in the comment section what some of these movies are, so I can watch and find some new movies that I haven't heard of, or never gave a chance. I'd greatly appreciate it.

Ty

Ty is the Pop Culture editor for Seed Sing. It took him longer to write this article than it took to watch Pootie Tang. Sa da tay. Follow him on twitter @tykulik.

Ty spends some time in heaven watching "7 Days in Hell"

There are spoilers for the HBO film "7 Days in Hell". Go watch and come back to read Ty's review.

I got around to watching "7 Days in Hell" the other day and it was pretty hilarious.

"7 Days in Hell" is a mockumentary style HBO Sports movie. It stars Andy Samberg as American bad boy tennis pro Aaron Williams and Kit Harrington as the far too wound up, immature English tennis pro Charles Poole. The movie was about the longest tennis match in the history of Wimbledon. The match took seven days, hence the name "7 Days in Hell", with no winner. The path the writers and actors took to get to this match was quite funny. "7 Days in Hell" reminded me a lot of the Will Ferrell and Jon Heder movie "Blades of Glory", except these two pros don't become teammates or friends, they hate each other. They respect each other, but they really do not like each other at all. The movie started by giving Aaron Williams back story, revealing that he was abandoned by his parents, only to be found and adopted by Serena and Venus Williams father. Serena Williams played one of the talking heads in the movie and she was very funny, taking her role very seriously. Aaron Williams learned tennis on the streets of Compton and rose through the ranks all the way up to number two in the world. On the precipice of winning his first Wimbledon Final in 1995, Williams was cruising through the championship, until one of his powerful serves knocked a linesman unconscious and caused him to have a heart attack and die, right there on the court. Will Forte, who played another talking head, writer Sandy Pickard, said that there was a silver lining in the linesman dying, it produced the fastest serve in the history of tennis, clocking in at 175 miles per hour. I found that extremely funny. This death caused Williams to lose the match and he walked away from tennis after shoving the Duke of Kent, played by Howie Mandel.

We next get Charles Poole's back story. When he was a three year old, his mother, played by Mary Steenburgen, pushed him into tennis and forced him to play and practice constantly. In some "home" videos you can clearly hear him say, "I don't like tennis". His mom was undeterred and Poole continued to play tennis against his will and he too, rose the ranks all the way to number two in the world, taking over Williams spot after he disappeared. When Poole was 15, he appeared on a British sports talk show, hosted by Caspian Wint, played fantastically by Michael Sheen, and when asked if there was a better tennis player than him on Earth, Poole replied with a simple, "No".

This seemed to go by without anyone noticing, but in a Swedish prison, where Williams was staying after a failed fashion career and being caught with PCP, saw it on the TV and escaped prison just so he could play Poole in the upcoming Wimbledon. On day one, we learn that all the tennis players have sponsorship deals for the clothes they wear, but Williams didn't currently have one. That's when Lanny Denver, president and CEO of Jordache, played hilariously by Lena Dunham, stepped in and made Williams an all white denim tennis outfit. Needless to say, the clothes were a nightmare and coupled with Williams terrible playing, Jordache pulled the deal. You think this may have ended the match, but rain put day one on hiatus, with Poole winning the first set 6-0. Things all seemed well for the Englishman, but with added pressure from the Queen, played by June Squibb, Poole was coming undone. Day two showed Williams storming back, playing the best tennis of his life. People weren't sure where this spectacular play was coming from, but it appeared that Williams was doing copius amounts of cocaine from many different places on and around the court. Williams came back strong to tie it up. With both players being tied and no one winning match point, the match lasted eight hours each for the next two days with no winner. Day four looked to be Poole's chance to take the match, with Williams running out of gas and steam. But, two streakers came on to the court, one male one female, and Williams had a three way that lasted so long, the match had to be postponed for another day. That night, it was revealed that Williams was in an accident and his shoulder was separated. This looked to be the end for Williams, but he played the entire day left handed and just when it looked like he was finally going to lose, his close friend David Copperfield appeared out of nowhere onto Poole's shoulders. A magic trick gone wrong explained Copperfield with a wink. This being in Poole's head, the constant threat of someone landing on his shoulders out of nowhere, gave Williams another chance and the match went to day six. Before starting play, Williams held a press conference claiming he found out that his real father was from England and he was the greatest English tennis pro, clearly only doing this to mess with Poole's head. There was also the reveal of a sex tape between Williams and Poole's ex girlfriend, model Lily Allsworth, played by Karen Gillan. This only further screwed with Poole's head and he could not get the win over Williams. Williams ineptitude playing tennis, after being away from the game for six years, caused him the inability to get the win as well. We get to the seventh day, the day everyone hoped and prayed the match would end. There were plenty of great rallies and pretty decent tennis being played. All the stuff Williams had been doing to Poole all week finally boiled over and Poole challenged Williams to a fight. With the acceptance and go ahead from the Queen, the two players charged the net with their rackets being held like weapons. They met at the same time and hit each other simultaneously. They each went down and it was revealed that they instantly died. The match never ended with a winner. People felt that these two were such great competitors, that they should be buried in a casket together. The movie also featured the likes of, Fred Armisen, Chris Evert, John McEnroe, Soledad O'Brien, John Hamm as the narrator and, the funniest one in the movie in my opinion, Jim Lampley. If you don't know who Jim Lampley is, he's a sports talk show host on HBO and he constantly made jokes about how none of this story really mattered because tennis is a stupid sport. He was hilarious.

I highly recommend checking out "7 Days in Hell". It's very funny.

Ty

Ty is the Pop Culture editor for Seed Sing. He has played tennis, it was 7 minutes in hell. Follow him on twitter @tykulik

Cloves and Fedoras: Ty saw Jen Kirkman, you should too.

Cloves and Fedoras is Seed Sings reviews for little known pieces of pop culture (or older pieces).  Feel free to contact us with your own submissions of undiscovered gems that must be known.

Last night I went to see Jen Kirkman do a stand up set at the Firebird in St. Louis and she put on a very good show.

Kirkman was very funny while working on new material. I was very happy to hear new stuff since she just put a special on Netflix, "I'm Gonna Die Alone (And I Feel Fine)". The special is excellent. Watch it if you haven't seen it yet. Let's get back to last night's show. Jen Kirkman's opener was pretty funny. He's an Australian named David Quirk. He had some funny bits about running into tween bullies at a skate park and talked about how differently we pronounced the letter R compared to the Australians. His best bit was about a friend telling him that he told his blind date that he, meaning David, is a registered sex offender. David thinks this is funny and he goes back to the girl, asks her if a stranger talked to her about him and told her he's a sex offender and she responded quite simply with, no. It was very funny.

After his fifteen minutes, it was Jen Kirkman's show. She owned the crowd and the stage. Like I said, she told us that she was going to be working on material, almost warning us, but all of it really worked. She is just so damned good at stand up. She talked about a variety of things throughout her almost hour and a half set. She opened with a bit about being pre-diabetic, transitioned into some really funny stuff about guys catcalling women, talked about her family and talked about her dating life, now that she's about a year and a half into her divorce. She was very open and honest about her personal life. I like when stand ups are so forthright with an audience like Kirkman was last night. We learned that she never really was in love with her ex husband, that her father had brain surgery and the fact that she, in her own words, is a very difficult person to date since she's only focused on herself, among many other things. Most stand up shows I go to, the headliner usually does 40 minutes to an hour. That's there set and you, for the most part, know what you're going to get. The fact that she was working out new material and seemed pretty comfortable with us, the audience, the hour and a half set seemed to go by very quickly. I could've watched her perform for another hour easily. Kirkman's crowd work was the best I've seen live since, Todd Barry. She spoke to a lot of different audience members and never talked down to us, treating us like equals. I really respect and enjoy that from comedians.

My favorite bit came when she was talking about men catcalling women, and her being involved in this very incident, or so she thought. She was in North Carolina and a man in a pick up drove by her, reversed back to her and told her to had to say something to her, and it might be creepy. Naturally, we all thought it would be vulgar, but the man just wanted to compliment her shoes and ask her if they were comfortable. He told her that he wouldn't be able to live with himself if he never said that to her. Kirkman deemed this a worthy catcall. Stating that if you need to say something to a woman that's a stranger to you, make sure you compliment an article of clothing. That's acceptable.

Overall, I had a really good time at the show and I hope Jen Kirkman comes back to Saint Louis in the future because I'd love to see more of her stand up. She's really good and if you have a chance to see her, do yourself a favor and go.

You'll be very happy with your decision.

Ty

Ty is the Pop Culture editor for Seed Sing. If you are a comedian, and you come to St. Louis, Ty will be in the crowd. Follow him on twitter @tykulik

Kirk comes to terms with a dwarf planet thanks to Neil deGrasse Tyson's The Pluto Files

On this eve of the Pluto flyby of the New Horizons spacecraft I could not help but think of how much has changed for the planet since the probe’s launch over nine years ago in January of 2006. Indeed nothing actually changed for Pluto itself, but for the way we define and classify him (her?) and the presumed hundreds of other celestial bodies like it. See, when New Horizons launched, Pluto was still classified as a planet. In August of that same year the International Astronomical Union (IAU) declared Pluto to be a dwarf planet. This was a big letdown to the ninth planet  lovers everywhere.

As the only planet discovered by an American astronomer, Pluto had become an American icon. Even Mickey Mouse’s dog bears the name. And many Americans, as well as some other folks around our planet, were not comfortable with the designation change. One man stood to receive much of the heat for re characterization of the icy Pluto. That man was Neil deGrasse Tyson, and in 2009 he described from his own point of view the path out of planet-hood that Pluto took in his book, The Pluto Files.

Earlier this year Dr. Tyson was going to be doing a lecture here in St. Louis. In anticipation of my attendance, I decided to to pick the book up.

Long before we knew of nine planets in our solar system, we had already settled on eight. In fact, Tyson starts out by pointing to the Adler Planetarium in Chicago was out-of-date the day it opened its doors. Opening only two months after the discovery of Pluto by Clyde W. Tombaugh in February of 1930, Adler had already been designed to showcase eight planets. One can still go there today and see the plaques depicting the eight planets which after 76 years of being out-of-date are finally right with the times.

I think that Tyson was pointing this out to exemplify the cost of changing our view of the universe and our solar system in particular. In reclassifying Pluto, textbooks need to be revised, museums need to be reorganized, and entire generations of people will go on without accepting it because either they do not care enough, they are unwilling to see the nuance as to why, or perhaps because of the culture surrounding our old understanding.

Mickey’s dog was far from the only part of this culture. Upon the discovery of Pluto, this new planet was an budding rock star. In 1932 a laxative known as Pluto Water hit the market. In 1941 a new element who needed a name became known as Plutonium. And of course how can anyone raised in the 80s and 90s forget that My Very Educated Mother Just Served Us Nine Pizzas? If Pluto is no longer a planet, many Plutophiles have pointed out, we have to come up with a new mnemonic. Indeed the culture of Pluto was strong and so demotion was destined to bring about controversy.

Throughout describing the history and science surrounding Pluto, Tyson helps to distinguish it from what we now define as a planet. For example, Pluto is mostly made of ice. Pluto’s moon, Charon, is so large that center of motion is between Pluto and Charon. Every other planet in the solar system has moons whose center of motion lies within the boundaries of the planet. Pluto is so small that it is less than five percent the size of mercury. Pluto also exists in the Kuiper belt along with many smaller ice balls as well as some similarly sized icy objects. Should we start calling the larger of those planets as well? For a little while some people did.

Of course Tyson was not personally or otherwise responsible for Pluto’s fall from grace. The planet had long been on the radar in a large part due to the discovery of Kuiper belt objects that were increasingly closer to Pluto’s size. What put Tyson in the crosshairs of the Plutophiles was mostly exposure due to his involvement of the design of the New York Hayden Planetarium’s Rose Center for Earth and Space. Given the climate of disagreement of how to classify Pluto among relevant scientists at the time and the permanence of the Rose Center which was to be built and opened in 2000, some presentational creativity was going to be required. Instead of an “enumeration of orbs to be memorized” (Tyson, 2009), they presented the solar system as families of objects with similar characteristics. You have the Sun, the rocky terrestrial planets, the asteroid belt, the gas giants, and the Kuiper belt. Pluto lives in the Kuiper belt.

No one really noticed that Pluto was missing from the presentations of the Rose Center until a New York Times article came out almost a year after its opening. The article was titled, “Pluto’s Not A Planet? Only In New York”. This is when the firestorm started for Tyson. In the book several humorous letters are shared from various elementary classrooms begging Dr. Tyson to make Pluto a planet again. This was probably my favorite part of the book. I never cease to be amused by the visceral reaction to those who resist a change that is so obviously needed.

Part of the problem for the IAU was that there hadn’t really been a formal definition of the term planet. Therefore, the task ahead was to formulate that definition which then included them deciding what to do if or when certain celestial bodies did not make the cut. In any event there were no longer going to be nine planets in our solar system. If Pluto made the cut, Pluto’s moon, another Kuiper belt object named Eris, and an asteroid belt object named Ceres would also have become planets. As it turned out. All four of those objects became part of a new class called dwarf planets.

For Tyson, the emails came at a rate of hundreds per day. Articles were written blasting the decision. Even many astronomers were burned by the development. But no amount of passion from the Plutophiles could reverse it. Pluto was now a dwarf planet. When I saw Dr. Tyson’s lecture a couple of months ago, he could not have put his attitude toward it better. In three words he said, “Get over it.”

The Pluto Files is a fascinating read. I hope this week as you are enjoying the new data coming from our favorite little dwarf planet, you might give this book a look.

Kirk Aug

Kirk has conflicting feelings about losing the planet Pluto. He is excited to see whatever thing New Horizons takes pictures of. Follow him on twitter @kirkaug

The Republicans may write Rand Paul off. The Democrats should not.

I have written a lot lately on the problems with the national Republican voter base. It is a big problem that the party leaders seem to have little interest in solving. When society evolves, the national republicans devolve. When people celebrate love, the national Republicans embrace fear and hate. The party orchestrated a masterful takeover of the local seats of power, but they are losing their grip on the nation at large. There is not a single Republican candidate that can beat a Democratic candidate in a national election, except one.

Kentucky Senator Rand Paul is the Republican of the future. His views are dangerous, his voting record is destructive to anyone below the highest levels of the upper class, but he is the only person who can activate the millennial voter base. Senator Paul claims to be a libertarian, and most of the time he delivers on his convictions. He stupidly, yet also kind of bravely, defended his opinion that the civil rights laws should be rolled back. He does not join the loud chorus of Republicans that hate the LGBT community. He is friendly with the pro-marijuana legalization community (gotta love some Aqua Buddha). Most importantly, Senator Paul was the only member of Congress to stand up and filibuster the horrid use of drones. These are views that excite the millennial voter base.

Senator Paul has one big obstacle in his run for the Presidency, the Republican party. Corporate Republicans like Speaker John Boehner and Majority Leader Mitch McConnell do not like Rand Paul. The religious right is definitely not going to throw their support his way. Rand Paul is seen as a troublesome upstart by the established Republican Party. The same established party that brought us Sarah Palin and two consecutive losses to Barack Obama. They seem to know what their doing.

The national Democratic party should thank the god(s) that the republicans will stop Rand Paul. He is the only republican that could actually defeat the Democratic presidential candidate in 2016. Senator Paul is the only person running who would excite the millennial voter base.  The baby boomers and the gen xers are locked in voting groups, the millennials are under engaged. The party who can excite them, can win any election. The only excitement surrounding the Democratic candidates is the history of electing the first woman to be president. Rand Paul is talking about issues, and standing up for ideals, embraced by the millennials. Hillary Clinton (and the other Dems) need to start talking to the millennials about the issues that really matter. Issues like student loan reform, job opportunities, marijuana legalization and NO MORE DRONE STRIKES. Rand Paul is moving on some of these issues, the Democratic party is largely silent.

Rand Paul will not be the Republican party's 2016 nominee for President. The current leaders would rather submit to corporations and be hateful. Once again a Democratic politician will be inaugurated as president in January of 2017. That president should be worried. In 2020 Rand Paul may take control of the Republican national identity, and his ascension to be President of the United States will be hard to stop.

God(s) help us.

RD Kulik

RD is the Head editor for Seed Sing. Since he gets Kentucky media, Senator Paul is very familiar. He still loves to talk about Aqua Buddha worship. He will really worship people who write for Seed Sing.

Ty says why not to Why? with Hannibal Buress

Last night was the premiere of Why? With Hannibal Buress on Comedy Central. It followed the season four premiere of the always excellent Key and Peele and I thought it was a bit clunky, but also very funny. I'm a big fan of Hannibal Buress. I love his standup and his appearances on shows like "Broad City" and the "Eric Andre Show". He's also the lone bright spot in last year's "Neighbors". So, I was predisposed to like his show. It's also about time he got his own show. The dude wrote for SNL and 30 Rock, so he's clearly got the talent for sketch and situational comedy. I'm sure a part of the reason he got a deal for a show now has to do with the whole Bill Cosby thing that he was involved with. Basically, he'd been telling a joke about Cosby being a sexual predator for months, but some fan videotaped this bit, which you're not supposed to do at his shows, and it blew up all over social media and television. But, that's not really why he got a show. He got one because he's really funny and a very good writer. The show is pretty loose, starting off with a monologue and some sketches follow. Last night during one of the sketches, Buress called out internet trolls and decided he was going to track one particular troll who's been bothering him for some time now. He arrives at the house and it turns out to be Amy Schumer, another comedian with a very successful show on Comedy Central. Obviously, this was a joke sketch and it was very funny. Schumer poked fun of herself and Buress deflected all his anger and had to calm Schumer down. It was very funny, with a great back and forth between the two comics. Schumer tells him that "Comedy Central is my network" and Buress responds with, "Viacom owns it!" Pretty good stuff. The next sketch wasn't as good, with Buress mimicking a guy on the internet who responds to police by saying,"I don't answer questions". It was your typical, I'm young and older cops don't understand me type stuff, but what saved it was Buress' commentary after the sketch was over. He seems very comfortable poking fun at himself. The sketch of the night was his Daily Show audition tape. It was a comedy of purposeful errors ranging from calling himself Jon Stewart to saying at the end that he doesn't even really want the job. Look it up, it's very funny. The show ended with the Why? With Hannibal Buress national anthem. It was okay, but went on a bit too long for my taste. Overall, it was a pretty good pilot episode. I have a lot of hope in this show and Hannibal Buress. He's a very funny man who's time in the limelight has finally come.

Good luck Mr. Buress, I think you have a very bright future ahead of yourself on TV.

Ty

Ty is the Pop Culture editor for Seed Sing.  His summer television regiment is old Simpsons followed by new sketch comedy. Follow him on twitter @tykulik.

NBA offseason part III: Honor and DeAndre Jordan.

With the reported news that DeAndre Jordan is going back to the Clippers, I just want to talk about how cowardly and childish of a move this is.

When you become an adult in the professional world, your word should be as good as gold. What you say and promise and verbally agree too should be what you do. But, when your a child, you back out of situations that may be scary or different for you. You, DeAndre Jordan are a cowardly child. I hope you like being the fourth banana on your team. That's right, crybaby Chris Paul is number one, the highly overrated Blake Griffin is two and JJ Redick, the guy who does his hair before games, is the third option on the team. All you are good for to the Clippers is your rebounding and rim protection. I'm sure they told you that you'll get more touches. Guess what, they're liars just like you are. This team doesn't trust you, especially late in games since your free throw shooting is so embarrassingly bad. I wish Adam Silver would step in and do something to stop this nonsense. Up to now, Silver has done the right thing for the most part. This one week moratorium before players actually sign has to be fixed. You also managed to make Mark Cuban look like a good guy who was wronged. MARK CUBAN! I can't believe how much of a chump move you've made this evening. You wouldn't even let Cuban talk to you. You literally boarded your front door and won't even talk to him like an adult. DeAndre Jordan, I hope you're happy with your stupid, stupid decision. Chris Paul is never going to lighten up on you, even when you make the tiniest of mistake. He's a prima donna and you are about to sign up to play with him for the next five years. At least you've said you will sign, who knows, maybe at 11:59eastern time you will sign with the Knicks or something. Who knows what's going on in your mind right now. For all we know, it's something idiotic and childish. Oh and congrats Doc Rivers on getting more people to dislike you with this move. Other people may have forgotten, but when you took the job, you tried desperately to trade DeAndre Jordan for Kevin Garnett. You wanted to get rid of Jordan so badly, that you'd rather had an aging, injury riddled Garnett on your team. This whole situation stinks and the Clippers are the whiniest, most annoying franchise that's never done ANYTHING EVER. Oh, and have fun being bounced in the second round of the playoffs again. The Thunder will be at full strength next season, Houston already beat you guys during your collapse in last years playoffs and the Spurs signed LaMarcus Aldridge and got David West to take the veterans minimum. So good luck with all that. DeAndre Jordan, Blake Griifin, Chris Paul and Doc Rivers, you all deserve each other because you're all snakes.

A bunch of lying, back stabbing, conniving snakes.

Ty

Ty is the Pop Culture editor for Seed Sing. He is a man of his word, and his word is the Clippers stink. Follow him on twitter @tykulik.

We need 21st century leaders. Why the Republican party is doomed for failure.

Things do not look very good today.

Greece is a financial mess, China is a bigger financial problem that few people are talking about. The United States is doing nothing to fight exploding student debt, stagnant wages, and out of control health care costs. The world's population is getting older, and many of the baby boomers are not leaving the work force. The workers of generation x and the millennials are finding it more difficult to grow in their jobs and make more money. Home values do not appreciate at the rate they would 20 years ago. Public school funding is under assault by "tax cutting" politicians. Social services are being devoured by local budget deficits. Black southern churches are being maliciously burned down, and the media stays quiet. The world needs bold leadership.

The modern Republican party is largely responsible for many of the current problems facing the world. Once in power, Republican politicians use code words like "freedom", "opportunity", "small business", and "fairness" to lull the masses into thinking the Republicans are looking out for the normal middle class worker. It is a lie. The Republicans have worked extraordinarily hard to consolidate power into the hands of a very small group of rich white men. Do you think I am exaggerating? If you are under the age of 50, how well off are you? According to latest census data, just under 20% of all people in the US make over $100,000. Sounds good? Did you know because of fiscal policy started under the Reagan administration, that $100,000 is worth half as much as it was worth in 1990. We have been tricked into thinking that is a lot of money. We never took into account that the money is becoming worthless. The baby boomers do not understand the value of money being made, because they are finished with the career climbing point of their career. Their only concerns is social security (enjoy it), Medicaid (you're welcome), and living off their pensions (I know what those are, I just do not believe they ever existed). The government has completely changed our economic system, and it took only one generation.

It is amazing that the Republican party can lure any non-baby boomer to vote for their politicians. I hear from many people that they give support to the republicans because of tax policy. When taxes are cut, the hole has to be filled. Reagan filled it by raiding social security. Every President since then has stolen from one program or another to keep rich people taxes low (or to give them bigger loop holes) and to increase pointless defense spending (see the F-35 fiasco). The Republicans continue to feed the american people, with the help of a broken corporate media, the lie of lower taxes. Your paycheck may be bigger, but everything is cost more and is worth less.

While the Republicans continue to trap people with their failed financial policies, the hate from the party will be their eventual downfall. The current bloated field of Republican presidential candidates seem to always have a racist, misogynistic, homophobic, or good old hateful thing to say. I get that the party is trying to appeal to old white people who are afraid of "welfare queens" and "angry black men". Most of the under 50 people in society see the Republican party's hate filled ways, and we are rejecting them. Religious conservatism is not the majority, the people of earth have been and will always be progressive.

The middle class has always been the great battleground in every election. Outside of the racism and hate, there is no reason to vote Republican if you are the 80% of america that lives in a family who makes less than $100,000.  Just this last week Wisconsin Governor, and Republican presidential front runner, Scott Walker tried to sneak in a provision to the state budget that would help eliminate the weekend. Think I am exaggerating again? Remember that good conservative hero Scott Walker is also advocating using state money to buy a basketball arena so billionaires can save some money. Today's conservatives seem fiscal responsible, yet they act like socialists when it comes to their rich white donors.

What about the Democrats, says you faithful reader? They are not any better when it comes to corporate welfare. Hillary Clinton may be the presumptive nominee (is she?) but she is definitely aligned with the corporate donors. The issues of the Democratic Party and their lack of support for the middle class will be addressed at a later date, but I will say the big issue that separates the Democratic party from the repubs is the hate. Democrats spent the last few weeks preaching about how #lovewins. The repubs have been falling all over themselves to see who can be the most hateful. 

Right now the Republican party controls the US House, Senate, and most of the state governments, how can I say they are doomed to failure? The recent world events show that we need innovative and bold leadership, that is not in the Republican party DNA. Making old white men even richer is not the future. Hating people who are non-white christian heterosexuals is not the future. The weakness of the local Democratic party is a temporary thing. Many local parties are gearing up for the 2016 elections, and hate is not on the agenda. Entire voting blocks are being energized for the Democrats (LGBT, millennials, non-hateful people). The Republicans are counting on the same people to turn out that they have been counting on for forty years. The Republican tactics are 20th century, the new leaders will be elected by 21st century minded voters.

The world needs bold leaders. The ideas from the modern Republican Party are without vision and without hope. Cut taxes, hate others, and forget about how we devalued the lower, middle and upper-middle class - that is the modern Republican platform. Their ideas are dying on the vine, and no growth will happen until they learn to grow the voter base. The Democratic Party will take the White House in 2016. We can only hope that the new President will see the 21st century problems of the world and tackle them with 21st century solutions. The world needs bravery, compassion, and innovation. Today may be dark, let tomorrow bring in the new light. 

RD Kulik

RD is the Head Editor for Seed Sing. He is looking for the 21st century minds who can participate in finding a New Way Forward. Contact him at seedsing.rdk@gmail.com.

Marvel v DC part 2: I disagree with Ty

This is a rebuttal to Ty's article from yesterday where he talks about the greatness of Marvel heroes over DC

Well Ty thinks the current new hot Marvel heroes are better than the dependable characters established in DC.  The word wrong is not strong enough to express my thoughts on Ty's opinions.  Let us begin to take apart is non-reasoned argument.

Marvel may be hot and sexy right now, but it is just a passing fad.  Captain America, Thor, Iron Man, the Fantastic 4, the X-men - they are all just flashes in the pan compared to the influence and excitement of the DC pantheon.  Superman is supreme.  His list of powers is so extensive that the weakest ones would bring any middle of the road Marvel hero (super ventriloquism could easily knock out most of S.H.E.I.L.D).  Superman is not only powerful, he has the most heroic soul.  The idea of goodness, along with greatness, separates Superman from all other comic book heroes. The truth that Superman can own anyone, and still chooses to be the protector of humanity, is unique to his story alone. Look at a book like Red Son or read the story from the Injustice video game. When Superman wants to take control, it takes all the heroes (plus some luck) to take big blue down. In terms of secret identities, Clark Kent is the best (I will admit that Peter Parker is a close second).

Moving away from power and heroism, and transitioning to straight up badassitude, DC has Batman.  I personally enjoy Superman stories more, but Batman is the granddaddy of all modern superhero stories.  He has the best outfit, vehicles, and bad guys.  In addition to the richness of Batman's world, he is a non super powered being.  Marvel has many Batman clones, but none of them could beat up Superman.  Batman can, and has done it.  There is very little emo feelings on why Batman put on the costume, he is just pissed.

Marvel has some ok women super heroes, but they have nothing on Wonder Woman. She is the equal third part of the DC holy trinity.  Wonder Woman does not cry out for help when she is in trouble, she is the trouble.  Take a look at the graphic novel Kingdom Come. Batman and Superman spend most of the book in a petty macho argument while Wonder Women whips everyone into shape and takes on the conflict like a boss.  There is no woman (or many men) in the Marvel universe that can compete with Wonder Woman's independence or toughness.

Looking at the lesser DC heroes, I believe you still find them to be better than their Marvel counterparts. The Flash and Green Arrow have great outfits, and tend to lighter in tone than the big time heroes. The teen titans created incredible characters who can easily carry on their fore bearers adventures. The world of Green Lantern reflects a cosmic scale more interesting than that of Marvel's Thanos and Galactus. Hawkman, Nightwing, Power Girl, and more add to a world more robust and interesting than the one Marvel has cultivated.

The one area people say Marvel is better than DC is film, I do not agree. The Marvel movies are fun and a nice diversion, the DC movies change cinema. The Avengers  was cool, The Dark Knight was the greatest comic book movie ever.  Casting a Marvel hero makes a little news, casting a DC hero dominates the news cycle. Marvel actors get some praise, DC actors win Academy Awards. On television DC is far outrunning Marvel. Arrow and The Flash are critically acclaimed and create cool worlds for lesser properties. Marvel has a couple of shows a few people watch because ABC owns the property.  Batman the Animated Series is listed as one of the greatest cartoons ever, Marvel has cartoons that are mocked in their own comic books.

Ty did not talk about villains.  Good thing because DC has the best ones, outside of classic Darth Vader of course.

Do you choose to disagree? Bring it.

Thanks to Cracked.com for the knowledge of Super Ventriloquism and Marvel comics making fun of Marvel cartoons.

RD Kulik

RD is the Head editor for Seed Sing. While he does not agree with Ty, he knows Superman defends all peoples right to be wrong. He did see Man of Steel and choose to keep its name out of his DC defense.

Marvel v DC: Ty has his favorite

I'm by no means an expert when it comes to comic books and super heroes.

My knowledge has recently been expanded since I've met and married my wife. Our three year old son has only made me more knowledgeable. So, I've had a good nine year crash course in all things super heroes. I'm here to tell you today why Marvel super heroes are so much better than DC super heroes. They each have some great heroes, but, when it comes down to it, Marvel is leap years ahead. Sure, you have what many people consider to be the best and strongest hero on team DC in Superman. Superman is cool, but compared to any one of the Avengers, I don't think he stacks up all that well. I mean, first you have Ironman. He's a super smart, rich inventor that creates all of his own gear. He created a suit that flies and shoots repulsor blasts. How awesome is that. I'd take that over X Ray vision any day. Next, we have Thor, who's a God. He's the only one that can lift his mighty hammer, save for Vision, and he's an awesome fighter. Superman may be an alien, but a God he's not. Then there's Captain America. He was created in a lab to be a super soldier and his shield is made of the strongest medal in the world, vibranium. He's also the greatest team player of all time and the world's best leader. He may be, for all intents and purposes, as strong as Superman. The final, main Avenger, just happens to be the best, in my opinion, the Incredible Hulk. This is a guy that, when he gets angry, turns into a huge, "hulk" of a man that can beat the hell out of almost anybody. He's super strong and the Avengers count on him to take on their toughest competition. He is stronger than Superman and he looks way cooler. Like I said, Superman is cool, but compared to the four main Avengers, it's not even close.

I like Batman a lot. I love all the movies, except for the horrible "Batman and Robin", and think he's really cool. But, when I want dark, dangerous superheroes, give me the X Men and, especially, Wolverine. Wolverine is just as dark, if not darker than Batman. Where Batman is a rich orphan who creates his own equipment, Wolverine is a mutant that can heal himself and never dies. He also has claws made of adamantium. Claws that, literally retract from his hands when a fight is about to happen. I will take Wolverine 100 times out of 100 if the question is, Would you rather be Batman or Wolverine? I'd even go as far to ask if it's a rhetorical question. That's how much more I like Wolverine.

Even when you get to the lower, some might say lamer, super heroes, Marvel is so much better than DC. DC has the Flash, Aquaman and Robin. The Flash can run really fast, pretty boring if you ask me. Aquaman lives in the sea and fights from the water. Yawn. And Robin, he's just a sidekick to Batman that's kind of good at karate. Big deal. Marvel on the other hand has the Fantastic Four. They may not be as cool as the Avengers or X Men, but they are much cooler than the three DC characters I just named. You have Mr. Incredible who can stretch his body to help save victims that may be falling or can't get out of a bad situation. He's a super genius too. Sue Richards, aka the Invisible Women, can turn invisible and also makes force fields. That's pretty dope. The Human Torch's body turns to fire when his powers are activated and the fire power also helps him to fly. Pretty cool, right? Then there's The Thing, a huge man made out of rock that can destroy the bad guys, while also protecting your everyday citizen. He's almost as cool as the Hulk. Almost.

There are many more super heroes in both the DC and Marvel world's, but I wanted to focus on the most popular, in my opinion, ones out there right now. There's also some pretty cool bad guys on both sides, but I say again, I only wanted to focus on the good guys and why I like Marvel more than DC. Please, let me know why, in your opinion's, that I'm wrong in the comment section, but Marvel is so much cooler.

I'm sorry, but it's true

Ty

Ty is the Pop Culture editor for Seed Sing.  The head editor strongly disagrees with this post and will send a rebuttal soon. Follow him on twitter @tykulik

Ty takes a cromulent view of "The Simpsons".

I'm a huge fan of "The Simpsons".

I've literally learned more things from "The Simpsons" than I ever did while in school. I know what schadenfreude is, German for shameful joy because of "The Simpsons". I know more about presidents, laws, famous people, etcetera because of "The Simpsons". I know how hilariously hard it is to put together a grill just like Homer found out when he became an avant garde artist. I now know who Jonathan Franzen and Thomas Pynchon are since they've guest starred on the show. I've learned that Stephen Hawking has a great sense of humor from his appearances on the show. He let the writers have Homer call him Larry Flynt in an episode. Needless to say, "The Simpsons" is very important and played a very integral part in my life. I still look forward to every episode. Season 28 starts on September 27th, and all the people out there complaining that it's not as good as it used to be are moronic. The show is just as good as it's always been and it's just as funny and witty. Hell, I'd even say it's got more heart than it's every had. Growing up is turning Matt Groening into a softie, in a good way.

Today though, I want to talk about what I feel is the best overall season of "The Simpsons". Every season is great and they all have their iconic episodes and classic moments. But, season seven of "The Simpsons", in my opinion, is the best season of all time. You can watch any episode from season seven and there is one of those iconic and classic moments in almost every single show. Starting from the beginning, you get part two of "Who Shot Mr. Burns". A great conclusion after season six's finale of part one of "Who Shot Mr. Burns". We find out that it was Maggie who shot him by accident, although I think we all thought it was Smithers. That's not what makes the episode great, it's Lisa's sleuthing and the excellent take on "Twin Peaks" backwards talking scene. Look it up, it's awesome. That episode is followed by "Radioactive Man". One of the greatest episodes of ALL TIME. It's a great take on super hero movies and all the absurd, crazy stuff it takes to make a movie. Milhouse being cast as Fall Out Boy was so well written. All his scenes are epic. Next episode is when Flanders goes nuts after losing his house in a hurricane. This episode has one of the best lines ever written in TV. Flanders flashes back to a visit with his beat nick parents and a psychologist and Flanders mom saying, in regards to punishment,  "we've tried nothing and we're all out of ideas". Hilarious. Next two episodes feature Bart selling his soul to Milhouse and his crusade to get it back, and when Lisa goes vegetarian. In "Lisa the Vegetarian", we the fans get a cameo from Paul and Linda McCartney. Try to tell me this show doesn't have mass appeal. The "Treehouse of Horror" episode is next, with the billboards coming to life and terrorizing the town, their take on "Nightmare on Elm Street", with Groundskeeper Willie attacking the children in their dreams and when Homer gets sucked into another dimension and winds up on planet Earth. Three really funny installments on their "Treehouse of Horrors" episodes. After that, we get one of the greatest episodes of all time, "King Sized Homer". In this one, Homer gets to 300 pounds so he can qualify for a disability and work from home. This episode features the muumuu, Homer's montage of eating to gain weight, Bart's future dream of working at home for being overweight and Homer's size saving the town from a meltdown. This is one of the classic episodes. Next episode we get to meet Homer's mom, voiced very well by Glenn Close. After that is the episode where Sideshow Bob infiltrates the air show and plans to set off an atom bomb, but as usual, his plan is foiled. Then we get a clip show, which I usually don't like, but with Troy McClure at the helm of this one, it works really well. Then the episode where Bart steals the video game and has to earn Marge's trust back. This is one of the most heart felt, sweetest episodes of "The Simpsons" ever. Next, we have Homer's bowling team, with the excellent inclusion of Mr. Burns, much to the dismay of Homer's teammates. Another classic line in this one, 'boy Moe, that team sure did suck last night. I mean they just plain sucked. I seen teams suck before, but they were the suckiest bunch of sucks that ever sucked. I gotta go, my damn wiener kids are listening". Brilliant. "Two Bad Neighbor" is next, with appearances from George HW Bush and Gerald Ford. Next is the episode where Marge wants to fit in with the rich people. There's a great lesson in this one, saying that it doesn't matter how much money you have, it's the happiness of your family that's important. Two episodes, one featuring Bart and one featuring Lisa are next. Bart gets a fake ID so he can rent a car and he, Milhouse, Martin and Nelson drive to the Worlds Fair in Knoxville only to find out that it hasn't been there in years in "Bart on the Road". In "Lisa the Iconoclast", we get the real story of Jebediah Springfield. We find out he was really a ruthless pirate named Hans Sprungfeld and most of his stories are false. We also got the words, embiggen and  cromulent out of this episode. In "Homer the Smithers", Smithers goes on a much needed vacation and Homer takes over his duties. Homer is so furious with Mr. Burns that he punches him out cold, which forces Mr. Burns to do things on his own. He's so independent now, that when Smithers returns, he gets fired. Smithers then starts a fight with Homer, that ultimately injures Mr. Burns again and thus, gets Smithers his job back because Mr. burns is infirm. In the next episode, we find out that someone else created Itchy and Scratchy and Krustylu Studios has to pay the man millions and they have to shut down the cartoon. It's found out later that the US mail service ripped off Krutylu, so they're able to bring back the cartoon, but unlike most episodes, Bart and Lisa didn't solve the problem, it was two different kids that just happen to look a lot like them. Next, Selma ends up marrying Troy McClure, but it's a loveless marriage and Troy McClure only did it to make a comeback. The ending has Selma walking in the night with her one true love, her lizard JubJub. In "Bart the Fink", Bart accidentally reveals that Krusty is one of the biggest tax frauds in history. Krusty loses his fame and eventually fakes his own death, but Bart and Lisa realize that he is really just living on the wharf, pretending to be a fisherman. They eventually convince him to comeback to TV because everyone misses him, but he also really misses the limelight. The next episode is one of my all time favorites, "22 Short Films About Springfield". You get all kinds of different stories from non Simpsons characters. We get a Dr. Nick, Bumblebee Man, Cletus and Chief Wiggum story, just to name a few. This is a must watch episode for all Simpsons fans. Next, we learn about Grampa Simpson's history in the Flying Hellfish episode. Apparently, he was a sergeant in the war and Mr. Burns was the bad boy in his platoon. But, all the other members of their squad have passed on and Grampa and Mr. Burns are left to get a huge payday from the art they stole when the war was over. Then, Apu lives the single life for awhile, until his mother comes to town to tell him that his arranged marriage is about to happen. He's terrified of getting married, but starts to give in when he finally meets Manjula on their wedding day. The last two episodes are classics. "Homerpalooza" is when Homer joins a Lollapalooza type freak show and gets shot in the belly with a cannon. Bands like Cypress Hill, the Smashing Pumpkins and Sonic Youth all have cameos in this episode. Peter Frmapton too. The season seven finale is, "Summer of Four Foot Two". In this episode, the Simpsons stay at the Flanders summer house and Lisa decides she's going to totally change her attitude to make friends, since no one signs her yearbook. She makes friends with her new style, but her dorky ways are found out. She fears she will lose her new friends, but they all like Lisa for Lisa. Heartfelt to end the season. These 22 episodes, in my opinion make up the greatest season of the "Simpsons". There's not a clunker or a boring one at all. All episodes are repeatedly watchable and quotable.

If you feel different let me know in the comments, but it gets no better than season seven of "The Simpsons" in my book.

Ty

Ty is the Pop Culture editor for Seed Sing. He embiggins everyone around him, especially the smallest man. Follow him @tykulik

NBA offseason part II: Sorry Cleveland, you will again be the runner up.

LaMarcus Aldridge has made the best basketball decision for himself and has, reportedly, signed a four year eighty million dollar deal with the Spurs.

This makes the Spurs the top contender for the title next season, in my opinion. Putting Aldridge in the starting lineup next to Tim Duncan, Tony Parker, Danny Green and Kwahi Leonard will make this a very difficult team to beat. The main contenders coming out of the Western Conference to the Spurs will be, the reigning champs, Golden State and, if they're at full health, Oklahoma City. It's those three teams and everyone else. Memphis continues to get older and they still have yet to sign Marc Gasol, but that seems like a formality at this point. The Clippers lost their best rebounder and rim protector and I don't think Paul Pierce or Lance Stephenson are going to make that much of a difference. Portland is going to take a huge step back now that Damien Lilliard is the only remaining starter from last season still on the team(Wes Matthews signed with Dallas, Aldidge to the Spurs, Robin Lopez to the Knicks and they traded Nic Batum to the Hornets). The Pelicans will be good again, but Anthony Davis is going to need help from his other teammates. He also needs them to be healthy for an entire season. Houston will be fine, but they'll need Harden to play defense like he did this past season if they want to make the conference finals again. I think it would really help to have Dwight Howard healthy for a full season. Dallas signed some big names like DeAndre Jordan and Wes Matthews, but they also lost Monta Ellis and Tyson Chandler. And if OKC can stay healthy, Phoenix will still be on the outside looking in. So, that leaves OKC and Golden State as the Spurs biggest competition. Golden State is the reigning champ, and until they get beat, will still be champs. They return just about everyone from last year. The lone exception is David Lee and, while he played an integral part in the finals, I don't think he'll be missed all that much. The Warriors are lethal offensively and great on defense. I just think they'll be hard pressed to match up against a huge and very skilled Spurs front court and, as good as a defender Draymond Green is, he can't keep pace with Kwahi Leonard. For the Warriors to beat the Spurs in the playoffs, Steph Curry and Klay Thompson will have to shoot about 70% from the field and about 65% from three. Which is pretty impossible. Which brings me to the wild card team, the Thunder. Before last season started, almost every writer picked the Thunder to win the title, but then the injury bug crushed that dream. Westbrook and Ibaka missed extended time and Kevin Durant only played in 27 games all season. They were able to get rid of Reggie Jackson and traded for Enes Kanter and DJ Augustin. It remains to be seen if they'll resign Kanter, he's asking for way too much in my opinion. They drafted Cameron Payne to back up Westbrook. I think Payne is in the perfect situation for him. He will run the second unit with a lot of confidence and the young man can shoot and find the open guy. But, put their lineup against the Spurs and I think they matchup the best with them. Westbrook is better than Danny Green and Ibaka can immobilize an aging Duncan. The best matchup will be Kwahi Leonard and Kevin Durant. These two almost cancel each other out since Leonard is so good on defense and Durant is so good on offense. I think the Spurs just have too much firepower for the Thunder to beat them in a seven game series. As I said before, Aldridge made the best decision for himself and he may just wind up with a title next season.

As for the east (Cleveland), better luck in 2017.

Ty

Ty is the Pop Culture editor for Seed Sing.  He does not know if LaMarcus Aldridge and his girlfriend will go back to Portland and visit Women and Women First bookstore. Follow him on twitter @tykulik

The good teams get better and the bad teams stay the same. The early story of the 2015 NBA offseason.

With NBA free agency officially underway, we've finally gotten our first bit of big news and a new team for a, some might say, not me, big time player. DeAndre Jordan will be a member of the Dallas Mavericks next season after, reportedly, agreeing to a four year, eighty million dollar deal. He turned down a bigger offer from the Clippers to move closer to home and wants to be "the man". I think this is a great deal for him, but in the long run might not be so good for Dallas. Jordan is a unique player who is probably the best rebounder in the game right now and an excellent rim protector. The problem lies with his offense. Yeah he's an electric dunker, but he's 6'10. I should hope he'd be a good dunker. But, that's all he can really do on offense. He can't stretch defenses because he can't shoot and his free throw shooting is among the leagues worst. But, good for you DeAndre, now you don't have to get thrown under the bus by Chris Paul and Blake Griffin.

Other than Jordan moving to Dallas, the only other "big" named players that have left for new teams are, Greg Monroe to Milwaukee, Tyson Chandler to Phoenix and Monta Ellis to Indiana. Some may say what about Wes Matthews to Dallas, but he's coming off a torn ACL, so that's a wait and see for me. Other than the six players I've mentioned, everyone else of importance has resigned with their current teams. Dwayne Wade and Goran Dragic are back with the Heat. Kevin Love and Iman Shumpert and soon to be Tristan Thompson are back with the Cavs. Damien Lilliard is back in Portland. Draymond Green is back with the Warriors. Kwahi Leonard is still a Spur and Anthony Davis got paid and then some to remain a Pelican. I'm sure I'm missing some other players, but these are the notable ones and I think NBA fans will agree with me.

The next two dominoes to fall will be David West and the biggest name of all this offseason, LaMarcus Aldridge. David West will be a good get for whoever signs him. But Aldridge, now he's a team changer, depending on where he signs. It looks to be down to three teams, the Lakers, Suns and Spurs. He'd be foolish to sign with the Lakers because that team is going nowhere. Phoenix is still a year or three away from contending. The Spurs seem like the best fit for him and how awesome would it be to have Tim Duncan "pass the torch" to Aldridge and start a new era of dominant Spurs basketball. If Aldridge truly only cares about winning titles, the Spurs are the team for him to go to. If he wants the money, it will be the Lakers. Make the right choice Mr Aldridge and sign with the Spurs. I guarantee you won't regret it.

Ty

Ty is the Pop Culture Editor for Seed Sing.  He is skeptical of any players desire to win on the Lakers, including Kobe. Follow him on twitter @tykulik.