Cloves and Fedoras: Go listen to the magnificent "Magnifique"

Time to go electric.

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.

On July 17th Ratatat released their fifth studio album, "Magnifique".

I just bought it yesterday, July 26, and I'm hear to tell you, it's pretty great. It's a return to form for Ratatat. That's not to say that their last couple of albums haven't been good, in fact they're pretty great as well. But on "Magnifique". they return to their guitar heavy electronic sound. I'm not big on electronic music, I like DJ's, but DJ's like DJ Shadow or DJ Nu Mark, not DJ's like Girl Talk or Deadmau5. Their music is too electronic, too many samples and too disco-y for my taste. DJ Shadow and DJ Nu Mark are like musicians, because the samples they use and then turn into a song, actually sound like a song, not like some garbage you hear in a club, where all you hear is bass and everyone listening and dancing is on E. Ratatat's version of electronic music on the other hand is guitar driven. This is what seperates them from other electronic musicians. All their songs feature guitars as the main instrument. Both members play guitar as well. So, we have electronic music, they use drum machines and other staples of the genre, but each and every song has a lead guitar. I think this is what piqued my interest when I was first given a Ratatat album. I'm not crazy about electronic music, as I said before, but throw some cool, good guitar playing in, and I'm down.

The great thing about "Magnifique" is, every song has hard driving guitar and it's some damn good guitar playing. Even the first song, titled "Intro" and the last song, titiled "Outro" have small guitar riffs and each of these songs are less than one minute long. There's still samples and the voices talking are the only "lyrics" you get in the entire 14 song record, but there's still plenty of excellent guitar in two songs that last less than one minute long. The first single off the record, "Cream on Chrome" is classic Ratatat. The song is totally guitar driven, with a cool, sliding type effect being used and the sound of the guitar is muddy, but in a good, clean way. This was a great choice for the first single off this album.

"Magnifique" also has two of the longest songs ever recorded by Ratatat. "Nightclub Amnesia" comes in at 6 minutes, 17 seconds. The intro to this song has a very interesting, loopy guitar sound. It sounds like a song that should be on a boss level for Super Mario Brothers. The song doesn't feel that long. There's really cool samples and the drum machine is top notch for this tune. The only thing that could've made "Nightclub Amnesia" better was if it was longer. I know that sounds crazy, but it's true. This song is really excellent. "Rome" comes in at 5 minutes, 32 seconds. It's not as good as "Nightclub Amnesia", but it's still pretty decent. There's a drop in the middle of the song, where the music fades out. My son asked if it was over and I told him, just keep listening, they're going to crush this song for the last 2 minutes. And that's exactly what happens. They use great samples, the drum machine is strong again and the guitar riffs are top notch.

I really enjoy this record as a whole. Ratatat, to me, is like listening to Radiohead, but no lyrics. I love Radiohead, they're musical geniuses, and Ratatat's sound reminds me of Radiohead's instrumentation. Both trippy and both really good. As I said before, this is an instrumental album, but it's never boring. The way they play and write and make music is fascinating and I just wish more people knew about Ratatat. They're really proficient musicians and they deserve the critical acclaim that should be coming their way. Especially after releasing "Magnifique". This album is excellent.

Check it out and I promise you, you won't be disappointed.

Ty

Ty is the Pop Culture editor for SeedSing and the co-host of The X-Millennial Man Podcast. He has plenty of guitars and not drum machine, yet. Follow him on twitter @tykulik

Ty loved Sharknado 3. Wait, no he hated it. Wait I think he liked, liked it.

I ain't afraid of no sharknado.

Last night my wife and I decided to watch "Sharknado 3: Oh Hell No" against our better judgment.

We'd seen the first two, and we are completists, so we had to watch the third one. The problem with or completionism (i think that is cromulent word), is that SyFy will continue to make these movies because they get huge ratings and it's the talk of the internet for the next week or so. I'm included with these people, now that I write my own blog and I'm reviewing it today. "Sharknado 3: Oh Hell No" was exactly what I expected it would be. It was trashy, poorly written, terribly acted and I was completely engaged the whole time.

Let's get things straight, this was by no means a good movie. Even by SyFy standards, it was pretty bad. But, I think the writers and actors relish this type of movie because they know they can dick around on set and get a decent paycheck. And, in the case of Ian Ziering and Tara Reid, they're relevant for a few weeks. People actually remember that they are actors. The first "Sharknado" came out of nowhere and was received with great fanfare at how bad and hilarious it was. SyFy has always put really bad movies on their network and the first "Sharknado" took it's craziness to a whole new level. With all the internet talk and buzz surrounding the first one, naturally they made a sequel. "Sharknado 2: The Second One" (what a lazy title) was, unfortunately, not nearly as ridiculous as the first. I think they took the response from the first one, and tried their best to make the second one not as goofy, but a little more serious. That was terrible mistake. "Sharknado 2: The Second One" was a shell of its predecessor and I think a lot of people thought the "franchise" would die.

Boy were we wrong.

With little noise and not as much fanfare, at least through my eyes, "Sharknado 3: Oh Hell No" was released this past Wednesday and was over the top insane. This time, the writers said, "to hell with anything making any sense whatsoever, we are going to put the craziest, most insane shit we can think of, and the idiots that watch this movie will eat it up". We had tons and tons of sharknados in the third movie, sharks in space, human babies being born inside a sharks stomach, sharks destroying the White House, Tara Reid's fake arm being super strong and having an attached chainsaw, and cameo after cameo. People like Ray J and Adam Lambert played NASA engineers. Yep, the writers felt that these two morons could pull off being NASA employees. Penn and Teller were hanging out at a diner with Fin's(Ian Ziering) dad, played by David Hasselhoff. Haselhoff was an astronaut by the way. Jerry Springer got eaten by a shark while posing for a picture under another shark. Michael Winslow was also a NASA employee. Former pro wrestler, turned "musician" Chris Jericho played a theme park employee. Frankie Muniz was a shark hunter that met his demise at the top of his truck. Before he died, four separate sharks ate off each one of his limbs. It was pretty hilarious. George RR Martin, the writer of the "Game of Thrones" books, was eaten by multiple sharks while watching a movie about sharks. The Today Hosts were all brutally murdered by sharks. Crazy ass republican nut cases Ann Coulter and Michelle Bachmann played just random people on the streets being attacked by sharks. Bo Derek played Tara Reid's mom. And Rick Fox was part of the presidents security.

Which, brings me to the best cameo in the whole movie, Mark Cuban. Not only was he cast in the movie, he played the President of the United States. You read that right. Not only was he the president, he delivered the two "best" lines in the movie. The first, "I always considered myself the top shark", obviously in reference to his show "Shark Tank". The second, and absolute best and most ridiculous, "I always considered myself a maverick", referring to the fact that he owns the NBA team, the Dallas Mavericks. The third "Sharknado" was by far the most violent of all three and easily had the highest body count. This movie is not for the faint of the heart. The kills are brutal and very bloody. When I look back at the hour and a half it took to watch this, I'm really torn. I was engaged the whole time, but it was a real shit show of a movie. It was really, pretty awful.

I'd say, if you've seen the first two, go ahead and watch the third, but don't expect a good movie, just expect a crazy movie. If you haven't seen the first two and you're thinking of starting with the third one, stop yourself and don't waste your time.

Ty

Ty is the Pop Culture Editor and The X-Millennial Man Podcast co-host. There are tornadoes where he lives, but no sharks. Yet. Follow him on twitter @tykulik.

What is real food?

Created by man or by nature?

Some folks seem to be up in arms today because of a vote in the House on GMO labeling. In a 275-150 vote, the House passed HR 1599, the Safe and Accurate Food Labeling Act of 2015. Rep. K. Michael Conaway (R-TX) issued a statement today about the passing of this act saying, “Advances in technology have allowed the U.S. to enjoy the safest, highest quality, most abundant, diverse and affordable supply of food and fiber mankind has ever known. With the world’s population expected to reach 10 billion by 2050, biotechnology is an essential tool for our farmers to meet this demand in an environmentally sound, sustainable, and affordable way. Unfortunately, proposed Federal and State laws threaten this innovation by generating a patchwork of differing labeling requirements, which will result in inconsistent and confusing information for consumers and interfere with interstate commerce. H.R. 1599 establishes a voluntary nation-wide marketing program that gives consumers access to consistent, reliable information while protecting advancements in food production technology and innovation.”

I spent some of my morning reading HR 1599. In my reading I noticed that foods containing any genetically engineered element may be required to be labeled as genetically engineered if they contain “a material difference in the functional, nutritional, or compositional characteristics, allergenicity, or other attributes between the food so produced and its comparable food”. To me this makes sense. If there is no real difference in the product, no need to make an extra cost and confusion to the consumer by pointing out how it was produced. Analogously I do not need to know whether the peanuts used to make my peanut butter were crushed by hand or a machine if the end product is the same.

One of the things this bill was intended to do was to create a nationally unified labeling system. With individual states having different labeling requirements, there presents a problem for companies who ship product to multiple states with differing and contradictory labeling requirements. Having this kind of labeling fiasco would just drive up costs for the consumer while confusing the consumer all the more.

Many are saying that this new bill creates a ban on the consumer receiving adequate access to knowledge about their food. It seems to be causing more clarity to have a unified system that the interested consumer can understand. The alternative is for them to seek out a lot of conflicting information driven by the “natural” food lobbies in each state.

The producers of food who work hard to make sure there are no genetically engineered components in their product have an interest in scaring the consumer away from genetic innovation. They are big business just like any other. So requiring labels on all genetically engineered food regardless of its functional, nutritional, allergenic, etc. similarities seems to only be an attempt to use government to influence the market in their favor. If their food is “natural”, they are free to label it as such, but requiring other companies to use labels which enhance their own marketing tactics is deceitful.

The fact is, these means of production mean a higher yield per acre and less use of potentially harmful chemicals. One can bring up monoculture as a legitimate concern. One which needs to be addressed. But attempting to kill off the benefits of genetic engineering on the whole is not the way to do that. Testing should also be done on these and all foods to make sure they are safe. Since genetically modified foods are some of the most thoroughly tested, I have no concerns here.

Still, many people are concerned. Some fear that we will get too carried away and cause lasting and irreversible harm to our food sources and thus to humanity. I agree that some of the details within the realm of genetically modified foods may need more attention. Such as the patent system and how it affects the way certain agriculture companies do business or monoculture as I have already mentioned. But the solution is not to scare the consumer away from the process outright. What do you think?

Kirk Aug

Kirk writes about science, technology, and whatever else can catch his fancy. He is currently enjoying a snack and forgot to read the label. Follow him on twitter @kirkaug.

"The Comedians" will enter the unfortunate world of cancelled too soon.

What the hell am I going to watch now?

With the rumors today, according to the AV Club, that FX has cancelled the show "The Comedians".

I want to take my time today to complain about networks giving up on shows way too soon. I understand that, especially in the please me now, I can't wait culture that we live in, you have to make decisions without really having any time to think. Thankfully the higher ups that made decisions on shows in the 90's and early 2000's had more time. If shows like "Seinfeld", "ER", or even "The Simpsons" premiered now a days, they might not make it to a second season. Those are three classic TV shows, and in the case of "The Simpsons", it's still on TV. "Seinfeld" was almost cancelled after it's first season, but some very smart executive said let's give it one more try. Thank goodness the people listened to him, because "Seinfeld" is one of the best shows to ever be on TV and without it, we may have never gotten "Curb Your Enthusiasm" or "Veep". But, like I said, we have a please me now and immediately culture that is pretty much my generation, the millennials, fault.

A large percentage of millennials have very short attention spans and if you don't catch our attention in the first few episodes of a show, you might as well go ahead and cancel it. Unfortunately, not every show has great, ingenious writers like say a "Breaking Bad" or "Game of Thrones" has. "Game of Thrones" already had a template with all the books. It's very rare now a days that we get a show that captures the country's attention like "Breaking Bad" did. That show was perfection and will go down in history as one of the greatest shows ever. But, I digress.

Back to shows that never really got a chance. As I said before, "The Comedians" got, reportedly, cancelled. This is a bummer for me. The show did start kind of slow, but I found something funny in each episode. Josh Gad was great on this show. It was nice to see him on a raunchier type sitcom, since most people know him as the voice of Olaf in "Frozen", or have seen him in some pretty terrible movies like "The Rocker" or "The Internship". A lot of people don't know that he really hit the big time playing Elder Cunningham in Broadway's first run of the hilarious "Book of Mormon". That play is about as raunchy as it gets. Billy Crystal was pretty great on the show too. He was funny and took a lot of shots at himself. Go back and watch the episode of "The Comedians" were Josh and Billy get stoned and go grocery shopping. It's a 30 minute piece of comedy gold. The final couple of episodes of the first, and apparently only season, started to really come together and the show looked to be getting good. That was not enough for the people at FX. It's a big loss for them, since they take chances on different types of shows, and I think they should have stuck with this one for at least one more season. They could have reaped the benefits.

"Hannibal" on NBC has been cancelled after this, it's third season, ends. I have not watched this show, and my wife watched the first season, but stopped because it was too gory for her taste. But, if you read any reviews by critics or fans, this show is genius. From what I've seen online, the acting, writing, and directing is top notch. Apparently, some of the shots in this show are so beautiful, viewers don't seem to care about the gore. Netflix and Hulu have passed on making more seasons, so fans will have to be happy with three short seasons.

One of my favorite shows, "Better Off Ted" got only two seasons. The show was about a science based company manager having to deal with scientists and fellow employees. The show was very goofy and off the wall. I had never seen anything like it on TV before and that was a good thing. But, the people at ABC found it to be a bit too kooky, so they pulled it. They didn't care about my demographic watching it and that sucks, because I'm in that prime 18-49 demographic. ABC should have stuck with "Better Off Ted", because they had a brilliant show on their network. One final show I'd like to talk about is one of my all time favorite TV shows.

"Undeclared" was way before it's time and pulled off the air after only one season, just like "The Comedians". "Undeclared" was about a group of freshman at college and the show talked about everything that young college kids go through. They had episodes where one of the students dad moves in the dorm with him after he and his wife break up. They talked about pledging for a fraternity and how horrible of a process that can be. They had kids losing their virginity and the fall out that comes from losing your virginity to a girl that has a crazed boyfriend. "Undeclared" falls in the same category as "Freaks and Geeks", both created by Judd Apatow, but a lot more people know about "Freaks and Geeks", not so many have seen "Undeclared".

I guess, it just bums me out that crappy, hackneyed shows like "The Big Bang Theory" or "Glee" got many more seasons, and just churn out the same joke over and over. Nothing is new or innovative on these shows, but they're safe and the "older" viewers of TV find comfort in routine. I will keep watching new shows though. So far I've liked "Sex and Drugs and Rock and Roll", "Why? With Hannibal Buress" and the "Jim Gaffigan Show" and hope that the networks they're on will give them space to find their voice and keep these shows on air for two or more seasons.

Give these shows a fighting chance, don't just drop them after one season.

Ty

Ty is the Pop Culture editor for SeedSing and the co-host of The X-Millennial Man Podcast. He is forever grateful that The Simpsons have discovered the antidote to weak network executives. Follow him on twitter @tykulik

Ty recommends "The Wahlberg Solution" as one of your podcast pleasures.

You want me to listen to what now?

I have just recently started listening to a newish podcast called "The Wahlberg Solution" and I'm here to tell you, it's great.

You can get the podcast through the "Sklarbro Country" feed since "The Wahlberg Solution" is Daniel Van Kirk's show. Dan Van Kirk is the co host on every Tuesday's episode of "Sklarbro County" and he's a great comedian that's a phenomenal impressionist. He does impressions of a lot of famous and not so famous people. He does Steven Seagal, Rob Durst from "The Jinx, Dr. Phil, the recently deceased former pro football player Doug Bafone, a lonely TSA agent in the Chicago Airport and an annoying traveler who's been everywhere and seen everything. His best impression, in my opinion, is his Mark Wahlberg. It's spot on. I get excited every time I hear that there's going to be a surprise drop in or voicemail on "Sklarbro County" from Mark Wahlberg. Dan Van Kirk does a heightened version of Wahlberg, claiming that he's just run something like a 22k or will only drink water if it has creatine in it. Van Kirk's Wahlberg has popped up on other podcasts, most notably as a guest on "Doug Loves Movies". Fans love when he's on "DLM" and we get crazily excited when his segment, "Doing Lines with Mark", comes on. No, they're not doing cocaine. Doug Benson has "Wahlberg" read a line from a famous movie and the panelists have to guess the movie. If they don't get it right after three tries, "Wahlberg" loses his mind. It's quite funny.

So, when Van Kirk announced that he would have the great people at Earwolf show up to one of his live shows of "The Wahlberg Solution" and have them record it for an episode that you could get through "Sklarbro Country" I was super excited. So were his fans, because they've now done seven episodes. "The Wahlberg Solution" is a lot like Bill Maher's show on HBO "Real Time with Bill Maher". The structure is exactly the same, whereas on each show, the panelists discuss important political and social issues. The difference, "The Wahlberg Solution" is pretty damn hilarious. Van Kirk plays Wahlberg and he invites his comedian friends, that also do great impressions, to be his panelists. Comedians like Kenny Stevenson, who plays multiple people like Nic Cage and Michael Caine, or Marques Ray who plays Manny Pacquiao, or Madeline Walter who does a perfect Anne Hathaway and James Adomian who plays "presidential" candidate Bernie Sanders. Van Kirk has also had a heavy hitter on this show with Jay Mohr doing an excellent Harvey Keitel. He also gets other comedians to come on and just be themselves, comedians like Dominic Dierkes or Andy Peters. To hear these people discuss important topics is great, because they all play glorified versions of their character and they're so out of touch with the regular people. They usually don't understand how anyone anywhere can have problems. They all usually end up asking why people can't just solve their problems by buying some lavish, expensive items. As these celebrities usually do.

The podcast is very, very kooky and very funny. The shows last about 45 minutes to an hour and since there's only seven of them, it's really easy to get caught up. One can only hope that there's going to be a lot more "Wahlberg Solution" episodes since it's so great. Like I said earlier, you can get all the episodes through the "Sklarbro Country" feed. I love impressions and Dan Van Kirk is one of the best impressionist out there right now.

Do yourself a favor and give "The Wahlberg Solution" a listen. You will love it

Ty

Ty is the Pop Culture editor for SeedSing and the co-host of The X-Millennial Man Podcast. Good comedy in downloadable form so it can be listened to at anytime is how Ty likes his entertainment. Follow him on twitter @tykulik.

The Greatest American Band Debate: The Introduction

Time to get the records out.

SeedSing is filled with music lovers. We can not agree on who is the best band from the States. The Greatest American Band Debate will be a regular feature where we discuss and compare bands who started in the good old USA. If you have any suggestions of bands we should debate Contact us seedsing.rdk@gmail.com

I'm a lover of all music.

All music except for jazz and new age country that is. People often pose the question to me, "Who's the best band"? There is any number of answers to give. Some may say The Beatles, Pink Floyd, Led Zeppelin, The Rolling Stones, etcetera. The one thing you may have noticed in those answers is, those are all bands from overseas. Mainly the United Kingdom. Why no American bands? Is it because most great American musicians are solo artists? We have Bob Dylan, Janis Joplin, Robert Johnson, BB King, Miles Davis and Woody Guthrie just to name a few. And before I get yelled at online, I don't count Janis Joplin's backing band, The Holding Company, or Bob Dylan playing with The Band(who are all Canadian except for Levon Helm) as great American bands. They're very good, but not great.

So, let's break it down. Who is the greatest American band? Do they come from the 50's, 60's, 70's, 80's, 90's or 2000's? Is there even an American band that can hold a card to the great bands from overseas? I don't know that for sure, but I'm going to throw out a lot of great American bands today and we can all decide together.

Let's take the 50's. One band that comes to mind for me is The Crickets. You may know them as Buddy Holly and the Crickets. The Crickets played on some of the greatest songs in the history of music and were just as important to Buddy Holly's music as Buddy Holly was. Some people may put The Crickets into The Holding Company category, but go back and listen to some of their stuff and you will see how influential they were on modern day rock and roll.

In the 60's, we got some more psychedelic rock bands from America, but I'm not too crazy about some of these bands. First, we have The Doors. I am not a fan of the Doors, but they were hugely popular and definitely put their stamp on rock music. Jim Morrison was fine as a poet and songwriter, albeit super overrated in my opinion, but his band was really pretty good. They just had an unfortunate choice in picking their lead singer and were stuck with Jim Morrison. Then there's the Beach Boys. I CANNOT stand the Beach Boys. They made crappy pop music and are an abomination to rock and roll. That being said, they are in the Rock and Roll Hall of Fame and a lot of people not only like the Beach Boys, they love them. Their fans will also defend Brian Wilson to the heavens, no matter how difficult of a person he is to work and deal with. My favorite American bad from the sixties, by far, is Creedance Clearwater Revival. Their brand of rock music, mixed with blues and soul is undeniably great. They've had a ton of hits and a ton of fans, are in the Rock and Roll Hall of Fame and John Fogerty is still making pretty good music as a solo artist.

The 70's brought along a lot of great talent to American rock and roll. We got the Eagles, Aerosmith, ZZ Top and Tom Petty and the Heartbreakers. Each one is great in their own right, and in the case of Aerosmith and Tom Petty and the Heartbreakers they are still making music. In Tom Petty's case, he is still making great music. Many people might even say that The Eagles are the greatest American rock band of all time. I disagree. The 70's did put out some great music from all corners. We also got KISS, the Ramones and Sly and the Family Stone. Another band from the 70's that people love is Grateful Dead. Not me though. In my opinion, they are a jam band that has no structure to their jams. I don't want to hear one song that's usually three and a half minutes long turn into a 30 minute song. no thanks. My older brothers will be pretty upset at me for trashing the Grateful Dead, but I just don't like them. When it comes to 70's American bands, it gets no better than the Allman Brothers Band. They played great songs with a beautiful mixture of rock and blues. Robert Johnson introduced me to the blues and Son House introduced me to slide guitar, but the Allman Brothers made slide guitar and rock/blues music cool. They are not just one of the best American bands, they're one of the greatest bands of all time period.

The 80's changed what rock music could be in America. Bands like Heart and The Runaways showed that girls can rock just as hard as guys. Blondie blended all different types of music, and did it very well. And yes, Blondie is the band name, Debbie Harry is their lead singer's name. But, when it comes to 80's rock bands in America, the Talking Heads are the greatest. David Byrne is a genius and still making fantastic music. The Talking Heads were innovators and way ahead of their time. They tried so many different things with their music and, more times than not, hit it out of the park.

The 90's brought on the grunge era in American rock music. We got great bands like Green Day, Soundgarden and Pearl Jam. Each band is great in it's own way. Green Day brought back punk/pop music. Soundgarden brought back the psychedelic rock from the 60's and 70's and Pearl Jam was dark a brooding. A very cool version of emo. Then came Nirvana. Kurt Cobain was a musical genius. Especially as a lyricist. His lyrics are profound and prolific. He died way too young and became way too famous too fast. His two band mates, Kris Novaselic and Dave Grohl were excellent. Most people know Dave Grohl and all the work he's doing right now and Kris Novaselic has played bass for many different bands. When it comes to 90's American rock for me, it gets no better than Weezer. I love Weezer. Rivers Cuomo is a great writer and very excellent, very underrated guitar player. Their first album, "The Blue Album" is a work of art. Then, they released "Pinkerton" which is just as good and maybe even a bit better than "The Blue Album" Weezer is awesome.

Which brings me to the 2000's. Time will have to tell with this era. It's only been 15 years and these bands still need a bit more seasoning. That being said, there are some bands on their way to greatness for sure. The White Stripes could've been on their way if they were still making music. Jack White has also become an unfavorable character and a shell of his former self as a musician. He's also a well known asshole too. Bands like the Black Keys and TV on the Radio still need time, but in the Black Keys case, they are well on their way. There are other bands such as, Alabama Shakes and The Shins, but like I said earlier. Time will tell.

See, in this long piece I couldn't single out just one American band. There's a lot to choose from and if I was told that I had to name one right now, I'd pick the Black Keys, strictly because they're my favorite band. I didn't even touch on rap groups and yes, rap groups can be considered great American bands. I'll leave that for a future piece. So people out there reading this, let me know which American bands are great in your eyes. Who did I leave out or who did I bash that you like. Or, do you agree with me. Leave a comment and until later, keep listening to good rock and roll music.

Be it American rock or otherwise.

Ty

Ty is the Pop Culture editor for SeedSing and the co-host of the X-Millennial Man Podcast. He is eager to write another 1000 words on music. Follow him on twitter @tykulik

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.