The Greatest American Band Debate: Robert Johnson

For the greatest American band debate, I'm going to go off the board and nominate a solo artist. I know this is "against the rules" and it doesn't fit the title, but without this musician, modern rock and roll and modern blues wouldn't exist. Those are, arguably, the two most important genres of music. This person is also a personal musical idol of mine and it pains me that I've waited this long to put this person in the conversation. I know, people will tell me that this opens up a while new can or worms and makes solo artists viable for this discussion, but the person I'm going to talk about today is so groundbreaking, he deserves to be talked about more than any other American musician, in my personal opinion. I did a whole article on influential bands, but this guy deserves his own, separate piece. He is a blues god and, without him, I never would have even thought about picking up a guitar. The artist I'm talking about is Robert Johnson.

It does not get any better than Robert Johnson for me. He is a legendary figure in music. He is, at least to me, the greatest musician of all time. He even has a very cool, very crazy backstory. Anyone that knows blues music, and knows of Robert Johnson, has heard the story about him meeting the devil at the crossroads and selling his soul to be an excellent singer and guitar player. If he did truly do this, he got what he wanted for the large price of his soul. He is the greatest guitar player ever. Go back and listen to him play.

Some will say that it sounds simple and blues music is just three chords and 12 bars. Not true. The stuff he was doing, in the 20's mind you, was so far ahead of the game, it's astounding. He was so ahead of his time as a guitar player. Take a song like "Come on in My Kitchen". It is one of the first times anyone had heard this incredible 12 bar blues and that sliding sound he was playing on the guitar. It was so foreign to people back then and he was just getting started. Some of his songs, which he wrote, are some of the most famous songs in music history and have been covered thousands of times by hundreds of musicians and bands. "Sweet Home Chicago" is one of the most famous blues songs. Robert Johnson wrote that. "I Believe I'll Dust My Broom", the first song I learned on slide guitar and has been covered by some famous musician every decade since the 50's, Robert Johnson wrote that. "30-20" blues, the first blues song to break away from the traditional 12 bar blues, Robert Johnson wrote that. "They're Red Hot", the first blues/rag time type song, Robert Johnson wrote that. "Stop Breakin Down Blues", the first rock/blues song, Robert Johnson wrote that. "Phonograph Blues", one of the first songs about getting a phone call, Robert Johnson wrote that. "Rambling On My mind", one of the first country/blues songs, Robert Johnson wrote that. I mean, I could go on and on, but I feel like that is a great sample size of all the brilliant stuff that Robert Johnson created.

Robert Johnson is THE most influential artist of all time. Yeah, he was taught and brought into the music world by Son House, another one of my favorites and a legend, but Robert Johnson took what Son House taught him and rose it to a historic level. He made blues music that much better and that much more influential. And when Son House turned to religion, Robert Johnson stayed dark and continued to make excellent, groundbreaking music.

Let's take a look at some of the artists that have covered his stuff. and yes, not all of these bands are American, but the point is the influence Robert Johnson had on all music. Led Zepellin and the Rolling Stones have covered pretty much every song written by Robert Johnson and a lot of those songs are some of their biggest hits. "Traveling Riverside Blues", on the album "Led Zepellin: Live at the BBC" is one of their biggest and best songs. Jimmy Page does his best Robert Johnson impression and he crushes it. The Rolling Stones "Love in Vain" is a humongous hit for them and that wouldn't have been possible if not for Robert Johnson. Eric Clapton has covered a ton of Robert Johnson songs, hell, he made an entire album that is all Robert Johnson songs, but his best is "Sweet Home Chicago". Clapton shreds this song and he owes it all to Robert Johnson. A band I wrote about last week, The White Stripes, do an excellent cover of "Stop Breakin Down Blues". They make it a rock song, but they also pay homage to Johnson by keeping the lyrics the same. "I Believe I'll Dust My Broom" has been covered by everyone from Elmore James to The Red Shirt Freshman(my brothers loving name given to my "band").

Robert Johnson was taken far too young, at the tender age of 28. Some people say it was the devil coming to collect payment, others say he died from syphilis. While the syphilis is the more likely scenario, I like to believe the other version. He could have done so much more, but what he did was so earth shattering and so influential, he 100 percent belongs in this conversation. Without Robert Johnson, we would never have gotten some of the greatest songs and greatest bands of all time. Robert Johnson is the best musician to ever walk the face of the earth.

No doubt about it.

Ty

Ty is the Pop Culture editor for SeedSing and the other host of the X Millennial Man podcast. The head editor is going to send Ty a dictionary with and open to the page with the defination for the word band. Have you followed Ty on twitter? Get to it @tykulik.

Ty has Three Questions and One Plea for Calvin Johnson

Calvin Johnson gives lions a good name. I hope he doesn't leave

With the news of Calvin Johnson retiring, I'm going to pose three questions today. Is he is truly retiring, is he trying to get a new contract, or is he trying to get out of Detroit? That's the first three things that popped into my mind and I'll try to answer each one individually today.

First, let's look at the first one, is he really retiring? I don't know, but I do know, this is the one scenario I believe the least. Sure, Peter King, who's a total idiot and 100 percent in the bag for the NFL and Roger Goodell, was on "PTI" yesterday and he didn't hesitate when asked if he was really retiring. He was quick with an emphatic yes. He seems to think that the NFL has taken a toll on his body. Other journalist seem to agree with this assessment. And yes, he has been in the league for almost 10 years now, and that will take a toll on your body, especially when you are the number one receiver on your team. Not only was he the number one guy, but he was, as little as two years ago, the best receiver in the game. He was unstoppable. Matt Stafford would throw into double and triple coverage over and over again and Johnson would some how come down with the ball. That being said, he would end up getting hit a lot more than say a Dez Bryant or a Demaryius Thomas. Those guys had QB's that would throw the ball to the outside or low so they could get out of bounds or down to the ground without absorbing multiple hits. That's not the case for Johnson. He would go after every jump ball and every pass over the middle, no matter what, subjecting himself to getting blown up by safeties and linebackers alike. And, in the past two years, while he's been great, he hasn't been the same player that he was. He was dropping more passes and fumbling the ball a lot more. I personally think he was trying to protect himself, the right thing to do, and that was causing the new problems. So, yeah, maybe he is actually retiring. One person can only take so much pain and hitting and it's his right to walk away if he wants to. I just don't buy it, in my personal opinion.

The next question I will try to answer is, is he trying to get a new contract. Let's face it, football has the shortest shelf life as far as a career in pro sports goes. Players are lucky if they can play for 10 plus years and they will still walk away with lifelong injuries. Players can also get cut at the drop of a hat. Look at a guy like Steven Jackson. He was one of the top running backs in the league less than 5 years ago, he leaves the Rams, joins the Falcons, barely plays and gets cut before this season starts. Sure, he got signed by the Patriots at the end of the season, but that's because they were desperate for a running back. These guys need to get contracts that benefit them because of how short their careers usually are. And the contracts, they are, for the most part, extremely heavy with almost impossible bonus goals. Some guys have clauses in their contract that have things like, score 20 rushing touchdowns or get 20 receiving touchdowns or record 22 sacks or throw 45 touchdown passes or have 125 catches or get 10 interceptions. They want these type of things done in one season. That's insane and damn near impossible. The last QB to throw for more than 40 TD's in a season was Peyton Manning two years ago. Sure, Julio Jones had 125 plus catches this year, but he had to average damn near 10 catches a game. I can't think of the last running back to rush for 20 plus touchdowns. And I don't think any cornerback has had more than 10 interceptions in a season. These contracts are ridiculous. With that being said, Calvin Johnson is probably trying to restructure his contract to be a bit more friendly and the Detroit front office probably told him to take a hike. But now, he says he's retiring, maybe that front office will change their minds to work with their best player since Barry Sanders. That would be a smart business move by Calvin Johnson.

The last question I'll attack, is he just trying to get out of Detroit? If he is, he will have to be traded, which poses the biggest road block to this tactic. He is under contract and the only way he could leave Detroit is by trade or if they just straight up cut him. They aren't going to cut him, but what if a great deal comes across their desk? Let's look at a few contenders who could use a guy like Calvin Johnson to put them over the top. First, the New England Patriots. They don't have any decent draft picks to offer, but they have some depth at running back and on defense. They could offer up Dion Lewis, Chandler Jones and a later round pick to add Calvin Johnson. I don't think Detroit would do it, but New England would be stupid not to. Can you imagine how good their offense would be with Tom Brady, Rob Gronkowski, and Calvin Johnson. Damn that'd be scary. But, the Patriots have bigger issues, mainly their offensive line. How about the Green Bay Packers. Now, I'm sure Detroit would be very hesitant to trade Johnson to a division rival, but what if the Packers offered Davante Adams, Richard Rodgers and either James Starks or Eddie Lacy. The trade would help both teams and the Packers would have three of the best receivers in football. They could line up Randall Cobb, Jordy Nelson and Calvin Johnson. That move would make me very, very happy, but I know it won't happen. One last team I want to talk about is a team getting ready to play in the Super Bowl, the Carolina Panthers. They have Cam Newton, but their receiving core leaves a lot to be desired. Guys like Jericho Cotchery and Ted Ginn Jr are only getting older and they aren't that great to begin with. They have young receivers that still need to prove themselves in Devin Funchess and Kelvin Benjamin, but add Calvin Johnson to that mix, I can't think of a better mentor for them. I'm sure they'd have to give up one of those young guys and a defensive star, say Josh Norman, but I think the Carolina front office would be foolish to not try and get Johnson to go along with Cam Newton. That would be one hell of a QB and WR combo. Johnson made Stafford look good, so think of what he would do for Cam Newton, who's already a star. I know that all these are pretty far fetched, but crazier things have happened in the NFL.

To wrap it all up, I just hope Calvin Johnson isn't really going to walk away at 30 years old. I thoroughly enjoy watching him play football and I have family members that are big Lions fans and Calvin Johnson has been their only hope for the last decade. He is an awesome football player that is in his prime and I think it'd be crazy for him to walk away, but it's his choice and his life. If he does walk away, it's been a ton of fun to see you play. But, if you stick around, which I hope and think you will, it will be a pleasure to watch you make one incredible catch after the next.

Ty

Ty is the Pop Culture Editor for SeedSing and the other host of the X Millennial Man podcast. Tune in tomorrow to the X Millennial Man and hear Ty's "big game" prediction. Once you give a listen make sure to follow Ty on twitter @tykulik.

The Day After: Iowa Edition

Your up next New Hampshire

Now begins the end of our long national headache. Iowa has spoken and it's majority old white male population has decided on Texas Senator Ted Cruz and defender of personal home computer servers Hillary Rodham Clinton. Pack up your bags, we do not need to worry about anything until the general election on November 8th. The nation will make history on that day when we elected the first female President in United States history. This by no means is a statement of political preference, Hillary Clinton will steamroll Ted Cruz. The national electoral numbers favor the Democratic party nominee, and Ted Cruz cannot grow any new voters. Many republicans will not vote for the Texas senator who has made a career out of being an obstructionist and demeaning people in his own party. Thank the gods this whole affair is over. Iowa has spoken, the nominees are set.

How much I wish it was true that the 2016 Presidential campaign was complete. Once the votes are certified in Iowa, the annoying itch of Election 2016 is going to turn into a painful infected sore. The media has doubled down on their incompetence in trying to turn the election of the President into an awful reality show. The news out of Iowa was presented in two ways - Donald Trump loses and Hillary Clinton barely won. New Hampshire will be reported in exactly the same way. The press knows they get ratings when they talk about Trump's ascension and Clinton's struggles. Ratings are way more important than actual journalism. We deserve real journalism in respect to who we elected to lead the nation.

So did the Iowa caucuses actually tell us anything of value concerning the Presidential campaign season? Iowa is a valuable predictor for the Democratic party nominee, not so much for the Republican. Over the last twenty years the eventual Democratic Party nominee has won every Iowa Caucus.  In contrast only Bob Dole in 1996 and George W. Bush in 2000 and 2004 (unopposed) has won the caucus. Go back another twenty years and the only Democratic Party nominees to lose the caucus are Bill Clinton in 1992 and Michael Dukakis in 1988. The only Republican nominees to win the caucus are an unopposed Ronald Reagan in 1984 and incumbent Gerald Ford eked out a victory in 1976. In the last forty years the Democratic nominee has won eight out of ten Iowa caucus where the Republican nominee has won five out of ten (two of those Republican wins were by incumbent Presidents who were unopposed in Iowa). If the Iowa Caucus did say anything about the 2016 election it is that Hillary Clinton will be the Democratic Party nominee and the Republican Party is still in disarray.

The tight margin of victory in Hillary Clinton's win is something the candidate should be worried about. Vermont Senator Bernie Sanders made a better showing in Iowa than expected. His near win is due to the great ground organization his campaign built in the Hawkeye state. Hillary Clinton dismissed Barack Obama'a ground game in 2008, and she never recovered. It does look like the former Senator and Secretary of State may be making the same mistake again. Bill Clinton barely registered in Iowa during the 1992 caucus, but still won the nomination and eventually the White House that year. His biggest opposition, Missouri congressman Dick Gephardt,  did not take Bill Clinton seriously as a candidate. The conventional wisdom was that Gephardt was the true democrat, and Clinton was not in line with the party's philosophy. Bill Clinton capitalized on the youth vote who felt disconnected from the old Democratic Party. This strategy helped sustain the Clinton campaign, and the out of touch Gephardt was eventually defeated. Hillary Clinton seems to be having the same Bill Clinton problem that Dick Gephardt had. Bernie Sanders is going right after the established DC Democratic Party machine, and he is winning the youth vote. Barack Obama has proven you can beat Hillary Clinton with this strategy. The Iowa Caucus did show us that Hillary Clinton is once again relying on the money from the old Democratic machine, and is quickly being seen as out of touch with the youth vote. She needs to be afraid of losing the nomination again if she does not start embracing the Democratic Party that sits outside of the DC think tanks. Iowa should be a wake up call to her campaign.

Ted Cruz's narrow win does not mean a thing. He won Iowa, like Rick Santorum in 2012 and Mike Huckabee in 2008. The Republicans in Iowa sure do like their candidates that have zero shot on winning the nomination. Bob Dole crushed eventual nominee George H.W. Bush in 1998. Republican Presidential nominee John McCain finished a distant fourth place in 2008. Iowa is completely insignificant to the national Republican Party. The New Hampshire Primary is a much better predictor for who will be the party's nominee. Since 1952 the eventual Republican Party Presidential nominee has won the New Hampshire Primary thirteen out of sixteen times. On the day after Iowa, the Republican Party is right where it was on the day before.

The beginning of the end that is the 2016 Presidential campaign has begun. The caucus goers of Iowa have spoken, and told us nothing. The Clinton campaign needs to learn from 2008 and not make the same mistakes. It does not look like they have learned. The Republican Party needs to not read that much into Ted Cruz's victory, Iowa rarely matters to their base. The 2016 election has officially started. Our long national headache is coming to an end.

RD Kulik

RD is the Head Editor for SeedSing and the host of the X Millennial Man podcast. He really wants some great writers to assist him with the 2016 election season - write for SeedSing. He also really wants to pay those writers - Support SeedSing.

We Need To Stop Making Excuses For Violent Athletes

Violent people belong behind a fence with razor wire, not in our arenas and stadiums.

With the news coming out last week that Blake Griffin will miss the majority of the regular season after punching the Clippers equipment manager, repeatedly, and breaking his shooting hand, I ask everyone today, why do we let athletes get away with heinous acts like this? Why did Blake Griffin feel the need to punch this guy so many times, in the face, to the point of injuring himself? And why are their people out their defending him? I heard Charles Barkley, my all time favorite basketball player, on Bill Simmons podcast recently say that "this stuff happens all the time" and that we "shouldn't overreact to this news". That's insane! If any regular Joe did this at their job, they'd be fired immediately, no questions asked. But, we as a society, feel like it's okay to give professional athletes a pass and that is very disturbing.

In the last two years, we've had far too many incidents involving violent behavior coming from pro athletes. And yes, football is the main culprit, but it's spilling over into other pro sports. The athletes that are involved in these incidents are pretty famous too. Kids are supposed to look up to these people. I've written about how terrible Hope Solo, Adrian Peterson and Ray Rice are on the site before, but lets not forget about Aroldis Chapman's domestic violence charge that was recently dropped. A trade was voided because the Dodgers didn't want that PR mess. He was basically a sitting duck until the New York Yankees traded for him and the whole story went away. Or what about all the off season, in season and now post season stuff that's coming out about Greg Hardy? He abuses multiple women, still gets a contract from the Dallas Cowboys, has multiple fights with multiple teammates during the season and now, in the offseason, he can't seem to stop partying. Why does he still get a free pass from the morons over at ESPN? Also, in the college ranks, look at former Missouri QB Matty Mauk. He had to get suspended four times before they kicked him off the team and they only kicked him off when a video of him doing cocaine surfaced. He's not some hot shot QB that's going to help Missouri win many games, but he was a division one caliber QB so he got way more chances than any other non student athlete at Missouri gets because he's good at sports. Why the double standard? It's not fair to the 95 percent of students that don't play sports. They slip up once, they're expelled. But, if you're competent at football, you get way too many chances. That doesn't seem fair.

Now, there's this new story about Johnny Manziel physically assaulting his ex girlfriend that ESPN and Jerry Jones will certainly try to cover up. How many chances does this punk get? He has made mistake after mistake since his sophomore year of college, but everyone seems to write it off. He can showboat and anchors think it's him getting in opponents head, not him being a selfish asshole. Then he slips in the draft because of "character issues", but that's not his fault either. When he does get on the field in the NFL, he looks lost and slow, but it's never his fault, it's coaching and system. When he goes to rehab, but then is spotted 6 months later drinking on the bye week, it's said that he's a young kid and young kids make mistakes. And now we have the second time that he's been brought up on physical abuse charges. People seem to have already forgotten that he was charged with pushing his ex girlfriend's head into the car window before the season started and now there is this new story of him assaulting her at, you guessed it, a bar. Why does this born with a silver spoon, spoiled punk keep getting second, third and fourth chances. He's not a good pro and he's an even worse person. He needs to be in a real rehab, getting real help. I don't need to hear Tony Kornheiser and Ron Jaworski make anymore excuses for Johnny Manziel. I'm fed up with it.

Which brings me to Blake Griffin. The stuff I've heard, from people I really respect, people like Charles Barkley, Bill Simmons, Zach Lowe and Kevin Pelton, just to name a few, is downright absurd and kind of disturbing. Like I said with Barkley earlier, he claims this happens all the time. That doesn't make it right. That is not a viable excuse for someone to physically attack someone smaller than them. The only repercussion that Simmons, Lowe and Pelton can seem to find is to trade him to a different team. Oh yeah, go let him beat up some other team's equipment manager, that will solve his anger problem. These same guys will say, "he apologized, it's over", are dead wrong. You know how many times physical abusers apologize, then do the same exact thing a month later? The vast majority of them. My mom works in a battered women and children's center and she's told me some of the guys have apologized upwards of 10 to 15 times, only to abuse again and again. In fact, and I'll give Tony Kornheiser and Mike Wilbon credit here, they are the only two sports anchors I've heard say that Blake Griffin needs to be suspended immediately for at least, the rest of the season. I agree, except they should have added, suspended without pay. It's like I said earlier, anyone that works a regular job, if they physically attacked someone, they'd get fired that instance, without hesitation. But, there's that double standard with pro sports. I've also heard some of the people that are pro Blake Griffin say that they've been mad enough at a friend to hit them, but they never say that they actually hit them. This is no real friendship if Blake Griffin thinks it's okay to punch this guy until he breaks his hand. This is a sickening act done by a disturbed man child.

I wish we as a society made these abusive athletes responsible for their heinous actions. Instead, we sweep it under the rug and forget about. and therein lies the problem. Everyone needs to be held accountable by the horrible things they do, pro athlete or not.

Ty

Ty is the Pop Culture Editor for SeedSing and the other host of the X Millennial Man podcast. He was once so mad at the head editor that Ty beat him by 80 on NCAA Football 2006. No hitting, just humiliation. Follow Ty on twitter @tykulik.

Donald Trump and the Extinction of the White Man

Welcome to the fossil record GOP

Contrary to popular belief, Charles Darwin was not the first person to use the term  "survival of the fittest". Philosopher Herbert Spencer used Darwin's ideas of natural selection and incorporated them into the social economic world. In the late 19th century the the use of "survival of the fittest" was being co opted by people believing in the idea of Social Darwinism. Many business men, right wing philosophers, and politicians would use the "science" of Social Darwinism to justify their consumption of natural resources, their lust for war, their consolidation of wealth, and their misogyny and racism. All of the practitioners of Social Darwinism were white men.

Donald Trump is not a Republican, at least not in the way the Republican Party has been trying to brand itself. The current GOP believes that the public sees them as a small government alternative to the tax and spend ideals of the Democratic Party. The Republican PR machine thinks people will vote for their candidates because the party believes in personal responsibility and freedom. According to the GOP, we only need a government for military purposes, and to execute criminals. Everything else should be left up to the individual. 

Unless you are a woman, then the Republican Party wants to be completely part of your life. Equal pay for equal work is something the GOP has been using large government to stop for decades. The personal health of a woman's body has been obsessed over by the Republicans in Washington D.C. for nearly half a century. Oh and if you are a minority, the small government Republicans want use the full power of Washington D.C. to control your life. The absolute desire to allow housing and hiring discrimination are top of the mind when it comes to the GOP in DC. They cannot leave those decisions up to the states, it has to be a federal issue. If you are poor, the Republicans think the federal government has every right to control your lives. One's right to vote or to collect needed assistance has been a key point to Republican policy in the seat of federal power. All the talk of personal responsibility and freedom, that only applies to the class of rich white men.

This true face of the Republican Party is what Donald Trump represents. The face of misogyny, disdain for the less fortunate, and racism. The 19th century acolytes of Social Darwinism, that is the 21st century Republican Party. Donald Trump makes the establishment uncomfortable because he has removed their mask and exposed their true self. Everything Mr. Trump believes, and that the Republican Party believes, is all about keeping established white men in power. They want to protect a social group that is rapidly going extinct. Donald Trump and the GOP are fighting nature and are about to disappear from the world.

Once humankind planted seeds in the ground and started to create communities society began to evolve. We created homes, cities, and countries. The growth of the community caused the creating of laws and social structure. Monarchy gave way to the republic. Plutocracy gave way to economic socialism. Power being held by a few men gave way to nations being led by publicly elected parliaments and led by female prime ministers. Society evolved by including more citizens. The monarchs of France, who would not evolve, lost their heads. The Czars of Russia, who did not listen to the next generation, were shot. The fascists of the Soviet empire, who would not flow with history, were all deposed. Those that fight history in order to keep the status quo always lose. Always.

The GOP has been trying to reverse social evolution for over a century. They dress up their antiquated views with fancy language that appeals to a minority of Americans. Donald Trump has stripped away the fancy language and embraced the core ideas of Republican Social Darwinism. Keep money and power in the hands of rich white men and do what ever possible to control everyone else. These ideas will not make society progress. These ideas are doomed for extinction, and the practitioners of these views are doomed to disappear. The age of the white man is over. They are not fit enough to be part of the future.

RD Kulik

RD is the Head Editor for SeedSing. Do you disagree? Come write for us.

Ty Saw and Ranked All the Star Wars Movies

I find your rankings disturbing

Make sure to download the X Millennial Man podcast tomorrow (January 29th) to hear Ty and RD talk about the Star Wars movies.

I know I already wrote about "Star Wars" earlier this week, but I'm going to write about it again. This time though, I'm going to rank the movies from worst to best, in my personal opinion. Now, for everyone out there, I've just recently, within the past two months, seen every single "Star Wars" movie of importance. I did not watch the Christmas special and I have not seen any of the cartoons or TV shows that exist in the Star Wars universe. I have only seen the seven movies that were made. That's the basic information any reader needs going into my rankings. This is all very subjective as well. I'm, by my own admittance, a movie snob. I prefer comedies to any other genre of movie, but I also really like science fiction, noir and drama. But, I also recognize that a pop culture writer should see movies like the "Star Wars" movies because they are very influential and are involved with any big time pop culture. "Star Wars" is quoted and referenced in almost every pop culture thing that I've ever seen. And, with the nudging, I call it harassment, coming from my wife, cousins, friends and most importantly, our editor, RD, I caved and decided to watch every single movie. Before I get into my countdown, I watched them in a specific order. I watched episodes 4, 5 and 6 within two weeks of each other, then I watched episodes 1, 2 and 3 about a month later. Just last week I took my four year old and we saw episode 7 in the theaters. So, I have officially seen all seven movies, which in my mind makes me qualified to give my rankings. As I said at the top, I'll be going from what I think in the worst "Star Wars" movie to the best. On with the countdown.

Coming in at number 7, I have "Star Wars: Revenge of the Sith". This movie is pure, unadulterated garbage. Nothing about this movie is good. I didn't care about anyone or anything in this movie with the lone exception being the death of Mace Windu(Samuel L. Jackson). That was the only bummer to me. This movie is bad. Hayden Christensen is a terrible actor. He shows zero emotion and I don't buy his and Padme's(Natalie Portman) love story at all. Those two have no chemistry at all. The rest of the movie feels very scattered and poorly made. I HATED this movie.

Coming in at number 6 I have "Star Wars: The Phantom Menace". This was supposed to be the movie that brought "Star Wars" into the 21st century, or so I was told. This movie is boring. Too many federation meetings and stupid back stories about Anakin Skywalker. Also, could Anakin be more of a whiner? All he did was complain about everything. The pod racing scene, which I heard was cool, also felt very boring to me. I didn't care about it at all and by the end, I kind of wanted Sebulba to win. The only "cool" scene in "Phantom Menace" was the light saber battle between Qui Gon Gin, Obi Won Kenobi and Darth Maul. It was neat, but it also was pretty uneventful for something that's supposed to be a big deal in the Star Wars world. I wasn't shocked, nor upset when Qui Gon Gin got stabbed and even less surprised when Darth Maul got his. The double edged light saber was cool, but not nearly enough to save this piece of trash. Oh and the racist accents, that also sucked. 

Number 5 is the only prequel that has some cool stuff in it. The movie is still bad, but there are three pretty cool battle scenes. That movie is "Star Wars: Attack of the Clones". First, let's get the bad stuff out of the way. The scene between Anakin and Padme where they ride a mammoth type beast and frolic in the grass is dumb as hell. This scene should have been the first thing cut, but it made it into the movie. This was a terrible scene. Once again, Christensen and Portman have no chemistry and there are way too many federation meeting scenes. Now, there is the three battle scenes I mentioned. The first is the fight between Obi Wan and Jango Fett. That was a cool fight scene. There was the big battle at the end where we finally get to see Windu's purple light saber. That was cool. But, the best battle scene was between Count Dukuu and Yoda. When Yoda whips out his green light saber and begins his magic on Dukuu, I was legit excited. If they just had these three scenes in this movie, it might have been good, but they did all that other useless crap. Saying that "Attack of the Clones" is a good part of Star Wars is like saying that "Godfather 3" is better than "Speed 2: Cruise Control", it's still not a good movie.

Now, let's get to some better movies.

Number 4 is "Return of the Jedi". This one fell kind of flat for me, but it is still a million times better than the prequels. "Return of the Jedi" didn't need Ewoks and why on Earth was Han Solo all of the sudden a pushover, but the light saber battle between Darth Vader, Emperor Palpatine and Luke is awesome. I wasn't crazy about the side characters like Jabba The Hut or Bib Fortuna, but it was some cool make up to see. And Luke using the force to rescue Leia and Han Solo was cool too. "Return of the Jedi" is good, but not as good as the movies I'm about to mention.

Coming in at number 3 I have "Star Wars: The New Hope". This movie is as influential to science fiction as "Citizen Kane" is to all movies. Without a "New Hope", we wouldn't have all the great science fiction movies we now have. This movie is incredibly influential. It's also a good movie. We meet the main characters in this one. Sure, Yoda doesn't show up until the second one, but we meet Luke, Leia, Han, Darth Vader and, my personal favorite, Chewbacca. This is a really cool movie and I thoroughly enjoyed my watching experience. It was exciting and adventurous and instead of saying, "I guess I have to watch these", my sentiment became, "I can't wait to watch all of them". That's a sign of a good movie.

Number 2 on my list is "Star Wars: The Empire Strikes Back". This movie is non stop, kick ass action for 2 plus hours. I loved everything about this movie. The opening scene in Hoth, when Luke gets captured and Han has to save him is awesome. We finally meet Yoda and he is as awesome as RD told me my entire life. The scenes when he is teaching Luke about the force is excellent writing and directing. Han Solo has one of the coolest lines ever spoken when he's about to be dipped in carbonite and Leia says, "I love you", Han replies, cool as shit I might add, "I know". That's awesome. And the light saber fight between Luke and Vader, where Vader tells him he's Luke's father and then cuts off his hand is incredible. "Empire Strikes Back" 100 percent lived up to its hype. It's an awesome, super enjoyable movie.

Which brings me to my number one, "Star Wars: The Force Awakens". I wrote a mini review earlier this week and I still stand by how much I love this movie. I could've seen it without seeing the others and I would have loved it. It's a great action movie that also has drama, comedy and heart breaking moments. The acting, writing and directing were top notch. "The Force Awakens" is such a well made movie that completely restores a franchise that looked lost after the prequels. There is nothing wrong at all with this movie. Now, hard core "Star Wars" fans may find problems with it, but me, just being a lover of movies, I thought it was perfection.

So, that's my personal rankings of the "Star Wars" movies. Take it or leave it, but this is how I feel about a pretty decent franchise of movies. If I had to give any advice to first time viewers, I'd say watch episodes 4 and 5 and then 7. You could probably skip the rest and still be satisfied. I will say though, "Star Wars" has gained a new fan.

I'm excited for episode 8.

Ty

Ty is the Pop Culture Editor for SeedSing and the other host of the X Millennial Man Podcast. He thought the prequels could have been better if there was some more Kit Fisto. Everything needs more Kit Fisto. Follow Ty on twitter @tykulik.

Do Not Change the Rules for Bad Free Throw Shooters

Plenty of open hoops to practice some free throws

So, I was reading one of my favorite websites this morning, Deadspin, and I read an article entitled, "NBA Teams Have Found Creative New Ways to Intentionally Foul " about the intentional fouling that is going on in the NBA right now to put poor free throw shooters at the line. This isn't the first I've heard about people wanting this rule changed. This is probably the one hundredth time I've heard people griping about the "hack a whoever" strategy that teams are employing. Like I said, Deadspin did a whole piece on it today, it's a great read, and I've heard sports writers and journalists I really admire like Zach Lowe and Bill Simmons also complaining about this strategy.

Well, I'm here today to tell everyone that I side with Jalen Rose on this topic. He was on some kind of NBA countdown show on ESPN and he said something along the lines that these guys are pro athletes and they should learn how to shoot free throws. He doesn't mind the "hack a whoever" strategy and neither do I. I 100 percent agree with Rose's assessment. These guys get paid millions upon millions of dollars and they can't make more than 40 percent of a shot that is about 13 feet from the rim and zero defense on them. It's a "free throw", defense is not allowed. I coach 9, 10 and 11 year olds that are better free throw shooters than these guys that get paid real money to play basketball, that's a shame. It's upsetting that such an easy shot has become so hard for particular big men, I'll get to some of them in a minute, that it literally slows this fast paced game to a halt. NBA games should take no more than 2 to 2 1/2 hours, but with this big men unable to shoot free throws, the games are stretching to 3 plus hours sometimes. That's ridiculous.

Let's look at three particular poor free throw shooting big men. First, I want to point out Shaquille O'Neal. The reason Shaq is first, no one made a stink when teams were "hack-a-shaqing" throughout his Lakers run. It was deemed "smart coaching" and a "good strategy" at the time. What's baffling about Shaq, he was a decent free throw shooter in college and his first couple of pro seasons. Then, he put more muscle on his body and he just stopped working on free throws in practice. It got so bad for him, he was literally shot putting the ball to the hoop. Still, he was about a 50 percent free throw shooter, even at his worst. It was bad, but not as bad as some current players. Shaq was also bigger than anyone playing at the time, so most of his attempts at the free throw line came on "and one" plays. He'd make his shot, usually a dunk, and only have to shoot one free throw. I mentioned Shaq first because of the double standard that is coming up with the next two players I'm going to mention.

Like I said before, when people were intentionally fouling Shaq, it wasn't that big of a deal. I don't recall anyone saying they needed to change the rule. Now, we have two of the absolute worst free throw shooters I've seen in my 20 plus years of watching NBA basketball, DeAndre Jordan and Andre Drummond. When these two step to the line, look away because you'll see something very ugly. The kids I coach are told to not watch the two of them play because of how poorly they shoot the ball. Now, I don't like DeAndre Jordan, that's been well chronicled on the site, but I think Andre Drummond has potential to be a game changing type of player. He has perennial all star potential and he puts up huge rebound numbers. But, his free throw shooting is so atrocious and that's holding him back from being a big time player. Just go back a couple of weeks and look at his free throw stat. He was 13 for 36. That is downright terrible. His team still won the game, but man, that's a bad, horrendous stat line. Just awful. DeAndre Jordan, he's so bad at free throw shooting, he's been pulled in critical moments of critical playoff games because his coach doesn't trust his free throw shooting. He has decent form, but the shot always goes wide, either left or right, doesn't matter, it's ALWAYS wide. I mean, he has even air balled multiple free throws in a single game multiple times. You are getting paid huge money DeAndre Jordan to play basketball, so you should never, ever air ball a free throw. Never. That is awful. How does an almost seven footer air ball a free throw? It's just appalling.

Now, these guys that want the rule changed think it's unfair to the other players on the court and it's unfair to the fan. I say, practice your god damn free throws. It's the second easiest shot in basketball, behind the layup/dunk. There's no one guarding you. You get 10 seconds to shoot the ball. All you have to deal with is some dumbass fans yelling stupid shit at you. I know you guys can dunk and rebound. I sure as hell hope you'd be good at that. Andre Drummond and DeAndre Jordan are both close to seven feet tall, they should be able to dunk and rebound with ease. When you're a pro, your game should be well rounded. I mean, at least Shaq made 50 percent of his free throws. Drummond and Jordan both shoot in the low 40's and I believe Drummond dipped into the mid 30's after his 23 missed free throws the other night. I'd suggest, instead of working on your next alley oop, or outlet pass off a rebound, which they both excel at, spend all of your practice time on free throws. Also, go into the gym on off days and work on your free throw shooting. You guys are pro athletes. Your only job is to make your game better.

This is why I agree with Jalen Rose. Everything I said above, he's said multiple times on multiple sports shows. The NBA shouldn't have to change their rules so these pathetic free throw shooters gain another advantage. These guys should work on their free throw shooting, or they should get used to sitting on the bench in crunch time. It's as simple as that. I really like you, everyone at Deadspin, Zach Lowe and Bill Simmons, but to suggest changing the rule is asinine. I am 100 percent on Jalen Rose's side. Learn how to shoot a god damn free throw.

That's your job.

Ty

Ty is the Pop Culture Editor for SeedSing and the other host of the X Millennial Man podcast. In 1998 he hit one hundred percent of his free throws, 2 for 2. Follow Ty on twitter @tykulik.

The Greatest American Band Debate: The White Stripes

For the greatest American band debate, today, I'm going to nominate a band that I once adored, but now, I cannot stand them and I can't believe that I ever defended them or thought that they were great musicians.

That band is the White Stripes.

I used to love this band, and I mean LOVE them. I thought that Jack and Meg White were two of the most unique, most proficient musicians I ever heard. They burst onto the scene in 2000 with the album "De Stijl". This was a classic blues/rock throwback album. It was a lot of old blues covers and the way they played the songs was quite phenomenal. Jack White's voice and guitar playing was top notch. Meg White was a good drummer, keeping the rhythm, but that's about it for her.

It was also around this time that I discovered the Black Keys, a band that I still adore and I think is ten thousand times better than the White Stripes, but you have to know, I was a teenager when I first heard the White Stripes and my mind wasn't fully developed as far as my musical taste went. Not yet at least. Then, I saw their video for the song "Seven Nation Army" and I was immediately hooked. There was nothing better at the time, not even the Black Key in my mind. I was so, so wrong. But, "Seven Nation Army", the song and the album both, were huge hits that showed the world that a two piece band could make great music.

So, from about 2001 to 2004 I was one of the biggest White Stripes fans there was. I devoured every record they put out. I already owned "De Stijl" and "Seven Nation Army", but then I went out and bought "The White Stripes", "White Blood Cells" and "Elephant". Their very first record, "The White Stripes" was a lot like "De Stijl". It was raw, old timey blues covers that Jack White turned into rock and roll. It was a good album, at least I thought it was at the time. Then I bought "White Blood Cells". I absolutely loved this album when I first heard it. It wasn't all covers this time around. Jack White was making his own versions of old timey blues/rock songs and they were good. He also threw in some acoustic stuff that I really enjoyed. The song, "We Are Gonna Be Friends" is still, even though my feelings on the band have changed, one of my favorite songs to listen to and play on guitar (plus it is featured in my favorite movie ever, Napoleon Dynamite). My kids, especially my son, loves when I start to finger pick this song. This is still a very good song that I will always enjoy, no matter how big my hatred gets for this band. Then, the album "Elephant" blew me away. It was mixtures of old and new songs. Some of the songs on the record are timeless. And then there was another awesome video for the song "The Hardest Button to Button". That video is incredible. Go check it out if you haven't seen it. The White Stripes, to their credit, knew how to make a memorable music video.

In my personal opinion, their album "Elephant" was the last great record they made. In 2005, they released "Get Behind Me Satan", and that was when I started to lose interest. The album is okay. Songs like "My Doorbell", "The Denial Twist" and "Instinct Blues" are all classic White Stripes, but I was growing weary of their sound. 2005 was also the year that my love affair really took off with the Black Keys. That was the first or second time I'd seen them and I loved everything they were doing. They definitely took the throne, as far as two piece bands, away from the White Stripes. It was also around this time, either 2004 or 2005, that I saw the White Stripes live, and that's when I kind of gave up on them. They were okay live, but it was their demeanor on stage, especially Jack White's, that made my distaste for them first appear. He was rude, arrogant and seemed like he didn't want to be there. The songs sounded boring, almost like they were recording in the studio. He yelled at the techs that were back stage whenever his guitar would go out of tune. He's a professional musician, I'd think he'd be able to tune his own guitar. His solos lacked proficiency and flare. He kind of just picked a pattern, and that was his solo. No fuss, no muss. I need some excitement out of my lead guitar player when I see a band I enjoy live. And then there was my big revelation about Meg White during that show. She is the second luckiest person in the history of music, behind only Ringo Starr. She's not that good of a drummer I realized. In fact, she's quite terrible. She just banged away simple 4/4 rhythms all night and seemed brain dead. Even when she sang, it was boring and pretty awful. After that show, I kind of lost interest in the band.

The White Stripes seemed to lose interest as well, only putting out one more album, a live one, in 2010. Jack White went off and did other projects like, The Raconteurs and Dead Weather and produced new records for old country singers like Wanda Jackson and Loretta Lynn. The Raconteurs and Dead Weather are fine, just not my cup of tea. They are too emo to be rock and too rock to be blues. Both bands are White Stripes light, and that's not a compliment. Meg White, I haven't heard from her in about 7 years now. I'm sure she's living large on the enormous amounts of money that the White Stripes made.

What angers me the most about this band though is Jack White's off stage attitude. He's a bully. He picks fights with random other musicians and when they call him out on it, he verbally abuses them via social media. He has a bad attitude. I don't buy the tortured genius bull shit either. He is a straight up bully, there's no other way to put it. He should be happy that he gets to live his dream life, but he picks fights and complains about the state of pop music. Screw you Jack White, you're a supreme asshole. I just can't believe I invested so much of my time, energy and money on this band. I got caught up in the hype, and for five years, they reeled me in. I'm glad I got out and found much better two piece bands, like Deadboy and the Elephant Men and, of course, the Black Keys. When the White Stripes were great, they were awesome. But, their attitude and off stage act became too much, at least for me, to handle. They definitely belong in the conversation, but I can now say, without any hesitation, that I loathe the White Stripes and more importantly, Jack White.

Ty

Ty is the Pop Culture Editor for SeedSing and the other host of the X Millennial Man podcast. He finds it therapeutic to write about musicians he used to like and now hates. Is Puff Daddy next? Follow Ty on twitter @tykulik.

Congrats LeBron on Building a Perennial Runner Up

Prediction on where Cleveland will finish the season

With the news last week that the Cleveland Cavaliers fired David Blatt, I'm going to hate on the Cavs once again.

This news is not surprising, but it should be. The fact that it isn't surprising is part of the huge, huge problem that this firing shows. First of all, what else did the Cavs want from David Blatt? He won 50 plus games in his first season and the team made the finals. Sure, they lost, but they played what is looking like one of the all time great teams, the Golden State Warriors. I don't think any team was beating the Warriors last year, and no one probably will this year either. This season, they had a record of 30-11 when they fired Blatt. That was good enough for first place in the East, by two games, and fourth best overall in the league, behind only Golden State, San Antonio and Oklahoma City. Many journalists and pundits will say the firing was deserved because of how handily they got beaten by both San Antonio and Golden State, but if that's the sole reason he got fired, every single other coach that doesn't coach for the Spurs or Warriors should be fired. They beat everyone all the time. They are far and away the two best teams in the NBA. Others will say that Blatt couldn't handle the egos and the big stage. Well, he guided the team to a finals appearance last year and they were firmly in first place in the East this year. He also won multiple titles as a coach overseas and he had the best wining percentage for a head coach in the NBA since Red Auerbach. He also led the Cavs to the finals after losing Kevin Love in the first round and Kyrie Irving in the first game of the finals. That sounds, at least to me, like he was doing a pretty bang up job as an NBA coach.

What this firing really boils down to is LeBron James didn't want David Blatt to be his coach, he wanted Tyronn Lue. This was evident from the first month of last season. LeBron didn't work well with Blatt and he would go to Lue, who was an assistant, whenever there was a timeout or when he was getting rest during games. It was clear after one month of games last season that James clearly favored Lue to Blatt. So, 41 games into this season, David Griffen gave in to his superstar player and got rid of the coach that he didn't like. I don't buy any of the talk coming from the ESPN moron analysts like Stephen A Smith or Brian Windhorst that LeBron had no say or no idea that they were firing Blatt. He one hundred percent knew it was coming because he told the front office to do it.

The Cavs management haven't said no to LeBron since he returned to Cleveland last season. He wanted Kevin Love, so they traded Andrew Wiggins and Anthony Bennett for him as soon as they could. How much better would the Cavs be if they kept Wiggins and signed James? LeBron and Love cannot coexist together. Love is a much better player when he can post and then float out to the three point line. That doesn't work for LeBron, he needs the lane open to go to the hoop. That's why he and Bosh meshed so well in Miami. Chris Bosh is a much better big man shooter than Love will ever be and he has a much better on court demeanor than Love has. Bosh just wants to win, Kevin Love just wants stats. I bet within two weeks, LeBron will tell the front office to trade Love because they just don't play well together and I think they legitimately dislike each other. And the front office will give their spoiled star exactly what he wants. LeBron also demanded they get another big that is defensive minded and two perimeter players so they went out and got Timofey Mozgov, Iman Shumpert and JR Smith. Now, Mozgov is barely playing because he too clogs the lane, Shumpert can't stay healthy and JR Smith is wearing t shirt that say "shoot till my arm falls off". How'd that three man trade work for you in the finals LeBron? Oh yeah, you got smoked when the Warriors went small and ran all over you.

Then, this past offseason LeBron left the Cavs with little to no cap space after maxing out Love, one of the worst offseason deals, and had to resign marginal NBA players like Richard Jefferson and Matthew Dellavedova. Those are not players that will help bring a title to Cleveland. They also maxed out Tristan Thompson, who has the same agent as LeBron, and he has not lived up to the hype at all, not even close. And now, they fired Blatt to hire LeBron's buddy, Tyronn Lue. He has zero head coaching experience at any level, but the Cavs front office, AKA LeBron James, decided he was a better fit than a coach that led them to the finals and first place in the East after half this season.

In Lue's first game as head coach, playing the Bulls in Chicago, another first year coach, Fred Hoiberg, absolutely schooled him with his decision making and player personnel decisions. The Bulls dictated the flow and the pace of that game and won easily. Lue got his first win last night, but the Cavs had to go down to the wire with the Timberwolves and they are not good, not yet.

I guess what I'm trying to say, it's all on LeBron James now. He can't blame the coach. When they trade Love, he can't blame the chemistry and inexperience. And when they make the finals and lose again, it will be solely on him. The Cavs have given him everything he has asked for and it all rests on him now. He has no more excuses. The media may give you a pass, but the real basketball fan knows, it all rests on you now. This is the team LeBron wants and he has no more excuses. When the Cavs make the finals and when they lose, he has to take all the blame because he is the coach, the GM and the star player of this team. No more passing the blame LeBron. Once the Cavs trade Love, this is the team you constructed.

The Cavs that will be good enough to be the runner up once again in the NBA.

Ty

Ty is the Pop Culture Editor for SeedSing and the other host of the X Millennial Man podcast. He once tried to assemble his own rec league basketball team. It did not go well. Follow Ty on twitter @tykulik.

"Star Wars: The Force Awakens" and Welcoming the Rise of the Female Action Hero

Maybe Han should have stayed in the carbonite?

Editors note: Part of Ty's goals set forth by the Head Editor at SeedSing was to watch all seven of the Star Wars films. Now that Ty has fulfilled his end of the deal the X Millennial Man podcast on Sunday January 29th will be all about his experience seeing the films. Make sure to bring your ears and listen to the X Millennial Man podcast.

So, I finally saw "Star Wars: The Force Awakens" this past Saturday. I know, I'm probably the last pop culture writer to see the movie, but better late than never. 

Right?

Anyway, I loved the movie. It was adventurous, exciting, well acted, well written, well directed, funny and a great throwback to the original. It could be just because I very recently saw it, but it is my favorite of all seven "Star Wars" movies. I thought it was the most fun and the best looking. "Empire Strikes Back" is a very close second, but I prefer "The Force Awakens" to all other "Star Wars" movies. I could have seen this without seeing the other six and I would have loved it. I wouldn't have gotten the references and the call backs, but I would have enjoyed myself, it was that good of a movie.

JJ Abrams has proven himself, in my opinion, to be a very skillful director that can make old movies or TV shows, a la "Star Wars" or "Star Trek", into extremely enjoyable movies for fans and non fans alike. I never saw any form of any "Star Trek" show or movie, but I really enjoyed the two "Star Trek" movies he made. And, what he did with "The Force Awakens", erasing all the terribleness that is the prequels, bravo Mr. Abrams, you've revived "The Star Wars" movie universe into something enjoyable again.

I could go on and on about how much I like this movie, but my main point of my blog today is, I love that two of the biggest movies in the past 6 or 7 months, have had females being the strongest and most badass characters in the movie. This has to make those moronic MRA assholes nuts. Those idiots have to be losing their feeble minds right now. First, a movie I've written extensively about on this website, "Mad Max: Fury Road", has a female playing one of the most badass characters of all time in any movie ever, Furiosa. It doesn't get much better than Theron as Furiosa in "Mad Max". She kicked so much ass, played the main character in what was always considered a male driven lead role and owned the best movie of all of 2015. The fact Theron didn't even get a nomination is grotesque, another thing I've written about on the site already. She was incredible in the movie. The fight scene between her and Max during the first act of the movie was incredible. The fight was even the whole time, and the only reason Max won was because Nux snuck up on Furiosa and took her off guard. Furiosa basically beat his ass the majority of the fight. I don't think I've ever seen a more kick ass character, be it male or female, than Furiosa. She is the absolute best.

In "Star Wars: The Force Awakens", is it my imagination, or isn't Rey the main character of the movie? She seems to be, at least in my opinion, the new Han Solo. When she is introduced, she's scavenging an old ship and bringing in the best stuff to the traders in Jakku, even though the alien won't give her much food. Then, BB 8 finds her and is immediately drawn to her. BB 8 clearly trust her as much as it trusts Poe. That's very high praise coming from a droid. Then, when she runs into Finn, she ends up saving him by piloting the Millenium Falcon to safety. When Finn sees her at first too, he is on his way to save her from two guys trying to steal BB 8, but he backs off when he sees her kick those two guys asses. He realizes that she can hold her own. Later on, when Finn and Rey run into Chewbacca and Han Solo, I know there's a lot of spoilers, but it's been over a month now, everyone that wanted to see it has seen it multiple times, Han has an immediate rapport with Rey, much more so than he had with Finn. Han even goes so far as to offer her a job working for him and Chewbacca. Even later, when she is captured by Kylo Ren and he has her chained up, his power of the force doesn't work on her. Earlier in the movie, Ren's force worked to perfection on the supposed biggest badass, Poe, but it doesn't work on Rey. In fact, she is much, much stronger than Kylo Ren, who is the new Darth Vader. And that light saber battle between her and Ren, in the snow at the end, what an amazing, amazing battle that Rey wins in the long run. She is struggling at first, but once she realizes that she is a true Jedi, she completely takes over that fight. She is a bad ass fighter and she destroys Ren in the battle. It's incredible. She even takes over Solo's role on the ship(RIP Han Solo) at the end and she's the one chosen to deliver Luke Skywalker's light saber back to him. She's given that order by another strong, kick ass female character, General Leia.

Basically, I love that big time studios and directors are giving these kick ass, no nonsense roles to much deserving female characters. We don't need anymore damsels in distress or the token woman looking for a man because only that will complete her roles in Hollywood. Those roles are old and tired and stupid. I hope these studios and writers and directors keep giving females these awesome roles. We've gotten three great ones in the past couple of years, Emily Blunt in "Edge of Tomorrow", Charlize Theron in "Mad Max: Fury Road" and now Daisy Ridley in "Star Wars: The Force Awakens" and they have all been great. Please keep giving these roles to well deserving actresses.

I love it and they deserve it.

Ty

Ty is the Pop Culture editor for SeedSing and the other host of the X Millennial Man podcast. It is about damn time he got around and saw the Star Wars movies. His training is now complete. Follow Ty on twitter @tykulik.

I Fully Endorse Sarah Palin Endorsing Donald Trump

This is one public housing project Donald Trump will not make a deal on.

The honorable ex-half Governor of Alaska has made her choice for President of the United States. In order to make America great again, political power boss Sarah Palin has given her full support and endorsement to the inept New York City con-man known to all as Mr. Donald Trump. I fully endorse this political marriage. This was meant to be. The national Republican party has been building towards this moment. All of their actions, and rhetoric, the last ten years has been building towards Trump and Palin. Now the country has real hope.

The hope is that the Republican party will either disappear or get their act together and move away from all the hate. The platform of the modern Republican party is one of obstruction, whining, and ugliness. Sarah Palin was the one of the first politicians to capitalize on these tenets, and Donald Trump has incredibly moved to the front of the field of Republican Presidential hopefuls embracing these philosophies. These two "leaders' of the GOP have taken all the white male angst and commoditized in order to create more personal wealth. Palin and Trump have no intention to lead, they only exist to enhance their own personal brands. It is sad that one of the two political parties has decided to throw in with two people who are against the ideals and dream that is America.

Trump and Palin may get all the media coverage, but most of the Republican presidential field can be thrown in with these anti-patriots. Chris Christie is a blowhard with no plans and a horrible public record. Marco Rubio has no core beliefs, is generally ignorant, and lacks very little ability to tell the truth. Ben Carson is horrible at pandering and does not seem to be very intelligent. John Kasich is a typical rob from the poor give to the rich Reaganomic Republican. Ted Cruz is a loathsome fellow who seems to just hate the entire idea of the American dream, plus he is not really even eligible to be President. The rest of the field is not even worth talking about becasue they act the same as those in the lead of the polls, and they have no shot at winning the Republican Primary.

I know it seems that I am joyful in watching the demise of the GOP.  I am actually quite sad. Do not make a mistake, I am very happy that the current form of the Republican Party will be once again humiliated in the November election. At least they will be humiliated in the Presidential election, any other election and the Democratic party does not seem to give a damn. The Republican Party used to offer an actual philosophical difference on how the government should run. I did not always agree on this philosophy, but we could have an actual debate on the future of America. The current field, led by the brain trust of Donald Trump and Sarah Palin, just want to cause chaos and division. They have no plan to govern. They have no view for a better America. These Republicans, who claim they want to lead America, really just want to fatten their own pockets, and the pockets of a very small group of old wealthy white men.  I am joyful that this disease of political thought we call the Republican Party may finally die out with another national humiliation. I am hopeful we can get back to debating different views for a stronger, and better America.

Sarah Palin's endorsement of Donald Trump for President is the perfect catalyst to start the demise of the hate filled Republican ideology. Trump has a history of going against classic conservative ideology, and Sarah Palin only knows how to be an opportunist. They both deserve to be ejected from the GOP. I am hopeful that this dynamic duo will finish the job of tearing down the modern Republican victimhood complex. I am hopeful that all the racists, misogynists, plutocrats, and anti-patriots who the media likes to prop up will finally crawl back into their holes and become obsolete. Let them go back to defending the Confederate flag and posting vile Facebook posts so the rest of us can identify them as people who should not be a part in crafting America's future. It is time for the hate peddlers to exit stage left. Let Trump and Palin lead the exodus.

Trump / Palin 2016 has my full blessing. In November we can all watch the Republican ticket get obliterated by Hillary Clinton and the Democratic Party's Vice Presidential nominee. Sarah Palin can go back to being a quitter and a loser. Donald Trump can continue to spew his hate and live with his inadequacies. The GOP can take stock of their humiliation and rebuild.  My hope is that the party learns and gets back to offering different ideas. Maybe they can find a dynamic politician who can create voters and have an intelligent discussion about America's future. Have they considered Rand Paul?

RD Kulik

RD is the Head Editor for SeedSing. He has worked for the Republican and Democratic Parties, and has been on the losing end every time. He know wants to win with great citizen journalism and needs you to write for SeedSing. Do not feel like writing, we could always use some financial support.

The Greatest Television Ever: NBC Thursday Night Comedy

In the coming weeks and months, we at SeedSing will be doing our favorite TV shows. It will be a lot like our greatest American band debate, each week picking a show or a season or just particular moments from TV shows that we enjoy.

I'm going to kick it off today by talking about one of my favorite two hour blocks of TV on NBC. There was a time that the Thursday night line up on NBC had four of the best sitcoms that I've ever seen. It was epic, must watch TV for me and any other fan of comedic television. The four shows they trotted out were "30 Rock", "The Office", "Community" and "Parks and Recreation". Talk about a murderers row of great, great TV. These four sitcoms are all in my personal top ten of TV shows. I love these shows and I love them all for different reasons.

First we'd get "30 Rock". This show is one of the all time greats. Tina Fey is a genius. Her writing and acting are beyond genius. She's on a whole different level from any other sitcom writer I've ever seen. She is a legend. But, it wasn't just Tina Fey that made that show great. We got Tracy Morgan, Jane Krawkowski, Jack McBrayer and, of course, Alec Baldwin. Tina Fey basically revived both Morgan's and Baldwin's career with their roles on this show. And they were both fantastic. Any episode that revolved around Morgan's character, Tracy Jordan, was so hilarious and so well written. Anytime he interacted with McBrayer, or Grizz and Dot Com or with Liz Lemon or Jack Donaghy was great. Morgan's first appearance on the show, naked, except for underwear, freaking out on the highway, waving around a fake light saber, was a perfect introduction to his character. And when he tries to get the EGOT, that was a great run of episodes. Alec Baldwin as Jack Donaghy was the perfect representation of the arrogant, yet idiotic studio head that has no clue how to run a network. He was so great on this show. Two of my favorite lines spoken on a sitcom were said by him. The first, Liz asks him why he's dressed so nicely and he says, "it's after six, what am I, a farmer?", loved it. The only line I like better is when Donaghy is talking about his hard working father and he says, "he worked the day shift at the graveyard and the graveyard shift at the Days Inn", that is exquisite writing. I love "30 Rock" and I could go on forever about it, but I need to talk about the other three shows.

After "30 Rock", we got "The Office". This is my second favorite show of all time, behind only "The Simpsons". When this show was great, it was the best thing on TV. Seasons 1-4 of "The Office" is some of the best TV that's ever been aired. We got three phenomenal episodes in those first four seasons. In season one they had the episode where the sales team challenged the warehouse workers to a game of basketball. It was so good. Michael Scott(Steve Carrell) warming up and then playing basketball is so god damn funny. I love that episode. Season two gave us "The Dundies". That was the award show that they had for the employees of Dunder Mifflin. It was cringe worthy comedy, with Michael Scott and Dwight Schrute(Rainn Wilson), emceeing this train wreck. It was so funny and it was the first time that Jim(John Krasinski) and Pam(Jenna Fischer) kissed. This episode is great. The best episode of "The Office" came in season four. The episode titled, "Dinner Party", is the most uncomfortable 44 minutes of brilliant comedy ever written. Michael and Jan(Melora Hardin) constantly fighting while they have four employees over to their condo is so good, yet so uncomfortable. I still love this episode to this day. It is excellent comedy. I adore "The Office" and it will always hold a special place in my heart. It is the second greatest show of all time, in my personal opinion.

Then, we got the weird, off the wall, bizarre comedy, "Community". At first glance, I didn't think Id really like this show, but the more I watched it, the more I grew to love it and look forward to it every week. Joel McHale finally got his chance to be the lead role on a show and he did it so well. He is criminally underrated for his work on that show. But the other actors were just as good. Danny Pudi. Gillian Jacobs, Donald Glover, Jim Rash and Ken Jeong were great. Alison Brie and Yvette Nicole Brown were also really good. The only person I didn't really care for was Chevy Chase, but he's an asshole. I loved the off beat humor that Dan Harmon brought to major network TV with "Community". The show was an almost perfect representation of community college life. I could relate to the people because I ran into the exact same people in my almost two years of community college. There were athletes, nerds, regular joes, old people and good looking ladies that never got into a four year school, so they had to go to community college. Sure, "Community" is a glorified version of community college, but they made it relatable, especially when Dan Harmon was the main writer and show runner. They had ups and downs, but there were way more ups than downs when it comes to "Community". And yes, the paintball episodes are as good as the fans say they are. Go back and watch those and be amazed at how well "Community" was done. It's an underrated cult classic show.

NBC would close the night with probably my third all time favorite show, "Parks and Recreation". This show is a classic that only got better and better the more seasons it got. I loved the first season, but each season that followed was better than the last. This show was the exact representation of what it's like to work for a parks and recreation department. My sister in law, that works for Columbia's parks and rec department, even confirmed this. Ron Swanson(Nick Offerman) and Tom Haverford(Aziz Ansari) are real representations of people that take government jobs in parks and rec and just sail from there. They don't take their jobs seriously at all because it's not a serious job. They plan parties and races and community gatherings, not that tough of a job. Amy Poehler as Leslie Knope was the perfect post "SNL" role for her. She was so, so good on that show. She excelled. When shows bring new people on, it's usually a bad sign, but the additions of Rob Lowe, whom I've written about before, and Adam Scott made this show that much better. Rob Lowe, as the always upbeat and exercising Chris Traeger, was the perfect foil for Ron Swanson. and Adam Scott as Ben Wyatt, failed mayor and Leslie's love interest, was perfect. When these two showed up, "Parks and Rec" went to a whole new level. Chris Pratt, Retta, Aubrey Plaza and later on, Jon Glaser and Billy Eichner were also excellent on the show. I love every episode of "Parks and Rec", there isn't a bad one. If you haven't seen it and you're looking for a starting point, start at the end of season two, when Rob Lowe and Adam Scott show up, that's when the show went from good to great.

So, there you have the first entry in our greatest TV choices on SeedSing. I figured I'd come out of the gates strong, and this Thursday night lineup is a slam dunk. Come back for more TV later. I already am writing "The Simpsons" blog in my head now.

Ty

Ty is the Pop Culture editor for SeedSing and the other host of the X Millennial Man podcast. He desperately wanted to add "Andy Barker P.I." to his list, but then realized the show was no "Andy Richter Controls the Universe" Follow Ty on twitter @tykulik.

"Serial" Season 2 Joins the Ranks of Disappointing Sequels

Brings the good, and the boring, to your ears.

As the entire podcast listening world knows by now, season two of Serial began about 2 months ago. This season, Sarah Koenig is talking about Bowe Bergdahl. He's the soldier that was captured by the Taliban, but, others say that he is a war deserter. Opinions vary about both situations and Koenig and her podcast are trying to show both sides. One week it seems that he was legitimately captured and the next week, I change my mind and feel that he deserted the war because of the poor living conditions and war is scary as hell. I personally do not know where I fully stand yet, there's still a long way to go before they get to the bottom of this case. 

The path to the bottom has gotten a whole lot longer with the news that they are switching from every week to every other week. Also, this season of Serial doesn't feel the same as the first. That first season of Serial was phenomenal, although the finale left a lot to be desired, and this season just seems to be falling flat. During the first season, I was on pins and needles before, during and after each episode. Did Adnan do it, or was it one of many other suspects? Why would a seemingly good natured high school student turn on a dime like that? Did he really have this insanity deep down in his body? Did his attorney screw him over? Was he set up by his "friends" that were interviewed? What cell phone tower picked up the calls from that night the best? I could ask about a million more questions pertaining to Adnan Syed. For the record, I do not think he did it and I feel very sorry for him that he has had to spend the majority of his life in prison for a crime I don't think he committed. His new trial can prove me wrong and I'll sound like an asshole, but I don't think he did it. My wife, on the other hand, is 100 percent convinced that he did it. She thinks he's guilty, showing no doubt in her face or voice when we talk about it. We still talk about it to this day by the way. That first season had everything. Drama, intrigue, horror, guilt, flip flopping, it was perfect. I would be scared to go to sleep some nights, just thinking about it. I also have had sleepless nights thinking about whether Adnan is guilty or not. That is the mark of good podcasting.

This season of Serial doesn't have the same allure of the first season. That's my point today. I know it's very hard to follow up something that was so big and virtually came out of nowhere, at least to my generation. "Serial" type stories have been around as long as talk radio has been around, but with my generation, this was the first "serial" story we'd really paid attention to. I also think that expectations, mine included, were way too high going into this second season. There was no way Koenig could top the first season, but I thought she had a chance. It's like a sequel to a great movie. Not every sequel will be "Terminator 2:Judgement Day" or "The Godfather: Part 2", not even close. Most sequels are more "Speed 2: Cruise Control" or "The Godfather: Part 3". They are usually much, much worse because it's so hard to recreate what the actors and director nailed the first time around. It usually backfires and I feel that's what's happening with the second season of Serial. I don't find myself waiting for the new episode every other Thursday. Now, don't get me wrong, I still listen, but it feels like homework this time around. I feel almost obligated to listen because the first season was so groundbreaking. You should never feel obligated to listen to something that you get for free. It should be fun and you should want to listen to it. Much like the first season, you should be on pins and needles waiting for the new episodes.

A deeper problem I think they're having with this season, most people, if not everyone, knows the Bowe Bergdahl story, or they know of it. That wasn't the case with Adnan Syed. I had never even heard of this story that happened in Baltimore more than a decade ago. It was great to hear her uncover new evidence and things that the police and the attorney's missed the first time round. Every week she'd peel back a new layer on the onion of this pretty much unknown story to anyone outside of the Baltimore area and it was great. Like I said before, anytime there's new news on Bergdahl, it's national news. We all find out about it the same time Sarah Koenig does. There's no intrigue or drama in that. It's no fun. She will bring some "new" news to the story and I'll sit back, listen and yell into my phone, "We all already knew that!", there is nothing that she can bring to this story that we all don't already know.  I still listen because I like the way Sarah Koenig speaks. She has a very calm, perfect for NPR voice that only Cecily Strong from "SNL" can replicate. I commend her for taking on a much bigger story for the second season of Serial, but it just doesn't carry the same weight the first season did.

Hopefully for the third season, there will definitely be one, she picks a smaller story again that the entire nation doesn't already know about. This season though, has been pretty dull, at least so far.

Ty

Ty is the Pop Culture editor and the other host of the X Millennial Man podcast. He loves great storytelling, but dislikes being bored. Ty is a great storyteller who is not boring. Find out for yourself by following him on twitter @tykulik.

The Greatest American Band Debate: The Ramones

For the greatest American band debate on Seed Sing, I'm going to nominate another band that I'm not really a fan of, but to be reputable, we have to acknowledge these bands that most of the music listening population recognizes as an all time great. The band I'm going to talk about today, I actually dislike almost as much as I dislike the Beach Boys. That band is The Ramones.

The Ramones are widely considered the founders of punk rock music, a genre of music I'm not that into, but I recognize how important and influential it is and has been. For my punk rock, I go to Iggy and the Stooges, who I will write about at another date, or more prog type punk rock like King Crimson or Mars Volta, I'll also be writing about Mars Volta at a later date. King Crimson is from England, so they don't make the cut in our debate. Those three bands, in my opinion, are way, way better than The Ramones, but they aren't recognized like The Ramones. The Ramones are credited with starting punk rock because every single one of their songs is a tight 2 minutes and they only play three chords and the lyrics are sung muffled. That, for all intents and purposes, is the definition of punk rock. When it comes to my personal definition, punk rock is anarchy and disestablishment and great, complicated guitar work, especially solos.

When it comes to front men, Iggy Pop is a much better punk rock singer than Joey Ramone. You can understand most of what Iggy Pop is saying and as far as on stage theatrics, there is no one that comes close to Iggy Pop, especially not Joey Ramone. But, Joey Ramone is widely looked at as the essential punk rock front man, much to my shock. He just kind of stood on stage and garbled his way through each song. People will call that punk rock, I say, he was hiding the fact that he was not that good of a singer and he had some form of stage fright.

Then, when you look at the musicians in King Crimson or Mars Volta, they are so much better and so much more proficient than Johnny, Dee Dee and Tommy Ramone. Robert Fripp, of King Crimson, is ten thousand times the guitar player that Johnny Ramone ever wished he could be. And oh my god, Omar Rodriguez-Lopez is one of the greatest, most innovative and weirdest guitar players I've ever listened to in my entire life. I think he's an alien that was put on Earth to show us humans what a real guitar god looks and plays like. He is the Millenial's Jimmy Page. He's a guitar wizard that people will call legendary in about 20 years. I guarantee I will be telling my son about him when he's in his twenties and asks me about music from my generation. He's the man. Do people really say the same thing about Johnny Ramone? Is he a legendary, all time great guitar player? I don't think so. He doesn't have any memorable solos and he basically plays three chords on every song. Anyone that takes one guitar lesson can pretty much learn the entire Ramones song book. It is literally that easy. Just learn a G chord, a C chord and an F chord and you are good to go.

Let's get back to why some believe they are so influential. I will bend and say that without The Ramones, we would have never gotten The Sex Pistols, another band I'm not so fond of, but people love, Jello Biafra, who is a genius musician, there'd be no Black Flag, who is a much better band and Bad Brains, who are a great, great punk rock/reggae band. They did influence these bands and musicians and countless others, but the people I just mentioned took that influence, ran with it and made much, much better music than The Ramones. I know that people love the "simplicity" of their songs. Critics love the fact that they got their message out in 2 minutes or less. In my opinion, they could only handle that small amount of music because they were not that skilled. They needed to get everything done in a short amount of time because, if their songs lasted longer, they would be seen as subpar musicians and songwriters. They wouldn't be as highly regarded as they are now. Big time magazines and publications like "Billboard" or "Rolling Stone" even went as far to name them the second greatest rock group of all time, behind only The Beatles. That's down right insane. No way are they better than The Rolling Stones, Bob Marley and the Wailers, The Kinks, Public Enemy, The Beastie Boys, The Paul Butterfield Blues Band, Janis Joplin and the Holding Company, the Flying Burrito Brothers, I could literally go on and on with bands that are far superior to The Ramones.

I also acknowledge that the Ramones had a big stake and were very influential in making the cult classic movie "Rock and Roll High School" that many people adore. Have any of these people that claim to love that movie seen it lately? It does not hold up well. The movie is a lot like The Ramones music. It's kind of a muffled, garbled look at a Detroit high school in the 70's. It's boring and pointless too. I don't get the love for that movie. It's very overrated.

Look, I understand that a lot of people think The Ramones are one of the greatest American bands, I'm not one of those people. But, I also realize that we at SeedSing have to recognize and write about things we don't like or disagree with if we want to be taken seriously. So, I made the best case that a non fan of The Ramones can make. I believe that there are thousands of bands and musicians that are much, much better than The Ramones, but not everyone sees it that way. Much to my chagrin, these are the "reasons" that The Ramones belong in our greatest American band debate. Please tell me why I'm wrong in the comment section, but also check out some of the people I mentioned above and go listen to the people that The Ramones influenced instead of listening to The Ramones.

That's the best advice I can give you.

Ty

Ty is the Pop Culture Editor for SeedSing and the other host of the X Millennial Man podcast. He once adored the Ramones, then learned their entire catalog in one afternoon and moved on. Follow Ty on twitter @tykulik.

The Cavaliers Will Win the East, and Get Destroyed by the West

The Cavs need more practice, and a lot more talent.

Last night the Cleveland Cavaliers got their asses handed to them by the Golden State Warriors 132-98. They gave up 132 points to an NBA team. Sure, they're the defending champions, but still, 132 points is an insane amount. That shouldn't happen to a team that is widely considered to be a championship contender.

Sure, the Cavs are good, they already have 27 or 28 wins and have won something like 12 of their last 14, but I want to focus on those two losses. They were to the Warriors last night and the San Antonio Spurs last Thursday night, the two best teams in the West and the two best teams in the NBA. Sure, they were competitive when they played the Spurs, but the Spurs pulled away from them late in the third quarter. And the Warriors absolutely man handled them last night.

In the post game press conference, LeBron James kept talking about the fact that they're a young team and they haven't experienced a lot of success and they still have a long way to go, but I've heard this song and dance from him before. In fact, I heard all the same stuff last year. I'm at the point now where I call bull shit. They have experienced success, they were in the finals last year and won two games. They are not that young. LeBron has been in the league for 12 years now, Kyrie Irving been around for at least five years and Kevin Love has been in the league for 7 years, I believe, now. The three of them have played in multiple all star games and Love and Irving got their first taste of the playoffs last year. In fact, most of the players on the Cavs have been in the NBA for awhile now. Stop with the young and inexperienced talk. The only player with any clout on the team that is young is Tristan Thompson, and he is not the world beater that LeBron and company have the media believing he is. And winning 50 plus games last year and making the finals, like I said before, equals measured success.

The only thing he said in the press conference that I agreed with was, they have a very, very long way to go. They don't use Kevin Love correctly for one. They've turned him into a three point shooting power forward. His post up game, that was unguardable while he was in Minnesota, is non existent. They don't want him clogging the lane so LeBron and Irving can drive, relegating him to the three point line. Sure, he's a good three point shooter, but he's a much better post player. Love looks lost a lot when the Cavs run their half court offense. Irving is not a point guard. He has phenomenal handles and dribbles the ball up the court, but that's not his game. He is a slasher that likes to get to the rim and can score on open jumpers. He is a two guard in a point guards body. He is a wizard with the basketball, but he is not a point guard. He's never been a good distributor and the offense doesn't run through him, it runs through LeBron. I love the way Irving plays, but he is much more suited to be a two guard. LeBron is LeBron. He's one of the best to ever play the game, but I feel like all those games and minutes that he's played is starting to wear on his body. He doesn't seem to have that quick first step anymore and he looks like a bowling ball when driving to the basket. He seems to create more contact than the players that the fouls are called on. He also cannot shoot from the outside. If I was guarding him, I'd take two steps back and let him shoot jumpers all night. That's what I'd want him to do. He's an all time great, but he hasn't looked that way so far this year.

Now, lets get to the two games I mentioned earlier. I've heard on ESPN and sports talk radio and talk shows that the East is closing the gap on the West. I've heard that the Cavs are a real threat to the Spurs, Warriors and even the Thunder, but look at the Cavs most recent losses to see how wrong these columnists and TV personalities are. They held a slim lead over the Spurs going into half time last Thursday, but then the second half started. The Spurs looked unstoppable. Tony Parker was getting to the rim at will. Aldridge was having an off night, but he was finding open shooters left and right from the post. Kevin Love was getting schooled by Tim Duncan all game. Kawhi Leonard was shutting down LeBron on defense and getting his on offense. The Spurs were clearly the superior team. Side bar, the Spurs play the most beautiful basketball I've ever seen. Their offense is so sophisticated, yet they make it look easy. I love watching the Spurs play. The Spurs dominated that second half and when the Cavs have to turn to Matthew Dellavedova and JR Smith for offense, god help them.

The Warriors just demolished them last night. They were hitting threes at an insane rate. They were running up and down the court with ease. They looked like they were in so much better shape than the Cavs. The Warriors suffocated them on defense. Draymond Green was shutting down all the Cavs big men and Steph Curry did Steph Curry things. As good as the Spurs looked the week before beating them, the Warriors looked better. They looked so much better than the Cavs in fact, I couldn't believe that they were on the same court. It looked like a varsity team playing a junior varsity team. The Warriors are about a thousand times better than the Cavs, even with both teams at full strength. Curry lit up Irving, Green and Barnes crushed Love all night and any number of Warriors player, be it Andre Iguodala or Barnes moving over to James or Shaun Livingston, basically anyone they threw at James, completely shut him down.

The Cavs may be the best team in the East, but stop with the talk of the East closing the gap on the West. The West's three top teams all have better records than the Cavs and I'd take any one of those teams, be it the Thunder, Spurs or Warriors, any day before I pick the Cavs. The Warriors and Spurs proved in the past five days that the East's best cannot even come close to competing with the West's best. I'm sure the Cavs will represent the East in the finals again this year, and I'm sure they'll lose to either the Spurs or the Warriors.

It will probably be a sweep too.

Ty

Ty is the Pop Culture editor for SeedSing and the other host of the X Millennial Man podcast. He has been practicing his Lebron defense and cannot wait to get his shot at the Cavs. Follow Ty on twitter @tykulik.

Green Bay Repeats as Heart Breakers in the Playoffs

How can a little lake town in Wisconsin make me so sad?

So, we had divisional playoff NFL football this past weekend. All the games went chalk, as expected. Carolina used 31 first half points and thwarted Seattle's comeback in the second half, much to my delight. Denver eeked out a win over the extremely short handed Steelers and New England pretty much dominated Kansas City from start to finish in their game. Then, we had Arizona and Green Bay Saturday night.

Now, I picked Arizona to win the Super Bowl on a recent podcast and blog post. I expected them to throttle the Packers. I'm a Packer fan, as everyone know by now, but I didn't think they stood much of a chance in this game. I didn't think their "offensive outburst" against Washington was a sign that they were turning things around. They beat up on an inferior opponent, that's all that game showed me. And now, they had to face, what I consider to be the best team in the NFL, in Arizona. It was a done deal. Nice season Green Bay, let's get ready for next year.

Then the game happened.

Arizona came out flat. They couldn't do much on offense. Much of that was due to mental mistakes by Carson Palmer, but Green Bay's defense played an almost perfect game. They forced Palmer into bad throws, they shut down Arizona's run game and the secondary had their receivers blanketed, helped tremendously by Sam Shields coming back from a concussion. Now, Green Bay's offense wasn't doing much of anything either, scoring only 6 first half points. But, in the second half, Green Bay finally scored a touchdown and gave themselves a 6 point lead. Arizona would cut it to 3 points later in the third quarter, but Green Bay looked poised to pull off the upset. As I said, Palmer was shaky all game and when Green Bay intercepted him in the end zone for the third time early in the fourth quarter, I started to think they'd get the win. They were doing almost everything right.

Then, Arizona got the ball back with about 7 minutes left and drove down the field and scored an extremely lucky tipped pass touchdown with about 3 minutes to go in the game. I was crushed. What made it worse, Green Bay went for a fourth and five the very next drive, missed it and Arizona converted a field goal to push their lead to 7. There was about 2 minutes left in the game when Green Bay got the ball back, but any hope I had was gone. They'd blown it again I figured.

But, on a fourth and twenty, Jeff Janis, a wide out that had 2 catches all season, hauled in a 60 yard pass play to give the Packers new hope. Then they wasted a whole bunch of time trying to get a play off and they were left with 12 seconds at the 40 yard line. They wasted two plays and now there was 5 seconds left. Hope was gone again. They already converted one hail mary this year, no way were they going to get a second conversion, but then it happened again. Jeff Janis out jumped two Arizona defenders and hauled in a 40 yard touch down to tie the game.

A wave of emotions over took me.

I went from upset to elated in less than 10 seconds. They still had a chance to pull off the upset. They were still alive. Then we had the coin flip that wasn't really a flip and after all that ridiculousness, Arizona won the toss and got the ball. On their first play from scrimmage, the very immobile Carson Palmer eluded three sack attempts and found a wide open Larry Fitzgerald for a 75 yard gain, all the way down to the five yard line. Two plays later, Arizona punched it in and the game was over. Green Bay, once again, lost on the first possession of overtime without even getting a chance on offense.

Two years in a row, Aaron Rodgers, arguably one of the best quarterbacks all time in football, doesn't get a chance to tie or win the game. It happened in Seattle last year and now Arizona this year. The NFL's overtime rules are an absolute joke. It's appalling that, if the first teams scores a touchdown, the other team gets no chance. It's downright idiotic, but that's Roger Goodell for you. They need to completely overhaul their overtime to either mimic the NCAA's overtime, or make it so each team gets a chance on offense with the ball. This sudden death, first touchdown wins thing is total nonsense.

Green Bay also should have never put themselves in these situations either year. They dominated and controlled the entire game in Seattle last year, except for the last 10 minutes and overtime. Green Bay had that game won and they blew it, they flat out lost that game. Seattle didn't win, Green Bay lost. But, they never got a shot in overtime and that sucks too. Same thing Saturday night. Arizona should have never been in that position to push the game to overtime. Green Bay dominated the entire game, for the most part. They shut Arizona down all night. But, when they had a chance to really end it in regulation, Sam Shields dropped a for sure pick 6. The ball went right through his hands. A couple of plays later was the tipped pass touchdown that gave Arizona the lead. Green Bay had the miracle hail mary, but their offense was forced to watch as the Cardinals scored in three short plays in overtime. Their season was over with Rodgers, Janis, Starks, Lacy and Jones sitting on the bench. They never got their shot.

The past two years as a Packers fan have been brutal. They've lost their playoff games in spectacular fashion. It sucks that their offense didn't get a chance, like I said before, the NFL's overtime rules are moronic, but they have also completely blown these games. In a word, being a Packers fan these past couple of years has been heartbreaking. They blow these games that they have in their control and then they don't get a chance in overtime because they give up a quick score and the rules are stupid. It's a shame. I hope they get right this off season because they are still a very talented team and they get Jordy Nelson back next year. I think they need to look at a coaching change, be it their head coach or their coordinators. Sure, Mike McCarthy has won a Super Bowl, but so did Mike Holmgren and when his Packer coached teams started to blow leads and games, they were quick to let him go. I still have high hopes because they still have Aaron Rodgers, Eddie Lacy, James Jones and Jordy Nelson and a decent, young defense, but these blown playoff games are starting to wear on me and give me gray hair.

I love you Green Bay, but I wish you'd stop breaking my heart. Come back strong next year, get big enough leads so you don't have to worry about overtime and win that Super Bowl I predicted you to win this year. Make it fun to be a Packers fan again.

Ty

Ty is the Pop Culture editor for SeedSing and the other host of the X Millennial Man podcast. He is looking forward to replacing his Packer and Wolverine heartbreak with a double championship party in 2017. Follow Ty on twitter @tykulik.

How Fear Rules your Street and Hope Inspires a Nation

Republicans should really get to know the hope of the Constitution

The one thing that clearly emerged from the latest Republican Presidential debate is that we can start the plans for the Hillary Clinton 2017 Inaugural ball. I know not everyone believes Hillary will be the Democratic Party nominee, but we need to accept the fact she will be the nominee, and the 44th President of the United States. This is not a personal political statement, it is fact backed up by real numbers and math. When President Clinton, the second, takes office she will have a congress fully loaded with far right wing tea partiers who will do everything in their power to make sure our government will not function. So how is it possible that the people who vote for the misogynistic, racist, and generally hateful tea party will end up with the first female President in US history?

The original concept of democracy is dependent on a plurality of the masses to elect the candidate that best represents their views. In simple terms, if we have 3 different groups of people with their own ideas, if one of those groups has over 33.33 (and 3 to infinity)% of the entire population they will rule the seats of power. One does not need a majority, 50.1% to rule, you only need to control the largest minority group. This is how the modern Republican party, and its afterbirth of the tea party, have been able to take control of the congress, and most of the state governments. Redistricting and her ugly stepbrother gerrymandering have created voting areas that reward the most hateful groups. Districts have been created in order to reward the largest voting population, not the most populous areas. In many rural areas the most racist and hateful people will vote in overwhelming majorities. Take the southern border as an example. States like Arizona, Texas, and New Mexico demonize the immigrant culture. Voting laws are structured to make it difficult for everyone to vote, everyone except white men. If you can increase the voting group the tea party cares about, while shrinking the ones who may vote for the Democratic candidate, mission accomplished is the term the republicans like to use. 

It needs to be understood that the people who subscribe to the idea of white male christian victimhood vote in every election. The percentage of these voters will reach well over 90% of the eligible population. If the white male christian victims make up 50% of the population and the opposition groups make up the other 50% we should have a stalemate. When the other population only has 25% (or less) participate in the elections, and the white male christian victims vote in over 90%, well we have a district that will send the most racist, misogynist, and generally unpleasant person to make our laws. That is the math behind the unpleasantness in Washington D.C..

The national Republican Party has no hopefully vision for America. Their Presidential candidates all talk about how the country is going to fail. Many times it sounds like the hope for the country to fail. They love guns, gold, and powdered food. The Republican Party is heavily invested in the economics of sociological failure. These people are not patriots. The pre-primary season has awarded racism, misogyny, class warfare, and dangerous hate. These candidates are either dumb, or think that the voters are extremely unintelligent. The pathetic national media covering this clown show said the most celebrated moment of the debate was when failed New Jersey Governor Chris Christie said they were going to kick President Obama'a butt out of the White House. Thankfully incompetent blowhards like Christie will not have to do anything to remove Obama. The US Constitution has it all covered to make President Obama leave. These Republicans should really read the Constitution some time. It is a fascinating document.

The Democratic Party, and next President Hillary Clinton, need to only offer Americans hope for their country and they will win every Presidential election. Sometimes that hope is quite simply a belief in the exceptionalism of America. We take in the hungry, the poor, and huddled masses, and give them a chance to be something. Most of America feels good about this image of America.  When we allow the entire country to vote, with very little regional sectarianism, hate and fear gets put to the side. The election for President has mainly been a moment of national hope and patriotism. The constant drumbeat of American failure from the Republican Party cannot gerrymander their way into the White House. 

The Republican Party has been masterful in creating a Congress who represent less than half of white men. The lack of investment in local politics by the Democratic Party (represented by The Ohio Problem) has given voice to the most backward thinking, unpatriotic people in all of America. When it comes to the Presidential election the Republicans have ceded half of the white vote, most of the women voters, and nearly all of the minority vote. Those groups represent a supermajority.  This massive number will make the 2016 election a blowout. The math adds up, hope is much greater than fear.

RD Kulik

RD is the Head editor for SeedSing. Many of his friends cannot imagine a Presidential election without Bernie Sanders or Donald Trump. They are wrong. Come state your case for your candidate by writing for SeedSing.

Empathy and the Myth of Free Will

A society with an abundance of prisons has a lack of understanding

Think of an instance where something terribly unfortunate happened to other people as a result of the actions of a person. Think of the moral judgement placed on the person who took that action. Ideas of what that person could or should have done differently might come to mind. You might think that if you were in their position, you would have done differently and that this justifies the moral judgement and thus a sense of moral superiority.

Now go back to thinking about yourself in their position. Imagine that you were that person. I mean really were that person. You have the same genetics as that person. The exact same set of life circumstances as that person. The same experiences as that person. The whole package. You would also not have your own experiences or genetics anymore. You would no longer be you, but would be that person. Can you say that the choices you made that resulted in this unfortunate happening would be different?

Once you realize the answer to this question, you can start to empathize with this person that you may have started out feeling a sense of moral superiority to. You may start to realize that while we do have choices to make in our lives and we feel the sense of freedom to make them, we really do not have that freedom. We simply make our choices out of a very complex genetic and experientially informed history. The way we experience this is as a sense of free will, but it is an illusion. An illusion we cannot help but fall for most of the time, but an illusion none the less.

So if it is an illusion that is a core part of our decision making process, you may wonder why bother pointing it out or thinking about it at all? One reason is in the example that I stepped you through in the first two paragraphs. It is the difference between seeing someone who does something that causes others suffering as a bad person or seeing them as a person who did something that hurt others. In one case you can have compassion for the person in the other you can dismiss them. One mindset inspires cooperation and understanding while the other inspires aggression, violence, and more suffering. More peaceful interactions and less judgement result.

This is not to say that we should just stand by when people cause suffering and do nothing about it. It does change the way we address it though. The realization that punishing the person directly responsible for the action that caused harm does nothing to address the root of the problem has immense value. We can accept that responding to harmful behavior with more aggression cannot bring any solace. If anything it will bring about more harm.

Instead we can address the person in question with compassion rather than judgement. We may still have to separate a person who is a harm to others from those they might hurt, but not necessarily in a poorly funded cell which provides an environment of fear which often causes the problems which lead to acts of harm. We already recognize the difference when the person committing the act has a known mental disorder. We treat them differently in our justice system than those to whom we attribute an act of free will. What I am saying is that we could apply that sense of corrective potential to any criminal act.

Not only does this realization of the illusion of free will inspire us to be more compassionate toward others, but it leads to more compassion toward ourselves. Most of us have realized the harmful result of our own actions at some point in our lives. When this happens we often beat ourselves up over it. Forgetting the perfect vision of hindsight, we tell ourselves that we should have known better. Instead we can realize that we did the best we could with the resources we had available to our minds in the moment and move on to acceptance. Then we may use the experience to learn instead of dwell and cause ourselves further harm. We can be more aware of the influence of our actions the next time and make more positive changes in ourselves.

Do you think your perspective might benefit from a realization that free will is an illusion? Does the idea inspire any other thoughts in you? Let me know in the comments.

Kirk Aug

Kirk runs the idea farm here at SeedSing. Send us your thoughts, and we will publish them here. Do not forget to follow Kirk on twitter @kirkaug.

Ty's Mount Rushmore of Comedy Greats

I was pretty funny back in the day

I'm a huge fan of stand up comedy. I go to a ton of shows, I own a lot of comedy records, I watch specials on Netflix, Comedy Central, Showtime, basically any channel that puts comedy specials on and I listen to, primarily, comedy podcasts. I just love comedy and I devour it.

I've been thinking a lot lately about what four comedians would make my personal Mount Rushmore of stand up comics. A lot of people have crossed my mind. I'm a bit too young for guys like George Carlin or Bob Newhart. I like their stuff a lot, but it was well before my time. Some people my age really like guys like Adam Sandler, Dane Cook and David Spade. I used to like all three of these guys, mainly Sandler, but as I've grown up, their comedy does nothing for me now. It's hackneyed and tired. I'm a humongous fan of the alternative comedy scene that's blowing up right now, but, guys and girls like Doug Benson, Jen Kirkman, Maria Bamford, John Mulaney, Pete Holmes and The Sklar Brothers, just to name a few, have a long, long way to go to be on anyone's Mount Rushmore. I also love improv comedy. I really like people that can make you laugh by simply using a suggestion from the audience. People like Matt Besser, Eugene Cordero, Jon Gabrus, Amy Poehler and Lauren Lapkus are super, super talented, but they don't make my cut. I love all of these comedians, but there are four that stand head and shoulders above the rest, in my opinion. I'll count them down from four to one and tell you why they made my Rushmore. Let's get started.

Coming in at number four is the wonderful Tig Notaro. She's a comic genius. Her delivery is so perfect for her style of comedy. She's has a monotone, slower delivery that, when she hits that punchline, it totally pays off. She's silly without acting silly. She has a very calm demeanor while on stage. Her new special was fantastic, but I always go back to her album "Live". This was the album she put out right after she was diagnosed with cancer, she had a very rare, very intense disease that was literally eating her insides, her girlfriend just broke up with her and her mom unexpectedly died after hitting her head. She had all these terrible problems going on and she went on stage and let it all out for the audience that night. It's sad, it's heart breaking, it's devastating, but she makes it funny. She is such a tremendous comic that is finally getting the respect that she deserves. Tig Notaro is a powerhouse and everyone needs to check her out. She's awesome.

The third head on my mountain is Hannibal Burress. He's the youngest one on the list, but he is an absolutely hilarious stand up that is totally blowing up right now. He's part of the alt scene, but he's also a huge sports fan and a fan of rap music. That's not very common in the alt scene right now. He has some great bits about the NBA and when he makes fun of rap lyrics in his live shows, it's some of the funniest stuff I've ever seen. He also talks about the problems with meeting people and being young in Hollywood. He has some great bits about things I'd never think was funny. Talking about pickle juice or his first name or searching for jobs, he makes these everyday problems hilarious. I've seen him twice the past two years and each time, he absolutely destroys. I know he's gained a lot of notoriety for his Cosby bit, but he was up and coming well before that blew up. He is also a very funny writer and actor. He wrote for "SNL" and "30 Rock" and his stuff was great. He's also got his own show on Comedy Central, which I've written about, and he's fantastic on "The Eric Andre Show". Hannibal Burress is only going to get bigger and bigger. He's on his way to super stardom.

Number two was my introduction to the world of stand up comedy, Brian Regan. I was given his first stand up album by a friend of mine and I listened and laughed at that record so much, I had to buy three more copies because I kept wearing them out. He is also a "clean" comic. That means he doesn't swear during his live sets. In this day and age, that's incredible. He is a show man in every sense of the word. He is constantly moving on stage, his facial and body expressions add so much to his shows and he is the master at delivering a punch line. It's been said, in the comedy community, that he's one of the hardest comedians to follow. He crushes so hard, that the audience is all laughed out by the time the next comic comes up. That's the highest compliment a stand up can get, if you ask me. I've seen Regan five times live, and each show is better than the last. He sells out arenas and theaters no matter where he goes and his fans adore him. He's the only stand up that I've seen that does encores. He comes out and does one of his many famous jokes and the audience eats it up. I'm so glad that I was introduced to Brian Regan, He literally changed my life when it comes to stand up comedy. I had to find more people that did this because it was so funny and so great. Without Regan, I may have never gotten into stand up comedy.

Which brings me to the only comedian that surpasses Regan and that's Louis C.K. I mean, he is literally a genius. He's one of the hardest working people, not only in comedy, but in show business. Not only does he star in the best show on TV, "Louie", but he writes, directs, edits and produces it. That's so much work and he does it so very well. He also releases a new special every year with brand new material. Imagine how hard that must be. To come up with an entire new hour in comedy has to be one of the hardest things to do. I hear other stand ups talk about how it takes them 18 months to 2 years to come up with a new hour. Louis C.K. does that every single year, while doing his show and acting in movies and other TV shows. In his stand up, he talks about everyday life and it's completely relatable. He talks about kids, work, family and friends and he does it very vulgar and very, very hilariously. Go back and watch any one of his specials and I guarantee you will love it and laugh your ass off. There is nobody better in the comedy game right now than Louis C.K. I cannot end this blog without mentioning that he wrote and directed one of mine and out editor's favorite movies, "Pootie Tang". Next time you watch "Pootie Tang" think about that and you will fall in love with the movie. Louis C.K. is a true comedy genius and he's a once in a lifetime legend that I will always hold in very high regard. He's the best.

So, that's my Mount Rushmore of stand up comedians. I love these four people and I love that they are all still producing new material. It gets no better than these four comedians.  

Ty

Ty is the Pop Culture editor for SeedSing and the other host of the X Millennial Man podcast. His current source of high comedy comes from the jokes his three year old hears in pre-school. Follow Ty on twitter @tykulik.

The Oscar Nominations Came Out Today, and They Mostly Suck

I am not sure the Oscars really know what is good.

I know I promised everyone a greatest American band blog today, but I'm putting that off until next week. There's bigger fish to fry for me today.

The Oscar nominations were handed out this morning and I have two big, big problems with the nominees. First off, why all the white people again? Do the people who vote on these awards think that there are no people of color that act in movies these days? There were a decent number of people that were well deserving of, at the very least, a nomination. What about Samuel L Jackson for his performance in "Hateful 8"? He was awesome. What about Michael B Jordan in "Creed"? Stallone gets nominated, but the lead of this great movie gets no love? That's lame. And even though the movie "Concussion" didn't have its desired effect and wasn't very good, Will Smith was excellent and totally deserved a nomination. I guess the people that give out the nominations are racist, old white people that wish it was still 1950. It's a shame that they refuse to nominate actors that aren't white, especially in 2016. It's upsetting to be frank. I wonder how long it will actually take for actors of color to get their due. It's time, and there are so many great African American, Asian, Indian and so on and so forth of any ethnicity well deserving. I'm sick of all the same white people being nominated. I'm done with Meryl Streep and Matt Damon and Jennifer Lawrence being the people that get nominated no matter how bad or repetitive their performances are. Eddie Redmayne belongs with the people I mentioned above too. I'll take Michael B Jordan, Will Smith and Samuel L Jackson any day over the four actors I just mentioned.

Second issue, my biggest problem, why is Charlize Theron not nominated for her role, Furiosa, in "Mad Max: Fury Road"? How on earth does this happen? How was Jennifer Lawrence's performance in "Joy" aka "Silver Linings Playbook 2", more deserving than Theron? Or Cate Blanchette in a movie I've never heard of, "Carol", more deserving? In fact, Brie Larson in "Room" is the only one that I have no problem with being nominated. "Mad Max: Fury Road" got a ton of nominations, but none for acting. That's wrong. Theron was the best actor in the best movie of the year, possibly of all time. She was so fantastic and perfect in her role. She played the part expertly. She was tough when needed, vulnerable when needed, sad and angry when needed, basically, whatever George Miller asked of her, she did it and did it phenomenally. She was so, so great in this movie. I know it's called "Mad Max", but Furiosa, not Max, was the star and leader of this movie. This may be one of the biggest snubs of all time in Oscar history. I just don't get what else she could have done. Maybe the movie needed to be foreign, or she needed some kind of disease, or she needed some kind of smaller indie role that the academy loves now. That's all bullshit. Why won't they reward the actors from the movie that's widely considered the best movie of the year? It makes absolutely no sense at all. I wrote before, and I still believe, Theron not only deserved the nomination, but she 100 percent deserves the Oscar. There was no better performance all year from anyone, man, woman or child. Theron was head and shoulders above anyone that's been nominated this year. Another shame.

I guess I should know by now to be disappointed in what this dumbass academy does every year. They clearly don't care for minorities and they are just flat out wrong when it comes to nominating actors and actresses. You'd think they'd be more conscious in the 21st century, but they're still racist and stupid.

The morons that give out these nominations suck.

Ty

Ty is the Pop Culture editor for SeedSing and the other host of the X Millennial Man podcast. He was once nominated for a grade school acting award, but lost it to the kid playing tree #2. Follow Ty on twitter @tykulik.