Dwayne Wade to the Bulls is more Free Agency Nonsense from the Teams in the East

The moves of the East confuse me greatly

Dwayne Wade shocked the NBA world yesterday when he agreed to a 2 year deal with the Bulls. I assumed that if he left the Heat, he'd go play with LeBron and for the Cavs. Those 2 are the best of friends and they've achieved the highest success you can in the NBA. That seemed to make the most sense. I figured the other reports, places like Denver for example, where pipe dreams. But, the Chicago signing was just as shocking, at least to me.

The Bulls have made some interesting moves this off season. Some I've liked, trading Derrick Rose, but others are head scratchers, letting E'twaun Moore walk and signing Rajon Rondo. This Dwayne Wade signing is a head scratcher to me. I thought they'd be giving the keys to the team to Jimmy Butler, as they should, but Wade and Rondo are ball dominant players that can't consistently make jumpers, so there will be little to no spacing for Butler. It's all very weird.

This leads me to my main point today, why does the East think signing players well past their prime will give them any shot at beating the Warriors? The Warriors, by signing Kevin Durant not only stayed young, but they've got much, much better shooting than any team ever. The "big" acquisitions in East are laughable if they think they will even compete with the Warriors in the finals, and yes, the Warriors will be in the finals, mark it in pen. Do teams like the Knicks really think acquiring Derrick Rose, Joakim Noah and Courtney Lee really makes them title contenders? Rose is old and coming off a slew of injuries. Noah can barely jump or run because his feet are damaged. And Courtney Lee, he wasn't the top option in Memphis or Charlotte last year. I already mentioned all the problems the Bulls are going to face. I mean, they finally traded Rose, but the guys they are bringing in now, they'll be a 6 or 7 seed, at the very best. I feel so bad for Jimmy Butler. He deserves so much better. Now, the Cavs are, reportedly, acquiring Mike Dunleavy Jr in a trade from the Bulls. Is Mike Dunleavy Jr really any threat to anyone? Is he really going to help the Cavs repeat as champs? I don't think so.

The moves in the West have been so much better and trending towards athletes in, or nearing, their primes. There's the much talked about Durant to Warriors move. The Mavericks are bringing in Harrison Barnes. I know he didn't show up in the finals, but right now, I'd much rather have him than Joakim Noah. The Spurs got their Tim Duncan replacement by signing Pau Gasol. The Grizzlies re upped Mike Conley Jr and signed Chandler Parsons. Hell, even the Timberwolves went out and signed Cole Aldrich and Brandon Rush to small, easy to manage contracts. The West is going to be so much better than the East for awhile. I know the Cavs won the title, but that will just be a small blip in the radar in the long run.

What it all really comes down to, the NBA has two really, really good teams, the Warriors and the Cavs. And they will continue to face each other in the finals until LeBron leaves Cleveland, or the Warriors suffer some catastrophic injuries. The moves the teams in the East are making are bizarre, and no threat at all to the Cavs or Warriors. The finals, for the third year in a row, will be a rematch.

Ty

Ty is the Pop Culture editor for SeedSing and the other host of the X Millennial Man Podcast. Hear all about his heartburn over NBA free agency on this weeks mini edition of the X Millennial Man Podcast. Follow Ty on twitter @tykulik.

The Avett Brothers get Back on Track with "True Sadness"

Reward your needle with some good new music

One week ago the Avett Brothers, one of the Greatest American Bands, released their new album, "True Sadness". This is their first new record since they released "Magpie and the Dandelion" a few years ago. "Magpie and the Dandelion" was a fine record. It showed the band taking more chances and trying some new sounds. They played a lot more electric guitar on that album. They used a full drum kit a bit more as well. It was different from everything they'd done before. I liked the new sound, but it didn't seem as polished as their older, more folksy stuff did. They also kind of abandoned the folk on "Magpie and the Dandelion". As I stated, it's a fine record, but it could've been better.

Well, with "True Sadness", I think they found a way to blend their older folk sound with the newer chances they have been taking. "True Sadness" finds the band trying out synthesizers, more electric guitar, effects driven vocals and bigger, louder drums. But, they also went back to their roots and played some straight forward folk songs. I'm a big, big fan of this new album. I waited with bated breath to see how they'd follow up what some deemed a disappointing effort from them in "Magpie and the Dandelion". "True Sadness" is an absolute home run.

If you want some examples of songs that find them taking new, good chances, check out tunes like, "You Are Mine", where they have a synthesizer as the main instrument. Another good song, with distorted vocals and guitar is, "Satan Pulls the Strings". It's a straight up rock and roll song. Then, the opener to the record, "Ain't No Man" is a great blend of folk and rock. The band yell sings the lyrics, almost in a call and response, and there is an infectious hand clap rhythm. I love that song. For more traditional Avett Brothers songs, check out the title track, "True Sadness". It starts slow with just guitar, and it builds like an older Avett Brothers song, and ends tremendously. There are also other good, old school Avett Brothers stuff like, "I Wish I Was" and "Divorce Seperation Blues". "I Wish I Was" is slow, acoustic and reminiscent of something on "Emotionalism" or "I And Love And You". It's a very sweet, nice song. "Divorce Seperation Blues" is a great, countryish song. It has a blues rhythm, but it is sung like a country tune. It's also sad, but the way the band plays it, it sounds upbeat.

I really enjoy this new record. I don't think it's a coincidence that the Avett Brothers teamed up with Rick Rubin on this record and they made great music together again. When they get together, they make very good, listenable stuff. Rick Rubin is a genius and the greatest producer of all time. His work with the Avett Brothers proves how versatile and how good of an ear he has for all genres of music. If you're a fan of the Avett Brothers, and like when they take chances, I highly recommend "True Sadness", I bet you will like it as much as I do.

Ty

Ty is the Pop Culture editor for SeedSing and the other host of the X Millennial Man Podcast. Even when he is on vacation, Ty still likes to keep up on his articles. Reward his good work ethic by following Ty on twitter @tykulik.

Love it or Hate it, Cincinnati does have some Interesting Chili

Baby, if you ever wondered what became of the most interesting chili. It is in Cincinnati.

I just spent the last 3 and a half days visiting my brother and his family in Cincinnati over the 4th of July. We go there occasionally on the fourth for our family vacation. Cincinnati, in my opinion, is kind of a dull town. But, there is some good food and some cool things to do.

For one, if you go there, check out Findlay Market. It's a very cool farmers market with great shops and equally great food. Reds games are cheap and they have a cool playground for young kids inside the stadium. Cincinnati is the home of Grater's Ice Cream, which may be the best ice cream in the whole United States. Loveland, the town my brother lives in, is very cool and hip with some neat downtown stuff to check out.

The thing I look most forward too, besides seeing family, is Skyline. Skyline is just like any other fast food restaurant, but it has a very special niche. Skyline is famous for their chili. I think it has chocolate or cinnamon, or both, and it's very interesting. I know that a lot of people do not care for their take on chili. My brother, RD, will not eat it when we go there. I believe Drew Magary,of Deadspin, called it "prison chili". Then, there is just a lot of random people that just don't enjoy the taste. I am not one of these people. Skyline is one of my highlights and must hit spots when my family visits.

Now, I don't eat the chili just plain, in a bowl. I am not a big fan of soups, stews, anything like that, so chili in a bowl is not my thing. But, put that chili on a hot dog with some cheese, or put it on fries with cheese, I'm in. What sets Skyline apart, aside from the sweet chili, is the hot dog and the bun. The hot dogs are very tiny and they appear to be steamed. This steaming technique gives the hot dog a very juicy taste. It's very tasty. The buns, also small, are steamed as well. The whole chili dog experience has a juiciness to it that is exquisite. The icing on the chili dog cake is the finely shredded cheddar cheese they they load on top of the dog. It is so god damn good. This is the best part of the whole eating experience. When you take that first bite and get a bit of sweet chili, steamed hot dog and bun, and finish it off with a big bite of cheese, man, my mouth is watering just thinking about it, and I ate three of them no less than an hour ago. I LOVE these chili dogs. The sweetness of the chili offsets the saltiness of the rest of the food perfectly. The same thing with the chili fries, instead the salt portion is the fry. These are almost as good as the dogs, almost. The best part of the fries is, once again, the heaping portion of cheese on top. I think the cheese at Skyline may be the best shredded cheese on Earth. It's dynamite.

I know that outside of, and even inside, Cincinnati, the chili can get a bad rap, but I think it's great. If you have never been to Cincinnati and are planning a trip there, you have to go to Skyline, get some chili dogs and chili cheese fries. You will thank me later. And thank you Skyline for always coming through every time I visit Cincinnati. You guys are the best.

Ty

Ty is the Pop Culture editor for SeedSing and the other host of the X Millennial Man Podcast. He wishes Skyline had breakfast, then he would only have to visit one restaurant in the Queen City. Follow Ty on twitter @tykulik.

NBA Free Agency Separates the Man from the Role Player

No matter the number of superstars, there is still only one ball

With the news that Kevin Durant has signed with the Golden State Warriors, that sound you are hearing is the NBA, and their super stars dying a slow, painful death. This all started back in 2008 when the Celtics signed Kevin Garnett and traded for Ray Allen to pair the two of them with Paul Pierce. Sure, it seemed cool and they had their "big three", but something about that whole deal irked me. I didn't like that Garnett, who is one of my all time favorite players, basically threw in the towel and decided that it would be best to team up with two all stars so he could win a title. They did just that, in 2008, and went to another finals the next season.

But, this whole idea of "super teams" and having a "big three", really took off in 2010 with LeBron James and his decision to join Dwayne Wade and Chris Bosh and go play for the Heat. This was a cop out in every sense of the word. LeBron knew that he wasn't going to win a title on his first go around with the Cavs. Their roster was too old, or they weren't playoff ready. He knew, if he wanted to win the title, he would have to team up with some other star players. When LeBron, Wade and Bosh played together, they played great, but my distaste for where the NBA was headed really came to a head. I mean, of course the Heat were going to contend every year because they had 3 of the 15 best players in the NBA in their starting 5. This took all the drama out of the games. We all knew that the Heat would be the 1 or the 2 seed and cruise through the east and make the finals, it was a foregone conclusion. There was no need to watch the regular season or the first couple of rounds in the playoffs, we knew the outcome. The Heat were great with their "big three". They made the finals four times, and won 2 of them, but I was growing weary of all the "power" teams. After LeBron's decision, every big time free agent or team was looking to get their own "big three", thus watering down the game even more.

The super team did not always have immediate success like the Celtics or Heat. While Kobe was still playing, the Lakers went out and traded for Dwight Howard and Steve Nash. That blew up in their face, but they still made the playoffs with their "big three". When Chris Paul got traded to the Clippers, they had him, Blake Griffin and an emerging player in DeAndre Jordan. They haven't panned out like they hoped, but they still contend every year. Two years ago when LeBron returned to Cleveland, it was under the stipulation that they would trade Andrew Wiggins for Kevin Love, thus giving LeBron another "big three" in him, Love and Kyrie Irving. Last off season, the Spurs went out and fooled everyone when they were able to land LaMarcus Aldridge. The Spurs have never star chased, but they needed an apparent to Tim Duncan, who I think I read that he is going to retire, so instead of drafting his replacement, they went out and got a proven commodity. The Spurs had their version of a "big four", with Duncan, Aldridge, Tony Parker and Kawhi Leonard. Cleveland did win the title in their second year, and we are still waiting to see where the Spurs go.

You may have noticed, I have only mentioned 5 total teams so far. That's because these are the only title contending teams that have been around since the idea of teaming up stars started 8 years ago. Well, now with Kevin Durant's decision to leave the Thunder, make that 6 teams I will mention. The Warriors, who won 73 games last season, made the finals for a second straight year, would have won if not for LeBron's complaining, have Steph Curry and Klay Thompson, also have Draymond Green, they now have Kevin Durant, for at least one season. This feels like a weak, cop out move from the guy that was my favorite player in the NBA. Durant was the first option, for the most part, on a very good Thunder team. He played with Russell Westbrook, a top guard in the league. He played with one of the better centers in the NBA in Steven Adams. They went out and got Victor Oladipo, who I think will thrive in their offense. The Thunder were/could still be a very competitive team. But, Durant decided that wasn't good enough for him. He chose to be the third, sometimes fourth option on the Warriors. Durant will not be the guy with the ball in his hands when it comes to the final seconds of the important games. The Warriors will go with Curry first, Thompson second, and Draymond Green, in certain situations, will be their third option. Then, it will be Durant's turn. I hope he is okay with that. Hell, maybe that's what he wants at this point in his career. I don't mind him chasing rings, but he will not be the most important, or the second most important player on the Warriors. The fans will not be cheering loudest for him either. Those fans in the Bay Area will always love Steph way more than they will ever love Durant.

This move just stinks of what the NBA is becoming. None of the star players want a challenge anymore. These guys get beat by someone, but instead of getting better in the off season, so they can beat them, they just figure, I'll just join them. There is no competitive spirit in the NBA anymore. And that is because the new stars have been told how great they are their whole life. They've never had to face adversity, and at the first sign of it, they get scared and get out of the situation. The NBA is dying a slow and painful death with these "super teams", and I never thought that Durant would join one. I guess he is not the killer he tries to appear to be on the court. Also, if the Warriors don't win at least 70 games and the finals, with ease, this season, it should deemed a failed season. It would be preposterous if they don't breeze their way to a title.

Finally, I have changed my allegiance from the Thunder and Kevin Durant to the Timberwolves and Andrew Wiggins, maybe Karl Anthony-Towns. The Timberwolves and those two young players have gained a new fan today. Go T'Wolves!

Ty  

Ty is the Pop Culture editor for SeedSing and the other host of the X Millennial Man Podcast. He has been a longtime Timberwolves fan, dating all the way back to the summer of 2016. Follow Ty on twitter @tykulik. 

Having More Time Makes any Book Better than the Movie

Make sure your book has charged batteries before you take the time to read

So, for all of my posts this week, I wanted to try something a bit different. My wife and I were talking the other day and she told me that I should argue a point that I don't necessarily agree with. All five posts this week will be topics given to me that I have expressed a dislike for to, either my wife or everyone who reads my blog, but I have to give the opposite view. I have to explain why these things are actually true, or that they at least have some good qualities. This is going to be a weird, but also very fun, and maybe even a bit difficult, but I'm up to the task.

My fifth, and final, topic sentence of the week from my wife, "books are always better than their TV/movie adaptation. This sounds like it should be an easy one, but I'm the type of person that will watch a show, or see the movie first, before I read the book. Case and point, I saw the movie "Friday Night Lights", then read the book, then watched the TV show. I will say, the book was the best, but I enjoyed the movie a hell of a lot more than the show, but the show was great. An example that is contrary to my wife's belief, I adore both "One Flew Over the Cuckoo Nest" and "A Clockwork Orange", but I find the books almost unreadable. I also loved what Spike Jonze did with "Where the Wild Things Are". I thought that book would be nearly impossible to bring to the big screen, but he achieved that very task. But, I do see why my wife, and a lot of other people, feel that books are better than their adaptations.

Here goes with my answer to why books are better.

First off, movies and TV shows have a time limit, unless you are Richard Linklater or Judd Apatow, and you make your movies a million hours long. The directors and writers usually get 2, sometimes 2 and a half hours to tell a story. When the writer writes their book, they can use as many pages as they want. They can make their book 100 to 1,000 pages, if they choose. My first example is "The Hobbit". I believe that there is one book and three movies. The book is about 200 to 250 pages long, but it is filled with some of the best imagery in writing. That book took my mind to a world that I did not think was possible. I never thought of trolls, giants, any of the stuff in "The Hobbit", but after reading it, I had this whole world dreamed up in my head. Then, Peter Jackson, who I think is a very capable director, made three of the most boring, over long movies ever when he adapted "The Hobbit". He made three movies, each well over 2 hours, and that just did not have to happen. He could have done one 3 hour long movie that encompassed the entire book, but he chose to divide the short story into three  2 plus hour movies and they were not very good, in my opinion. The world I dreamed in my head was not Peter Jackson's vision for the movie. And that is okay, everyone has different ideas. But, why did each movie have to be so damn long? That was unnecessary. J R R Tolkien created a much better world in one short book. Peter Jackson got a little too big for his britches after the "Lord of the Rings" success and made the "Hobbit" movies entirely too long. This is one case where I completely agree that the book is so much better than the movie.

Now, my second example is going to make me sound pretentious, but this topic is pretentious, and where else can I be pretentious than on the internet, but every Bret Easton Ellis book is so, so much better than their movie adaptation. For those that don't know, Ellis wrote, among things, "American Psycho", "The Rules of Attraction" and "Less Than Zero". Let's first look at "American Psycho". That book is about as disturbing and violent as it gets. The imagery in that book is frighteningly real. I could not read that book before bed for fear of having nightmares. The description of the heinous acts still haunts me, and I haven't read that book in well over a year. But, the movie left a lot to be desired. I get that they couldn't make the movie nearly as brutal as the book, but therein lies the problem with adapting a book. The book has more time and can paint a realistic picture. Movies, 2 hours and out. While the book "American Psycho" terrified me, the movie was kind of blah. Then, I read "Less Than Zero". That book is a brutal look into the life of wealthy Californian kids that suffer with real problems, like drug addiction, divorce and having too much wealth way too young. The way Ellis described this stuff in the book made it seem real to me. I could picture these kids. Hell, I knew some of these kids. But, the movie, save for Robert Downey Jr, almost played like an after school special. The movie didn't take the chances that the book did. But, I'm sure that the agents of the young actors didn't want their clients to do some of the stuff in the book because it could have tarnished their image. That's a bummer because that movie could have been great. And, "The Rules of Attraction" book was so much better than the garbage movie they made. The book focused, again, on rich, white college students with problems. But, the book had a little humor to it that made it very enjoyable. I would read some stuff and laugh out loud, but then I'd be brought back down immediately by something heart breaking. The movie, on the other hand, was trash. The director and casting agents picked young "stars" like James Van Der Beek and Jessica Biel, and tried to make them look angsty and tough. Well, no matter how much fake cocaine Jessica Biel does, or how many fights Van Der Beek got in, I couldn't help but laugh, and not in a good way, at the performances in the movie. It was terrible. Ellis himself proved to be a bad movie writer himself when he made that god awful movie with Lindsay Lohan and a porn star, but he is a novelist, not a movie writer.

One final example I have is "James and the Giant Peach". I loved this book as a kid. This was one of the first chapter books I read in elementary school. Roald Dahl was, and still is, a genius in my opinion. The book is so imaginative and so beautifully written. Again, the imagery in my mind is wonderous. But, the movie just couldn't compare. They even tried with an animated movie, but it was not the same. This time, at least, the movie was halfway decent, but it was nowhere near as cool as the book.

I'm sure there are thousands of other examples, but these are the ones that came to my mind immediately. Tell me and my wife about some other ones in the comment section. But, I do have to agree, once again, with my wife. Books are usually much, much better than their adaptations.

Ty with a little help from his wife

Ty is the Pop Culture editor for SeedSing and the other host of the X Millennial Man Podcast. He is already upset the movie version of his life will leave out the part where he spun the world backwards and saved Lois Lane. Movies need to run on time. You should follow Ty on twitter @tykulik.

The Lakers will Continue to Go Nowhere with the Mozgov Signing

The Lakers continue on the road to nowhere

NBA free agency started this morning at midnight. Some big names have supposedly already signed contracts. Guys like DeMar DeRozan is, reportedly, staying in Toronto on a 5 year, 130 million dollar plus contract. Nic Batum is supposedly staying in Charlotte on a near max deal. Hassan Whiteside has supposedly signed a max deal to stay in Miami. Joakim Noah is probably going to sign with the Knicks on an absurd 4 year, 70 plus million dollar deal. Like I said, some big names have already signed, or are going to sign.

There are the big names on the market, LeBron James and Kevin Durant. LeBron isn't going anywhere. He will continue to do this every season until he retires in Cleveland. He will keep signing these 1 year deals, opt out, get more money and come back. That is what he does, and he can do that because he is the best player in the game. So, don't believe any garbage that he is going to LA or Miami again. He is staying in Cleveland.

Then there is Durant. Most people think, me included, that he will sign a 1 plus 1 and stay in OKC one more year and wait for Westbrook to become a free agent. It makes the most sense, both professionally and financially. I fully believe he will do this, and all the meetings are just a formality so he doesn't have to do it again next season when he inevitably opts out. He is just getting a feel for next season, when the cap will skyrocket.

The one contract that I want to single outtoday is the supposed 4 year, 64 million dollar deal the Lakers are giving Timofey Mozgov. I know I said the Noah deal with the Knicks is absurd, but, if this deal is legit, this will be the worst move in all of free agency. I'm calling it right now. This shows how far the once proud Lakers have fallen. They aren't even getting a meeting with Durant. They missed out on LaMarcus Aldridge last year because the Buss kids don't know what in the hell they are doing. They couldn't come close to landing Whiteside. Kevin Love, who is from LA, seems like a pipe dream now. This Mozgov signing is the icing on the shit cake though. Earlier in the day they re upped Jordan Clarkson, which I really liked, but they destroyed any good will I had for them with this horrid Mozgov deal. What good is Timofey Mozgov anymore? He was non existent for the Cavs in their title run this season. I barely saw him play at all throughout the whole playoffs in fact. Also, didn't the Lakers do almost this exact same thing last year when they signed Roy Hibbert? Why do they think these out of their prime big men are worth all this money? The league is going away from big centers and moving more towards a fast paced offense with bigs that can run and shoot. Mozgov cannot do either of those things. Also, how is going to keep up with Clarkson, D'Angelo Russell, Julius Randle and Brandon Ingram? Why did Luke Walton agree to this deal? He coached Andrew Bogut, but Timofey Mozgov is no Andrew Bogut.

This is a quagmire signing for the Lakers. They will immediately regret this when Mozgov is only playing 5 minutes a game and netting a plus minus in the negative. What a horrible, god awful move by the Lakers. Mozgov does not deserve, or fit in, with what the Lakers plan as a team will be. This is a fleeting move by a fleeting franchise.

Ty

Ty is the Pop Culture editor for SeedSing and the other host of the X Millennial Man Podcast. He wants the Lakers to know that he can be signed for 10% of Mozgov's contract and Ty will give equal production. Follow Ty on twitter @tykulik.

Is Wolverine Really the Best Member of the X-Men?

You better not badmouth my favorite hero

So, for all of my posts this week, I wanted to try something a bit different. My wife and I were talking the other day and she told me that I should argue a point that I don't necessarily agree with. All five posts this week will be topics given to me that I have expressed a dislike for to, either my wife or everyone who reads my blog, but I have to give the opposite view. I have to explain why these things are actually true, or that they at least have some good qualities. This is going to be a weird, but also very fun, and maybe even a bit difficult, but I'm up to the task.

Topic sentence number four from my wife, "having Wolverine's powers wouldn't be all that great". This is incredibly tough for me. I'm a huge X-Men fan and my favorite superhero, by an incredibly wide margin, is Wolverine. He has the coolest suit, attitude and, quite frankly, the best powers. At least, that's the way that I see it. This topic has been brought up a few times just in casual conversation in my home, but I have never had to argue against Wolverine. This will be tougher than yesterday's topic, but I'm going to do my absolute best.

Here it goes.

We all know that Wolverine has an adamantium skeleton and claws. The claws come out when Wolverine is angry, frightened, or a big fight is about to happen. He also has the ability to regenerate. This means, if he is stabbed, shot, basically maimed in any way, his body will heal it self. Adamantium is the strongest metal in the world, even more so than vibranium, which Captain America's shield is made of. The fact that Wolverine can regenerate makes it pretty much impossible for him to die. He has lived through wars, gunshot wounds, stab wounds, sword fights, fights with other mutants, everything that has come his way, he has survived. Those powers sound so kick ass to me, but I do see why some people may not like them, and why they aren't all they are cracked up to be.

First off, when Wolverine gets his adamantium skeleton, it is blindingly painful. They replace his bones with metal. That would not be a good time at all. To be a guinea pig for some insane scientist or war general, that would stink. To be given a new skeletal structure, against your will, would be very hard to deal with. Then, this makes his claws turn to metal. His claws were originally bone protrusions, but when his skeleton was replaced, that made the claws adamantium as well. It had to have been painful enough when the claws were made of bone. Imagine how hurtful that would be. One minute you are cool and calm, then BAM! bone claws come shooting out of your hand. Now, imagine that happening with metal claws. That would hurt like a son of a bitch. I bet he'd, if he couldn't regenerate, have to get stiches all the time. Also, metal shooting out of your hands is flat out insane. That would also be very hard to cope with as well.

The biggest, possibly most brutal part of Wolverine's existence is the fact that he can regenerate and never die. Sure, it would be nice to have a wound heal on its own, but you still have to deal with the pain of getting brutally injured. At least with Deadpool, he can just laugh it off. Wolverine, he deals with the pain. That is a bummer. I can't imagine having to fight in wars, fight ninjas, fight mutants, fight bad guys and be a test subject in a lab. Just think of all the horrific injuries that he has suffered through. I've never been shot or stabbed or even really been in a legit fight, but I bet all those things hurt. I have broken bones before, and that hurt like hell. I don't even want to think about what a stab wound or a gunshot would feel like. Wolverine has had to endure all of these things, and he always comes back at full health.

Which leads me to what may be the hardest thing that Wolverine has to deal with. He can never die. Think about that for a second. Wolverine has to see all his family, friends, lovers and well wishers die. He lives through all of it because he is a mutant and because he has a metal skeletal system that can heal itself. When Jean Grey dies in "X-Men 3", spoiler alert, I felt the anguish and pain that Wolverine felt, but he had to move on. He has to have lost all of his family by now. That's a bummer. In fact, I think his only "sibling" is Sabertooth, and he became a bad guy that Wolverine has to fight. Wolverine cannot, and probably doesn't want, to make long term friendships or find a lifelong partner because his life will never end. He let himself get too close to Jean Grey, and he paid the price when she went nuts and eventually perished. This has the be the worst thing for Wolverine. In my mind it sounds great to live forever, but I never think about all the people that I would see pass away. When I sit back and think about it, it's a total bring down. Wolverine did not choose to have this power, it was given to him, which makes it even worse. This is why he is a loner. This is why he is so gruff and doesn't particularly like working with a team. This is why he barely says anything. He does not want anyone to get to close to him and he doesn't want to get too close to anyone. Living forever sure sounds great, but it definitely is not.

Look, I LOVE LOVE LOVE Wolverine, but my wife has a good point. It would be kind of a drag to be Wolverine. He has a very solitude life and he doesn't let people in. That would be very disheartening to live that way. Wolverine is still, and will always be, my favorite superhero, but there is a definite downside to his powers and they aren't as great as I may think they are. You win again wife.

Ty with a little help from his wife

Ty is the Pop Culture editor for SeedSing and the other host of the X Millennial Man Podcast. If he can't be Wolverine, his next favorite X-Man is Dazzler. He may not live forever, but his tweets will. You should follow Ty on twitter @tykulik.

The Bad Songs Constantly on the Radio are Actually Pretty Good

Leave the dial be and give into joy

So, for all of my posts this week, I wanted to try something a bit different. My wife and I were talking the other day and she told me that I should argue a point that I don't necessarily agree with. All five posts this week will be topics given to me that I have expressed a dislike for to, either my wife or everyone who reads my blog, but I have to give the opposite view. I have to explain why these things are actually true, or that they at least have some good qualities. This is going to be a weird, but also very fun, and maybe even a bit difficult, but I'm up to the task.

Topic number three from my wife, "the only songs worth listening to are the ones on the radio that you can sing along with in the car".

This is going to be tough. I am not a fan of the music played on the radio, for the most part. It's bubble gum garbage music that is just one earworm after another. I've made it clear that I don't like pop music on the site, but, I do see what my wife is getting at, and I'm pretty sure I can make a compelling argument. So, let's do it.

When a "hit" song comes on the radio, it is put there for many reasons. The artist or the band had a stroke of genius and wrote a very, very catchy song. The band or artist label makes sure that this one song is the first song that will be heard by the masses. The radio stations then pick it up and play it on repeat until pretty much everyone at least knows the chorus. Let's look at a song from a few years ago as an example.

By now, a lot of people have already forgotten about an artist named Gotye. But, he had a massive hit song, that I can still sing along with if it comes on the radio. That song was called "Somebody That I Used to Know". Everyone knows this song. The song was odd, but catchy. The video made the song even better, but you should not watch videos in your car if you are driving - safety first, so the music video gets left out of the debate. But, when Gotye and Kimbra wail that chorus, "but you didn't have to cut me off" and "you didn't have to stoop so low", if I am by myself, or with my wife and kids, I wail just as much as they do. I may not have liked the song when I first heard it, but after hearing it hundreds of times, not only did I love it, I knew almost every single word to that song. Gotye hasn't had a hit since, but I will forever remember him.

Then, there's the first time I heard Carly Rae Jepsen. There is not one single thing I should like about her music. It is everything I dislike about music, but "Call Me Maybe" is a very fun song to yell sing when I am in my car. Again, that chorus is so god damn catchy. I mean, "hey, I just met you/and this is crazy/but here's my number/so call me maybe" is pretty fun to sing along with. Then, when I saw it on the video game Just Dance, I liked it even more. I could dance and sing along with this song?! What a treat. I know that she has made some newer, halfway decent music since "Call Me Maybe", but that is all the Carly Rae Jepsen I will ever need.

No matter how much I dislike and am sick and tired of hearing Ed Sheeran, when his song "Thinking Out Loud" comes on, I can't help but sing along in the car. The song, for what it is, is a pretty beautiful song with very nice lyrics. It is a perfect wedding song, or a song to put on a mix tape for your partner. The chorus is the winner, of course. It's catchy, sweet and even a little moving. "Thinking Out Loud" is not a terrible song. It's definitely a fun song to sing along to in the car, that's undebateable.

I know that I have only mentioned solo acts, but even some bands get into this conversation. I'm not a Maroon 5 fan at all, but "Payphone" is an almost impossible song to not sing along to. The moment Adam Levine comes in with, "I'm at a payphone/trying to call home/all my change I spent on you", I'm singing it as high pitched as I can, trying my best to sound like Mr. Levine. Then, we get, "all these fairy tales are full of shit/one more stupid love song I'll be sick", the band is trying to be funny, but it is too catchy. Everyone I know, knows those lyrics and can sing along with them. Maroon 5 may be trying to make fun of love songs, but "Payphone" is one hundred percent a love song that is very enjoyable to sing along.

The band A Great Big World falls into the Gotye category of, a very great singable song, but hasn't done anything since that song, "Say Something". This song is absolutely heartbreaking, but, it is also great to wail when it came on the radio. When the singers would yell sing the chorus, I was right there with them. That song is brutal, but it is also wildly singable. That's the one thing that A Great Big World will always be remembered for. They had this huge hit, that was about tragedy, but damn if that isn't one catchy tune.

Even rappers are falling into this. Sure, they are all pop rappers, but some of the stuff that Wiz Khalifa has done with Charlie Puth and Maroon 5 is very singable. He was featured on "Payphone" and his verse is decent, but, and I'm going to use my buzz word for the day, catchy as hell. Then, he does those "One Call Away" and "See You Again" songs with Charlie Puth. Damn, are those songs so very easy to sing along too, and Khalifa's verses are very easy to get and rap along with. There is also this new Flo Rida, which is the worst rap name ever, song called "My House", that is played so much, my son, who is 4, can sing along with. I guarantee that everybody has heard "My House" at least once. It is always on the radio and TV shows are using it in their ad campaigns now.

While I may not care for these particular artists or bands, I cannot deny the fact that these songs are popular, catchy and a whole hell of a lot of fun to sing along to in my car. I bet most of you out there would agree with my wife on this one.

Ty with a little help from his wife

Ty is the Pop Culture editor for SeedSing and the other host of the X Millennial Man Podcast. Sometimes on the podcast the editor has to yell/sing "you didn't have to cut me off". Hey this is crazy, but you should follow Ty on twitter @tykulik.

Brady and Gronk - The Dynamic Duo Making the NFL Fabulous

These flowers represent how beautiful Brady and Gronk are together

So, for all of my posts this week, I wanted to try something a bit different. My wife and I were talking the other day and she told me that I should argue a point that I don't necessarily agree with. All five posts this week will be topics given to me that I have expressed a dislike for to, either my wife or everyone who reads my blog, but I have to give the opposite view. I have to explain why these things are actually true, or that they at least have some good qualities. This is going to be a weird, but also very fun, and maybe even a bit difficult, but I'm up to the task.

Now for my second day of topic sentences from my wife, "the NFL would be a little less fabulous without the dynamic duo: Tom Brady and Rob Gronkowski".

Now, first things first, I'm not going to say anything about "deflategate", that has been covered more than enough on the site. Okay, here goes.

First off, let's look at Tom Brady. While I don't think he is necessarily a "dynamic" person, I think his playing is dynamic. He is one of the top three quarterbacks of all time. Love him or hate him, you cannot say that he isn't one of the greatest QB's of all time. He has 4 Super Bowl rings, and if not for two lucky catches he would have six. He has humongous touchdown and yardage numbers. He has a very low interception number. He has been deep in the playoffs the whole time he has been a starter in the NFL. He has come up huge in the biggest moments. The dude is a straight up winner. The way he fits passes into the smallest of windows is absolutely incredible. The receivers and running backs that he has won with is incredible because of how average they are/were. The best receiver he has ever had is Randy Moss, and yes he is a sure fire hall of famer, but other than him, it's slim pickings at receiver. He has won with guys like Deion Branch, Troy Brown, David Givens and Brandon Lloyd as his number one target. Those guys are/were good, but they are nowhere near hall of famers, let alone all pros. The running backs he's had are guys like Fred Taylor, Steven Jackson, Corey Dillon, Kevin Faulk and Laurence Maroney. Again, some good players, but no hall of famers. Brady has won with all of these guys, He helped their game as much as they helped his game. He turned these running backs into some of the best receivers out of the backfield. He also turned those receivers into clutch receivers. But, the one constant, dynamic player for the Patriots, who I believe, along with the San Antonio Spurs, are the best run franchises in all of pro sports, has been Tom Brady. He has been the starting QB, save for one injured season, in New England since 2001. And he has been consistently great. There is no denying his incredible play. He is the epitome of a winner. He is a maniac when it comes to film study, practice and staying in shape. He takes multiple pay cuts to make his team better. He will gladly take less money if it means that the Patriots can bring in a big time player. The fact that he was a sixth round draft pick, an afterthought by the "experts" and not even the primary starter while at Michigan makes his amazing NFL career that much more dynamic. We cannot deny his greatness anymore. Tom Brady is an all timer, no ifs ands or buts about it.

A few years ago the Patriots got this little known tight end from the University of Arizona named Rob Gronkowski. This is where the "dynamic" applies to both, his game and his personality. The first time I saw Gronk play, I couldn't believe how big he was. He was so much taller and stronger than the poor defensive backs and linebackers trying to guard them. Not only was he taller, but he was stronger and faster than them too. He runs like a gazelle and he is as strong as JJ Watt. He also has incredible hands. If the ball is anywhere near him, he will catch it. The ball can be a little high or low or to his back side, if he gets a hand on it, it is a catch. He is also, possibly, the greatest redzone weapon of all time. As I already stated, he is bigger, stronger and faster than anyone guarding him, and he can leap and get open in the redzone with an ease that seems unfair. People are literally trying to injure him to get him out of games. No one ever tackles him fairly. Everyone goes after his knees or ankles, intent on hurting him to get him out of the game. Gronk was a godsend to Tom Brady and the Patriots. No matter what mid level receivers or running backs they have, they still have Gronk. He, much like Brady, is a first ballot hall of famer and an all timer at his position.

Then, look at his personal life. This dude just has a great time living his glamorous life. He has his own yacht party with live music and beer pong tournaments. He is super close with his family, that seem just as crazy as he is. He knows his limits when it comes to partying, and he goes right to the edge, but never over it. In season, he is the consummate professional. Out of season, he's a party animal, in every som Brady and Rob GroTense of the word. He is who Johnny Manziel wishes he could be. Manziel doesn't know when to stop where Gronk knows when and how to stop. I usually don't like "bros" like Gronk, but he is almost impossible not to like, both as a football player and a person. He loves his life and he knows that his time in the NFL will be short, so he is living it up both on the field and off. Gronk is just an all around fun dude.

I know that my wife and I will get heat about this because a lot of people hate the Patriots, but I don't think you can read this and tell me that I'm wrong. These two are dynamic, all time great football players and Gronk has a very dynamic personality. It's true, and even the haters can't deny that. Try as they might.

Ty with a little help from his wife

Ty is the Pop Culture editor for SeedSing and the other host of the X Millennial Man Podcast. Like Gronk, Ty is known to walk around shirtless and has had softcore fan fiction written about him. Learn all about it by following Ty on twitter @tykulik.

Buddy Ryan and Pat Summitt - Legends who Defined their Sport

RIP both Pat Summit and Buddy Ryan. Both were phenomenal coaches in their respective sports. Buddy Ryan was one of the fiercest, most competitive defensive coaches that the NFL has ever seen. He was the guy behind the vaunted 85 Bears defense. Ryan may have been the greatest defensive minded coach of all time. He would get into it on the sidelines as well. He would yell and scream and even get into fist fights if he believed he was right. Buddy Ryan was a legend.

Then there's Pat Summit. Talk about a winner who's life was cut way too short. Summit had almost 1100 wins as a head coach. That is jaw dropping. Tennessee women's basketball was dominant for the majority of Summit's career. She is the John Wooden of women's basketball. She had one of the greatest basketball minds to ever grace the Earth. She was fiery as well. She was also flat out great at her job. Summit is one of the greatest basketball coaches ever, men's or women's. Summit is a true legend.

RIP to these two great sports minds. You'll both be missed.

Ty

Ty is the Pop Culture Editor for SeedSing and the other host of the X Millennial Man Podcast. Follow Ty on twitter @tykulik.
 

The Merits and Virtue of "16 and Pregnant" and "Teen Mom"

MTV is the model of highlighting kids having kids

So, for all of my posts this week, I wanted to try something a bit different. My wife and I were talking the other day and she told me that I should argue a point that I don't necessarily agree with. All five posts this week will be topics given to me that I have expressed a dislike for to, either my wife or everyone who reads my blog, but I have to give the opposite view. I have to explain why these things are actually true, or that they at least have some good qualities. This is going to be a weird, but also very fun, and maybe even a bit difficult, but I'm up to the task.

Let's get started with the first topic. The topic sentence my wife gave me today was, "explain why shows like "Teen Mom" and "16 and Pregnant" are, in fact, not garbage reality TV, but that they have had a positive impact on society".

Here we go.

I first saw "16 and Pregnant" about 6 or 7 years ago. My wife has a very deep love for reality TV, and I enjoy spending time with her, so I watch a lot of the shows with her. "16 and Pregnant" immediately held my attention. It was fascinating to see these children pregnant. They were literally babies having babies. It was unreal to hear these 16 year olds complain about always being hungry, tired and "feeling fat". I would say to my TV, "that's what happens when you get pregnant. You should have waited like 90 percent of the country does".

As the episodes wore on, I found myself seeing some good coming from "16 and Pregnant". I was happy that MTV was letting these girls be as real as they wanted to be about their not so good situation. I have 2 kids, one is 4 and the other is almost 9 months, and it is very hard. But, I'm a 33 year old adult. I lived my childhood and had a pretty much carefree teenage experience. The same cannot be said about the girls on this show. They had to deal with people saying things behind their back, calling them names and making fun of them. High school is hard enough, most people are going through puberty and almost everything is awkward, but throw being pregnant on top of that, that had to be brutal. So, the fact that the people behind "16 and Pregnant" had the thinking to let this reality show be an actual reality show, I give them big, big kudos.

The producers show you all the hard parts. They show the stretch marks, the clothes not fitting, the snickers, the loss of friendships, the pain of going into labor and delivering a baby, and then, to top it all off, they showed how hard it is to have an infant. You have to feed, clothe and diaper that baby when that baby needs those things. You are not the most important person anymore, your child is, and "16 and Pregnant" did an excellent job of portraying this. They also showed how terrible teenage boys are at being fathers. These kids, for the most part, had no interest in being involved after their child was born. They all still wanted to go play basketball, ride their bikes or continue to party. Well, all that ends when you have a kid. Some of the couples, while the girlfriend was still pregnant, were going to get married. None of them did, or if they did, I'm sure they are now divorced. "16 and Pregnant" definitely showed how real it is to have a baby. It is tough. Tack on the fact that the kids are teenagers, "16 and Pregnant" did an excellent job of not glorifying having a baby. I will always give them kudos for this. They let the viewing audience know how insanely hard, unforgiving and flat outbrutal it is to raise infants when you are still a child yourself.

A few years after I saw my first episode of "16 and Pregnant", another show came on called "Teen Mom". This show followed the girls from the first season of "16 and Pregnant". They waited a few months, even some a year, after their kids were born to see where they were. This was also an interesting wrinkle inside the life of a teen parent. For the most part, the couples that were still couples in "16 and Pregnant" had broken up. They were all inevitably stuck in some kind of custody battle. This seemed odd and selfish to me. Now, the parent that was absent when the baby was an infant, wanted to be involved because the hard part was over. They didn't have to get up in the middle of the night for feedings or diaper changes, most of the babies were sleeping through the night. That is so selfish to all of the sudden want to be involved in a child's life when the tough part is over. You cannot pick and choose when you want to care for your kid. You made that kid, so you should have been there all along, not when it is convenient for you.

Once again, MTV and "Teen Mom" did a very good job of showing how tough it is to be a teen parent. They show the kids going to court, or meeting with child protective services, or getting divorced, all before they turned 21. This was fascinating to me because, when I was 21, I was still living at home with my folks and had a dead end job and was going to concerts every weekend. I didn't have a kid to care for. Had I seen "Teen Mom" back then, it would have made me even more secure in my life decisions.

"Teen Mom" did not sugar coat how hard all this stuff is to do. But, what "Teen Mom" did that "16 and Pregnant" couldn't do, they showed all the joy that comes from having kids. These teen parents got to see their child walk, talk and smile for the first time, and so did we as an audience. We got to see many triumphs from the parents. Things like potty training be successful, families reuniting, and so on and so forth.

Look, I'm not one to watch reality TV, it just isn't my thing. But, I will say that shows like "16 and Pregnant" or "Teen Mom" are so much better and they actually show consequences to actions than any piece of garbage that the TLC Network puts on TV. "16 and Pregnant" and "Teen Mom" can also be given a huge thanks to the decreased number in teen pregnancy, so there is a real life correlation that these shows do work. If you are a teen, and you think you can be made famous by getting pregnant, I'd suggest watching "16 and Pregnant" or "Teen Mom", because it is not the quick and easy way to make money. It will alter your entire life.

Ty

Ty is the Pop Culture editor for SeedSing and the other host of the X Millennial Man Podcast. After reading Ty's thoughts, it seems like he is not pretending to like the MTV teen mom genre. He will be here all week folks. Follow Ty on twitter @tykulik.

Stop Waiting for Congress to Pass Gun Laws

The Congress could not regulate this over 200 years ago. Why trust them now?

This week the Democrats in the United States House of Representatives, led by Georgia Congressman and civil rights hero John Lewis, did something amazing. They took a seat for the American people. On Wednesday, June 22nd, Representative Lewis gave a fiery speech lamenting the inaction of Congress on doing anything to help curb the epidemic of gun violence in the United States. After his speech, Lewis was joined by other Democratic party members of the House and they all took a seat. The sat right down on the floor of the US House of Representatives. The Republicans, led by Speaker Paul Ryan, ended the session and cut off the live video feed provided by the cameras of the Cable-Satellite Public Access Network (C-SPAN). The Republican party wanted to block the images of the Democratic sit in from the American people. Unfortunate for Speaker Ryan, 21st century technology allowed the 1st Amendment of the US Constitution to live on. Many House members used Twitter's Periscope live video app and started to stream the images out to the internet. C-SPAN started to air these Periscope streams out through their airwaves. Many more Democrats, including Massachusetts Senator Elizabeth Warren and current Presidential candidate (as of this writing he has not conceded) Bernie Sanders, joined their colleagues on the floor of the House of Representatives. The Democrats were finally fed up with Republican inaction on any meaningful firearm regulation, and all of America was able to see the spectacle going on in the nation's capital. Things were about to change in Washington DC.

Twenty five hours after Representative John Lewis's sit in started, it was over. The US House of Representatives adjourned for an extended break, and the American people were promised by the Democratic party that the fight for gun regulation would resume when everyone got back to Washington DC. Once again America had another gun massacre answered with anger, spectacle, and inaction. Our elected representatives, who make around $174,000 plus expenses paid by the taxpayers each year, left the nation's capitol to take another mandated break. Over the next two weeks there will be no chance of any reasonable firearms legislation. The current batch of firearm regulations will be forgotten. Inaction will once again rule the day.

The next time the nation will see something like the Great Sit-In of June 2016 will be after the next horrible firearm massacre. Unfortunately the next massacre is more likely to occur within the next few months. The bodies will be dead, and the nation will once again cry out for answers to an all too common occurrence. The Republicans, backed by their NRA handlers, will ask for a moment of silence and not want to "politicize" the issue. The Democrats will look at the recent shooting, and try to build conversation about what could have prevented that one singular incident. Once a week has passed, the NRA will have helped sell thousands of more firearms, the Democrats will have forgotten about any meaningful legislation, and the dead will be forgotten. We will be witness to the whole process again once the next firearm massacre occurs. 

Why do we look to Washington DC to solve our gun violence problem? As more people die needlessly, the inept process never changes. Twelve dead at Columbine High School, no action. Thirty two dead at Virginia Tech, no action. Nine dead in Charleston South Carolina, no action. Twelve killed at the Navy yard in Washington DC, no action. Thirteen dead at Ft. Hood, no action. Three dead at a Planned Parenthood in Colorado Springs, no action. Twelve dead in Aurora Colorado, no action. Nine dead at Umpqua Community College, no action. Fourteen dead in San Bernardino California, no action. Twenty-six dead, twenty of them children, at Sandy Hook Elementary, no action. Forty-nine people dead in Orlando, no action. (ed note: these are the shootings I remembered off the top of my head. There are many, many more Here is an excellent look at the recent history of US mass shootings from the LA Times.) The killings continue, and the government does nothing.

In the aftermath of the Orlando shooting we are experiencing one of the rare instances when the national government does try to pass meaningful gun regulations. The law being proposed is so flawed it would be better if it never passed. The Great Sit-In was centered on two laws the Democrats were championing. One was to make all gun sales subject to a background check. There is currently no requirement to perform a back ground check on a private gun sale. That  type of law has never passed in the history of the United States. The other law would ban the sale of guns to anyone on the United States government's no fly list. This bit of new gun regulations was first brought to the nation's attention by presumptive Republican Party Presidential Candidate Donald Trump. The NRA at first seemed to be behind the law. A bill was introduced in the US Senate, one written by Republican Senator Susan Collins from Maine, that would ban people on the no fly list from purchasing firearms. The bill received 52 votes in the Senate, but since every controversial bill is threatened with a filibuster, the bill needed sixty to pass. The US House had yet to take up debate, or voted, on the no fly no buy bill. The Great Sit-In happened, and ended. Representative John Lewis has vowed that the House will take up the legislation when Congress gets back from their well deserved vacation.

The No Fly No Buy Bill has the best chance at being the first meaningfully firearm regulation to be enacted into law in over twenty years. Unfortunately it is a very bad law. Many Democrats just want a political victory, and they have rallied behind a bill that at best is ineffective and at worst is racist. The bill is one of the few laws in history to be opposed by both the NRA and the ACLU. The NRA just wants to sell guns, the ACLU is worried about people's actual freedom. The No Fly list is a secret list administered by unknown persons. The list became part of US policy after the attacks of September 11th, 2001. Many non-terrorists, like children, former Senator Ted Kennedy, and sit-in leader Representative John Lewis, have had their names appear on the federal no fly list. No reason is given if one's name appears on the list, and there are no standards in place to have your name removed. The government claims that over 98% of the names on the no fly list are not American citizens. If you are a non-citizen, you cannot buy a guy already. Legal visa holders with proof of state residence (i.e. students) can purchase a firearm, with a background check. The No Fly No Buy bill is not only potentially racial profiling, it is utterly useless. There is no possibility for preventing any future massacre with the No Fly No Buy law. It is political theater being used to try and convince the American people that Congress is compassionate. It is worse than doing nothing.

The United States government has proven absolutely incapable, and unwilling, of protecting the American people from firearm massacres. Decades of inaction has led to political stunts being carried out for the passage of ineffective and racist laws. We must accept that there will not be the passage of any meaningful gun laws by the US government. The faith of the American citizen needs to be put elsewhere. Congress is filled with failure, America should not continue to look towards failure. There needs to be a new way.

The state of Hawaii just recently became the first state to have gun owners registered in a federal database. The Aloha state is doing something to keep its 1.4 million residents a bit safer. The rest of the country does not have politicians with a will to protect their citizens like Hawaii does. What can be done by the American who is not represented by the thoughtful politicians of the Hawaiian Islands?

Only 1/3 of American households and 1/4 of individuals even own guns. Regardless of what the NRA, or the government says, gun ownership is not very popular in the United States. The number of smokers in the US is close to the number of gun owners. The large majority of non-smokers were able to make smoking an anomaly. The same can happen to gun ownership. Privately the nation sees owning a gun as an odd thing, publicly we can do the same. Having a firearm is not a normal thing, and gun owners should know that. If we want gun owners to responsible, the non-gun owners should demand it. There are plenty of non-smoking areas, there should be areas where we do not accept guns. Many public places have designated spots for the smokers to gather and poison each other. The same should happen for guns. Let all the gun owners gather in the spots designated for guns, and our society will know who these gun lovers are. Hunters are already well known as gun owners due to the season and attire required for their hobby. If one has a gun that is an antique, is unusable, and has no ammunition, they do not have to gather in the designated live gun zone. The professionals who require guns for their employment, i.e. police officers and military personal, they are already known by society as carrying a live firearm. A non-government registry of gun owners would quickly be created when everyone in their neighborhood knows whose house has all the guns. Knowing that one's guns are acknowledged by the public will make these gun owners a lot more responsible. It may even cause these gun owners to give up their mythical need to protect themselves with weapons designed for mass killing. The very small minority of gun owners would shrink to a much smaller, and manageable number. Owning firearms designed for killing a whole lot of people would not be an NRA marketing campaign, it would be a source of shame.

The Democrats who sat down this week deserve our admiration. They were trying to bring attention to the inaction that has plagued our nation for decades. Their intentions were good, their law is bad. The NRA has used the government to create a sense of gun ownership being vital and normal. It is not. Since the NRA has used money to buy most of Congress, the American people can not rely on the elected representatives to protect us. We must rely on ourselves. Stop waiting for Congress to act, they will not. Start creating a safer world in your neighborhood. Our actions will be stronger than the money, and ineptness, of Washington DC. We can stop gun violence today. Yes we can.

RD

RD Kulik is the Head Editor for SeedSing and the host of the X Millennial Man Podcast.He wants to hear the counter opinion on owning guns. Write for us.  

The Law does not Apply to Sweaty Alabama Football Players

Justice is not always blind. Sometimes it is bought.

A few weeks back I wrote about 2 Alabama football players, Cam Robinson and Hootie Jones, that were caught with marijuana and a stolen firearm. The question I posed was what would Nick Saban do about this because these two guys, especially Robinson, are integral parts to an Alabama team that will once again be a title favorite. Would Saban suspend them, I asked. Would Saban kick them off the team, I asked. Would the NCAA have to step in and do something about it, I asked. But, when I thought more about it, I figured he would kick Hootie Jones off the team because he is a spot starter and key back up, but I assumed Robinson would see nothing but a slap on the wrist because he is the left tackle. He is the blind side protector. He is the preseason all American. He will be a future first round draft choice.

Nick Saban didn't have to do anything, or maybe he was a critical person involved because the high ups involved dropped all charges against the two football players. Their reasoning was, and I quote, "who are we to take this sport away from these kids that have to play in the hot sun, while we sit in the air conditioning". What a bull shit response that was. First off, these kids are playing a game, you are supposed to sweat, and be in the heat. That doesn't excuse the fact that they had a stolen firearm. As I stated in my previous blog, I don't care one bit about the marijuana. Marijuana should be legal everywhere, RD has made that point already on the site. It is the firearm that truly terrifies me. They had a stolen firearm. I don't care how hot and sweaty they are playing football on a full scholarship, that should not excuse the fact that they stole a weapon. That is dangerous and the DA's response is utterly ridiculous.

Another thing, what the hell do they mean, "while we sit in the air conditioning". I was in the air conditioning at my house a few hours ago, but I was cleaning the house and now I'm sweaty, does that mean it would be okay if I went and stole a firearm? Well, probably not, because I don't live in Alabama and I don't play football for the university. The way adults treat college sports now, with way, way too much at stake, has become sickening. these football players, if they are good, can get away with almost anything. I'm sure the person who made this final decision is a big time Alabama fan, and they didn't want to see a chance at another title go to waste, but I'm just as sure that boosters and the devil himself, Nick Saban, were in these people's ears, trying to get the charges dropped. The boosters give big money and they do not want to see an inferior product go out on that field on Saturday's. Boosters are the scum of the earth and they need to be pushed to the side so they stop infecting these kids brains. They are good for nothing wannabe's that figure, if we give enough money, we feel as if we are part of the team. You are not part of the team, and you never will be. You are lower than dirt.

Then there's Nick Saban. He doesn't have to do any dirty work now. The DA took care of his hard work for him. What a punk and a chump. He can just tell the media that the people in charge handled it. Screw you Nick Saban. I 1000 percent am sure that you had something to do with this final decision you piece of garbage. Now ESPN can push this story to the side and continue to praise you and call you a shaper of young men. What a crock.

This is a big, big problem in college sports today. No one has the guts to do anything big to a big time talent. These kids think, and for the most part do, get away with whatever they want because they are good at a sport. That is wrong on so many levels. I guarantee that if these were just two random students, say one a business major and the other a communications major, they'd be kicked out of school without a second thought. The way these athletes get treated is disgusting and it cheapens my favorite sport, college football.

Get your shit together, adults that are so heavily involved in these kids lives. Giving them a free pass is only going to hurt them in the long run. Yes, you may have to suffer through a 6-6 or 7-5 season, but kids that do something wrong need to be punished, not given chance after chance after chance. It's not fair to the rest of the student body that doesn't play sports.

Ty

Ty is the Pop Culture Editor for SeedSing and the other host of the X Millennial Man Podcast. Hear him talk about his 160 gig iPod on tomorrows new X Millennial Man. Follow Ty on twitter @tykulik.

Bill Simmons is Back with "Any Given Wednesday"

There is some new TV in the air

Last night, Bill Simmons new show, "Any Given Wednesday" premiered on HBO. This show was a long time coming for me. I'm a very big Bill Simmons fan. I like his takes. He is one of the most knowledgeable NBA writers on the planet. He isn't afraid to attack morons like Roger Goodell. And he seems like a pretty genuine, cool person.

I watched the show this afternoon, and it was just fine. I don't know why I was expecting it to be like "Real Sports", which is a great show, but I thought it as going to be more like that. "Any Given Wednesday" is the opposite of a show like "Real Sports". "Any Given Wednesday" is sports and pop culture, mixed with elements of comedy. There is no panel on this show. Simmons has people come on and talk, but it is more interview and less talking head type stuff. What the show all boils down to is, it is a live taping of his podcast. The show is very free flowing. There is a looseness to the show that I found refreshing. Simmons looked totally calm and in his element. The show is a perfect way to get his view across.

Last night, he had Charles Barkley come on to talk about LeBron James. Simmons asked, after doing a great opening monologue about why he now thought James belonged in the conversation as the best NBA player ever, and Barkley shut that notion down immediately. Barkley is definitely stuck in his old view of the NBA, but that is one of the many things that makes Charles Barkley so great. I personally agree with Simmons. I think LeBron is a top 5 all time player, but I liked hearing Barkley say he had to win a couple of more championships before he would put him past Kobe Bryant and Tim Duncan. I also enjoyed Barkley letting Simmons, the studio audience and everyone watching know that his top five all time players will never change. He is set in his way. Barkley seemed just as comfortable as Simmons was, even when Simmons pushed him on stuff like Barkley holding Larry Bird's arms back so Dr. J could punch him in the face, or Barkley's many past gambling stories. After the Barkley interview, Simmons did a kind of funny spoof on the Under Armor and Steph Curry commercials. There was some decent humor in it, but it was just okay. The commercial Simmons and his writers created was a very funny closing bit to the joke.

Then, Simmons had another one on one interview with Ben Affleck. They talked about the Batman stuff and what drove Affleck to becoming a director, but when Simmons brought up the Patriots and Tom Brady and "deflategate", Affleck went off. This was at times funny and very revealing. Affleck is a true sports fan and a true Boston fan. This dude loves Tom Brady and thinks, like most of the sports watching public, that "deflategate" is so dumb and so unimportant. His speech was impassioned. I recommend people seeking it out on the internet to watch, it is bizarre and telling. I know that I was enthralled.

Once Affleck has done speaking the truth, Simmons did his first of what I'm sure will be a weekly segment, where he gave the "championship belt" to the best thing of the week. This week was the year 2016 and how it has become so unpredictable. He mentioned the Cavs winning the title, the fact that the Cubs have the best record in baseball and that he now has his own show on HBO, among other things. I very much enjoyed this part of the show. Like I said, it was basically a live taping of his podcast, and that is a good thing, in my opinion.

I will be curious to see how future episodes attack sports and pop culture news. I also hope, at some point, he goes off on ESPN. I know he did that recently in a magazine interview, but I want to see him do it live on his TV show, curse words and all, since it is on HBO. I also hope he brings on some of his recurring guests from his podcast for face to face interviews. I don't think it will happen, but I'd love to see Jalen Rose and Zach Lowe on his show, but they both work for ESPN. He can have his buddy Joe House on, or Chuck Klosterman or even more famous NBA players, like Charles Barkley. Anyway, it was a decent premiere of a show that I will watch every week because I am a Bill Simmons fan. Don't go into "Any Given Wednesday" expecting "Real Sports", it is a totally different show.

Ty

Ty is the Pop Culture editor for SeedSing and the other host of the X Millennial Man Podcast. He may not have the slurred passion of Ben Affleck, but Ty is also not a fan of "deflategate". Follow Ty on twitter @tykulik.

The Bulls are Already Winning the NBA Offseason

The Knicks seem to be in the gift giving mood

I was going to do a greatest American band thing today, but I just got word on my phone that the Knicks and Bulls have agreed to what sounds like a pretty big trade just 2 days before the draft. The Bulls are going to ship Derrick Rose to the Knicks for Jerian Grant and Robin Lopez. I know, this sounds like it is a blockbuster trade for the Knicks. I'm sure Knicks fans know have visions of possibly being in the top four of the eastern conference next year. I'm sure the same Knicks fans are going to claim they have their own "big three" now with Rose, Carmelo Anthony and Kristaps Porzingis. It's all peaches and cream right now, but I do not see it that way.

I have been negative about a lot of NBA stuff recently, but I'm going to be both, positive and negative today. Let's get the negativity out of the way first. This trade would have been huge had it happened 6 years ago. Derrick Rose was coming off an MVP season, the Bulls were the top team in the east and they looked like they would be there for a long, long time. But, it's 2016. Derrick Rose has suffered multiple injuries, including two torn ACL's and has proven he is not the explosive player that he once was. He cannot go to the basket with reckless abandon anymore. And to make matters worse, he is not a very good jump shooter and he was never a very good passer. To team him up with Carmelo Anthony is going to be terrible. Anthony does not want to pass the ball either. He is coming off a few injuries. He cares more about his brand than winning basketball games. When Anthony was thinking of signing with the Bulls a few years ago, I was not a fan of that because that would have teamed him up with Derick Rose. I just don't think those two can coexist on a basketball court. Both Rose and Anthony are also on the back half, maybe back 3/4ths of their careers. Neither is as good as they were 5 or 6 years ago. They are both well into their 30's and their best playing days are long gone. Neither of these guys are in the shape that LeBron James is in. Neither can shoot the ball like Chris Paul or Dirk Nowitzki. Neither play defense like Richard Jefferson just did in the finals. And neither are as good a facilitator with the ball as Tony Parker or Andre Iguodala are. They both don't have the energy to play 65 games, let alone 82, plus some playoff games, if they make the playoffs.

Then there is the whole Porzingis thing. Yes, I think he is an okay player that could be a nightmare to guard if he develops his game a bit more, but he is incredibly young and he will not see a whole lot of touches playing alongside Rose and Anthony. He will have to rely a whole lot more on his rebounding game to get his points. It's going to be a few years before he becomes the focal point that the die hard Knicks fans want him to be.

Plus there is the rest of the Knicks roster, this is my last negative today. The roster is a joke of an NBA roster, with the exceptions being Rose, Anthony and Porzingis. They just traded away a very good center in Robin Lopez. And while Grant looked lost and maybe played a bit too fast last season, he is a slasher and he can create shots for himself, he just needs a few years. The guys they have left on that team are people like Sasha Vuvajic, Langston Galloway, Derrick Williams and Aaron Affalo. Those names don't strike fear in any opponents, except maybe the 76ers. Their starting five will be Rose, Anthony, Porzingis, Affalo and Derrick Williams, if I had to make a guess. That is a starting five that may only play 50 to 60 games together, and they'd be lucky to win 30 to 35 of those games, add on a few more victories, and the Knicks will be lucky to be a .500 team. I do not like this trade for New York one bit.

But, I LOVE this trade for the Bulls. They finally have the Derrick Rose problem off their back. The team doesn't have to cater to his ego anymore. They don't have to rely on the "hometown hero" nonsense that they've been holding onto since they drafted him. They don't need to worry about him missing games, or not going full speed when he does play games. But, and most importantly, if they keep Jimmy Butler, which I fully expect them to do now, they can finally turn the team over to him. Butler is ready, and more than able, to lead the Bulls back to being a perennial playoff team. I'm a humongous Jimmy Butler fan. The dude has a very good offensive game. He can play both inside and outside and he is a creator. The dude is an all star. He is also a ferocious defender. He gets after it on defense. If I was Jimmy Butler, I'd be ecstatic right now. Then, bringing in Robin Lopez gives them the relief of letting Pau Gasol walk in free agency. Sure, Lopez isn't the offensive player that Gasol is, but he is younger and a much better defender than Gasol has ever been in the NBA. This also makes it easier for them to try and keep Joakim Noah and Taj Gibson around. Both are exceptional defenders and rebounders that play like Bulls play. This also gives guys like Bobby Portis, Nikola Mirotic and E'Twaun Moore more chances to play and improve. I think this deal for the Bulls is an absolute slam dunk. I think this makes them a much, much better team. The Bulls will be a real threat in the east next year. This was a great trade that they made.

If I'm a Knicks fan, I'm bummed. But, if I'm a Bulls fan, I'm thrilled. We will have to wait until next season to see if I'm right or wrong. But mainly, I'm so thrilled for Jimmy Butler right now. His stardom is going to explode next season.

Ty

Ty is the Pop Culture editor for SeedSing and the other host of the X Millennial Man Podcast. What did Ty think of the NBA Finals, come on in for a listen. Follow Ty on twitter @tykulik.

The Shoe Wars are Over and Nike is the Winner

Do not forget the champion athletes that wear this brand

My topic today is a bit off the beaten path. I'm going to talk about the supposed "shoe war" going on between Under Armor and Nike. Under Armor seems to think that they have put a stranglehold on the top names in sports over other companies like Nike, Adidas and other companies that sell sporting apparel. Under Armor does have some big name clients, but my whole idea that I'm going to pose today is, much like how players wearing Under Armor, these guys are finishing second to the athletes wearing other companies products, mainly Nike.

First off, the three biggest names that Under Armor has on their payroll right now are Cam Newton, Steph Curry and Bryce Harper. These three guys are world class athletes. They are some of the, if not the, best players in their particular sport. Cam Newton has changed what the idea of a quarterback in the NFL can do athletically these days. Bryce Harper may be the most feared hitter since Barry Bonds. And Steph Curry, he has a title, he is the first unanimous MVP, he is the best shooter I have ever seen and he has transcending what people think about shooters in the NBA all time. I'm sure Under Armor has other decent athletes that wear their stuff, but these three are, by far, the most noticeable and most impressive. But, the recent problem with the guys that Under Armor pays millions upon millions of dollars, they are finishing second to players that wear either Nike or Adidas. Even in the college game, Nike is still winning.

Let's look at the pro guys first. Cam Newton was the first Under Armor guy that caught my eye. Like I said, he plays quarterback like no one else I have ever watched, and he has a ton of fun doing it. He is big, fast and has a rocket arm. He took a very under manned team all the way to the Super Bowl this past season. The Panthers were even favored and Cam Newton's fancy Under Armor cleats were all over my TV screen prior to the Super Bowl. Then, the game happened, and an Adidas man made Cam Newton's life brutal for 60 minutes. Von Miller, who is an Adidas client, pressured, hit and caused Cam Newton to rush throws and make mistakes all game. He was clearly the superior player. His cleats even looked like he was taking a shot at Cam Newton's very loud and brash type cleats. Von Miller was awesome and he made Adidas look cool for one night. That night just happened to be the Super Bowl. The Broncos, and their middle linebacker, with his Adidas cleats, completely shut down Cam Newton and his Under Armor shoes that night. That was a big blow to Under Armor.

Then, they recently signed Bryce Harper to a massive deal. He is getting tons of money from that company to shill their products. Well, Harper is a tremendous talent that has already won an MVP, but what exactly has his team, the Washington Nationals, accomplished of any significance on the baseball field. Yeah, they had a 90 plus win season a few years back, but the Cardinals beat them in the early round of the MLB playoffs. Last year, with all the expectations in the world, they fell flat on their face. And now, yeah they are in first place in their division, but I still don't trust them. I trust the Mets so much more than I do the Nationals. And, while Harper may be the best player currently in baseball, guys like Andrew McCutchen, Mike Trout and Harper's teammate, Max Scherzer, all wear Nike. Those guys are very, very good baseball players, and in McCutchen has had much more recent postseason success than Bryce Harper has had. Once again, Under Armor finishes second, or maybe even third, because some big time guys, guys like Miguel Cabrera and Robinson Cano, sport New Balance gear.

Then, there is Steph Curry. Curry is a once in a lifetime NBA player. He is the best shooter, maybe ever. He is a two time MVP. He has a title. Curry is awesome. I'm a very big Steph Curry fan. But, he got destroyed in the most recent playoffs by all Nike guys. In the western conference finals, two Nike guys, Kevin Durant and Russell Westbrook, went at Curry with no regard. Westbrook wanted to destroy him every night, and he did in a couple of those games. Durant was never flustered or bummed when he had Curry on defense or when Curry had him on defense. Both Durant and Westbrook constantly attacked him. The Thunder were so very close to beating him too. Then, in the finals, two Nike guys completely out shadowed Curry and Under Armor. LeBron James and Kyrie Irving looked so, so much better in these finals than Curry did. They were better, stronger, faster and made more shots. Under Armor got completely demoralized by Nike in the finals. After watching game 7, young kids that are logo obsessed would much rather get the new LeBron's or Kyrie Irving's shoes. No one wants those new Steph Curry, white, old man shoes. Nike crushed Under Armor in the NBA all throughout the playoffs.

Even in college, Nike is king. The only halfway decent team that I know of that wears Under Armor is Auburn, and they haven't been good in about 5 seasons. The last two championship games have had 4 Nike schools. Two years ago, in the first college football playoff, both Ohio State and Oregon wear Nike. Nike's headquarters is in Oregon in fact. Last season, both Alabama and Clemson wear Nike. I'm sure someone out there will say that I forgot Notre Dame, they signed a big contract with Under Armor, but I didn't, they are exactly what I expect out of an Under Armor client. They are decent enough to lose big time games. Hell, even after a horrid 7 year Adidas experience, Michigan is back on the Nike team, and I'm thrilled about it. Even in college basketball, all the big time teams are Nike teams. Kentucky, Duke, North Carolina, Villanova, Georgetown, Michigan State, among many other "blue bloods", they are all Nike.

Nike is a far superior product. They made sleeker, cooler and just flat out better products than any other sporting apparel. Under Armor and Adidas may have some big time names, but Nike has winners. I'll take winners over names anytime. Long live Nike.

Ty

Ty is the Pop Culture editor for SeedSing and the other host of the X Millennial Man Podcast. He likes to write under a "Just Do It" banner with "I Believe I Can Fly" playing in the background. That is how dedicated he is. Follow Ty on twitter @tykulik.

Why we got the the Cleveland Cavaliers and the NBA Finals so Very Wrong

The season ended not quite how we predicted

The NBA finals ended last night. There is no more real basketball to be played from now until late September. Both football and basketball are done, so this is the most dead period of sports that you can find right now. I'm counting down the days until college football starts. Baseball does not intrigue me, and everything else, Olympics included, bore me. With that being said, I will recount game 7 from the finals last night.

I, much like most writers, picked the Warriors to win. I picked them in 6 games. That, obviously did not happen. First things first, game 7 was phenomenal last night. For the most part, this series has been blow outs, and it has been not so great basketball. There were great individual performances, but the games, they were not that good. Game 7 changed that. I had no skin in the game last night, but my heart was beating fast and I watched every single second of that game with bated breath last night. It was a true back and forth. The Cavs would take a 5 or 6 point lead, then the Warriors would counter with a run and lead by 5 or 6 themselves. The game was decided by the stars as well. Sure, JR Smith made some big shots and Andre Iguodala did his thing on defense, but it was LeBron James and Kyrie Irving coming up big for Cleveland and it was Draymond Green, who was spectacular last night, and Curry and Thompson, although they both shot poorly. But, the stars made the difference. That's how I like my finals. Game 7 was everything I wanted this whole series to be, all the way down to Irving hitting that 3 with less than 1 minute left in the game.

Secondly, this series should have been over in 5 games. This is my "the NBA rigged this series" portion of my blog. Draymond Green did not deserved to be suspended for game 5. Yeah, he swiped at LeBron's man zone, and he did so much worse in the western finals against OKC, but it wasn't until LeBron bitched and moaned to the media and David Silver that they decided to suspend Green. I don't think it was the swipe, hell, I would have done something much worse than punch at a guy and call him names if he stepped over me on a basketball court, than it was the fact that the Cavs were down 3-1, the finals were getting record ratings, and LeBron used his stardom to get his way. David Silver, ESPN and ABC all wanted this series to go 7, if possible, and suspending Green did just that. The Warriors couldn't close it out in 5 because they couldn't stop James and Irving from getting in the paint and the Cavs pulled away. They then destroyed the Warriors in game 6, setting up last night's great game. Had Draymond not been suspended, the Warriors would have easily closed it out in game 5, but LeBron, the Cavs, and everyone in the media got their way and the series played on. Also, Steph Curry fouling out of game 6 was atrocious. In fact, the entire officiating crew in games 5, 6 and last night were as bad as the 2002 Lakers-Kings series. They were giving everything to Cleveland and nothing to Golden State. Curry hadn't fouled out of a game since college, but he somehow fouled out of a finals game. That is very, very fishy. The NBA has always had this shady cloud over it, but these last three games really made it almost too clear to me that the NBA may be as fixed as pro boxing and pro wrestling. It is becoming way too fascinated with the stars and they get so much better treatment from the refs than anyone else. It's disturbing.

Okay, got that off my chest.

Third, the Warriors did choke, but Cleveland also figured something out after Draymond got suspended. I won't say the Warriors lost the series, the Cavs definitely won. In game 5, they stayed big for most of the game, a la what the Thunder did. This rendered the Warriors rebounding useless. They had no one to block out Kevin Love or Tristan Thompson or even a guy like Richard Jefferson. The Cavs got so many second chance points and shots and that is how you beat the Warriors. They had no answer, especially after Andrew Bogut went down for the series. This was a smart move and it helped the Cavs win the title. Even last night, Love and Thompson seemed to grab every single rebound. They held the Warriors to one shot the majority of the night.  The Cavs also slowed the pace of the game to a snail. They held and held and held the ball in their half court set. They didn't seem to get into their set play until there were only 5 or 6 seconds left on the shot clock. This is another way to beat the fast paced Warriors. Make them play defense for all 24 seconds and it will slow their offense down because their players will get tired. Another smart move.

Which brings me to my fourth point. Steph Curry and Klay Thompson, for the most part, did not show up in these finals. They both shot terribly from three. They were missing wide open three point shots that they had made all season long. It wasn't like the Cavs were playing lock down defense. Quite the opposite was happening. They would get held up on screens and leave shooter wide open, the Warriors just were not making their shots. Curry also got exposed as a very mediocre defender in the finals. He couldn't stay with Irving, he was too small and lean for LeBron, too short to guard JR Smith and when he had someone else, like Iman Shumpert, that guy screened and forced Curry to guard and he did not come through. And what on Earth happened to Harrison Barnes? He was so, so bad in the finals. He missed every shot he took it seemed. The Cavs would leave him wide open for corner threes, the easiest three and a shot he made all season, and he would brick it pretty much every time. This was supposed to be his coming out party. He was supposed to get a max contract from someone after the finals. He was going to be the man for another team next season if he left the Warriors. Now, I wouldn't even consider giving him anything close to a max contract. Not only was his offense atrocious, but he was man handled by pretty much everyone he guarded during the finals. Barnes had the worst possible finals that a free agent could have. He was worse in this series than Kevin Love and Iman Shumpert were, and they were both terrible. 

Then we have Kyrie Irving. Wow, was he great. He scored at will. He shot a very high percentage. No one on Golden State could stop him. He was just as important to this title win as LeBron was. Yeah, LeBron had a triple double last night, but without Irving in the third quarter and that three he hit in the fourth, no way does Cleveland win the title. Kyrie Irving was absolutely spectacular and he is rising very fast up the best players in the league chart right now. What an incredible performance he had.

Finally, LeBron. I have dogged him the whole season and during the playoffs. I still think he is a prima donna, a whiner and I'm fed up with his constant complaining to officials, but he did what he promised he would do for Cleveland. He delivered a title. He was great in games 5 and 6. He had a triple double last night. He was not good on defense, Draymond put up 30 plus on him last night, but he ran this team and they won because of his effort. This is, by far, the most impressive thing he has done in his very impressive career.

Congrats Cleveland. You guys won the title and proved a whole lot of people wrong in doing so. I'm very curious to see how this team looks next year, but for now, enjoy your victory, you guys earned it....with a little help from David Silver and the refs.

Ty

Ty is the Pop Culture editor for SeedSing and the other host of the X Millennial Man Podcast. He says if Cleveland can get a title this year, then why not the Cubs? Get all of your winners by following Ty on twitter @tykulik.

Happy Father's Day

This Sunday marks Father's Day. A lot of people tend to blow off this holiday. It's kind of pushed to the side. Sure, kids and moms and wives make a tiny deal out of it, but it's not nearly as important as Mother's Day, Veterans Day, or any other "day". Well, I have a great father, and I feel like I'm a great father as well. In fact, the Kirkwood Webster Times in Saint Louis wrote up a great piece about our local stay at home dad group. I highly recommend everyone go check it out. But, I'm not here to pat myself on the back, or stroke my own ego, no way. I actually want to talk about my idol, and best friend, my dad. My dad is the absolute best dad in the world. Sorry to everyone else's father, but my dad is better than yours. He is the man that I still strive to be. He has worked his tail off for the last 40 plus years to provide for his family. He worked two, sometimes even three jobs when I was a child so my brothers and I didn't have to go to daycare. This is not to say that daycare isn't fine, hell, it's some families only option, but my father worked so hard so my mom could stay home and take care of us until we were old enough. But not only is my dad a model employee and hard worker, he taught and coached every sport my brothers and I played. He'd work what seemed to be 80 hours a week, but he always used his weekends to play and coach baseball, basketball and football, amongst many other sports with all four of us. He coached me and my older brother all the way through little league. He coached me and my brother closest in age with me in basketball all the way to high school. He'd take all four of us outside and throw a football around, throw a baseball and shoot baskets. Even the head editor and owner of this site, who's more into watching than playing sports, he was a cross country runner in college and I remember my father taking us up to watch his races. He also gave you your taste in movies RD, but I know you know that. As I've gotten older, I've grown to appreciate my father so much more. He gives all four of his kids equal time and wants to talk to us about our passions and hobbies. He can talk music with Ross, politics with RD, music and art with Seth and all things Michigan Wolverines with me. I love you dad and I just wanted to take my time today to let you know that. You've done all the things I've mentioned above, but you've also done much, much more. You have shaped all four of us into the men we are today. You and mom made us the good people that we've become as adults. You are the absolute best person in the entire world. Thanks dad and have a great Father's Day. Love you.

Ty

Ty is the Pop Culture Editor for SeedSing and the other host of the X Millennial Man Podcast. Follow him on twitter @tykulik.

A Bunch of the Wrong Kids will be Picked at the Top of the NBA Draft

We do not think the future of the NBA is the kind of bad kid sneaking smokes.

With the NBA draft one week from today, I have a few thoughts I'd like to float about this draft.

First off, publications like Deadspin, ESPN and Fox Sports need to stop giving Ben Simmons a free pass on everything. Simmons came out the other day and said that he did not want to work out for the 76ers. I'm sorry, but when did every single draft eligible player become so entitled that they get to choose which team they want to lay for? You should be extremely excited that you are about to be paid millions of dollars to play a game. Sure, the 76ers are really, really, really bad, but so are the Lakers, Nets, Timberwolves and Suns. Why do these guys want to be playing for some other moribound franchise. Sure, The Lakers are in LA, but the Lakers are just as bad as the 76ers, and they have a much worse team chemistry. The Nets are in Brooklyn, but they are horrific, and unless they trade some of their ancient "assets", they don't have a pick in the next couple of drafts. the Timberwolves are kind of looking like they may turn it around, but Thibodeau wants to trade that pick to bring in a veteran leader, maybe Jimmy Butler. The Suns have no one else besides Devin Booker, so why do these young guys want to play in the desert? It's extremely hot in Phoenix, all the time. So, especially Deadspin, whose owners filed for bankruptcy protection, need to stop giving this kid a pass and saying it is his right. Sure, he can say who he wants to play for, but if he gets picked by the 76ers, that's his team. I despise guys like John Elway and Eli Manning because they did this exact same thing. They bitched and moaned and griped until they got their way, like spoiled, rotten, bratty little children. It's so childish. If I was the GM or owner of the 76ers, I'd pick Simmons out of spite.

Next, why are Simmons, Brandon Ingram and Jamal Murray the only "top" prospects. the three of them are all 19 or 20 year old that didn't get past the round of 16 in the tournament. Jamal Murray's team, Kentucky, was bounced in the round of 32. Brandon Ingram and Duke lost to Oregon in the round of 16. And Ben Simmons, they didn't even play in the NIT, so none of that sounds desirable to me. Of these three players, I think Ingram has the most upside, but he is a ways away from being a big time NBA player. I don't care how many jump shots, with no defense being played, that they make in individual workouts, for the guys that workout. I don't care about their vertical or their cone drill speed, all this combine stuff is as useless as the NFL combine results. What I care about is the in game stuff. I watch a tone of NBA and college basketball, so I have seen these three guys play. Murray was lost among the loaded Kentucky team. When you have 5,6 or even 7 players that can be picked, it is hard to stand out, unless you are an Anthony Davis or Karl Anthony-Towns. Brandon Ingram was good to great at times for Duke, but he is rail thin and he tends to settle for way more jumpers than he should be taking. He also takes possessions off sometimes on defense, and I don't like that. Ingram can, and probably will, get bigger, but he has to fully engage before I deem him a star.

Then there is Simmons. While he looks like an NBA player, he is big, can handle the ball and has great court vision, he also did not lead LSU to any tournament and as the season wore on, he looked tired and not as aggressive as he was at the start of the season. Everyone told me that I had to watch this kid play, so I started with his game against Oklahoma, and I came away very unimpressed. A lot of that is coaching, but if Simmons is the superstar that people are making him out to be, he should have willed that LSU team to, at the very least, 20 wins and an NCAA tournament bid. Simmons doesn't look like he will live up to the hype, at least in my opinion.

Finally, why aren't more people talking about Buddy Hield and Denzel Valentine as top 3 to 5 picks. Both guys had illustrious college careers. Both guys are gunners from the three, which is where the NBA is trending. Both guys play formidable defense, Valentine more so than Hield, but when they engage, they are close to lock down. Both have led their respective teams to a final four bid. Both scored 20 plus points per game. Both ran their teams offense at the most crucial times during their college careers. But the main thing, both are 22 years old. They have matured over 4 years of college. They may not be as good, who am I kidding, there is no way they'll be as good, but Tim Duncan, Patrick Ewing and Magic Johnson all spent four years in college. Did that hinder their careers? Did they miss out on their prime of basketball by staying in school for four years? No and no. They all had great, hall of fame careers. This new era of the NBA drafting 18, 19 and 20 year old kids is watering down the NBA. The only one and done player from last years draft worth his salt in the NBA is Karl Anthony-Towns. Ever other freshman drafted last year, who knows.

If I had a team with a lottery pick, I'd definitely take Hield, but I'd also consider Valentine before I consider Simmons, Murray or Ingram. I prefer seasoned basketball players that are mature to teenagers that may or may not be ready for a big boy job. Basketball is a year round job and these young kids, who have never been pushed, are going to have a tough time adjusting. Take Hield or Valentine, not the freshman, your team will be better off in the long run.

Also, the draft is a waste of time and nobody should watch it, it's boring and ridiculous.

Ty 

Ty is the Pop Culture editor for SeedSing and the other host of the X Millennial Man Podcast. He is available to be the gm for any NBA team, he knows most of the league could use a new GM. Reach Ty by following him on twitter @tykulik.

The Greatest American Band Debate: Iggy and the Stooges

For the greatest American band debate today, I'm going to nominate the one, and only, punk rock group that I have legitimately liked. The problem with punk rock music, at least in America, it becomes too watered down and begins to sound emo when a decent punk group gets some fame. There are too many to list, but I bet the readers know exactly what I'm talking about. In all fairness, the best punk groups come from the UK. There is no denying this, it is a statement of fact. But, Iggy and the Stooges made American punk music cool for their run as a band.

Iggy and the Stooges were the only punk group I heard and was immediately in to. I know some people will try to tell me that the Ramones were punk, they were not, they were rock and pop. The Stooges were punk. Even when they first formed and did some psychedelic stuff, it still sounded punk rockish, at least to me. And, it was mainly because of their phenomenal front man, Iggy Pop. I knew that I was going to be into Iggy and the Stooges before I listened to them, because they are from Ann Arbor, Michigan. Not only were they from the greatest state in the US, but they were from the greatest college town of all time. I was destined to like them.

I do have to say, the way I first heard of the Stooges was from a Black Keys EP where they covered their song, "No Fun". I loved the Black Keys version, so, combined with the fact that they were from Ann Arbor and my all time favorite band was covering their songs, I had to check them out. They did not disappoint. Their self titled debut record, while not commercially successful, is a very, very good album. they have some of the psychedelic stuff going on, but it is mostly straight up punk guitar and bass riffs, fast paced drums and Iggy Pop performing these songs with his signature gruff style. I think the record is very good. They may have come off as weird when they released it in the early 70's, but it still holds up today. I'd much rather listen to this album than anything the Ramones have ever released.

A couple of years later, they released their second record, "Fun House". After the release of "Fun House", that was when the Stooges got the critical acclaim. It was a straight forward punk record with classic song after classic song. During the tour after the release of "Fun House" was also when the band got into heroin and their live shows became a thing of legend. Heroin is so nasty, I assume, and it seems like every band from the 70's tried it at one time or another, but it wasn't the drugs that made them great. The live shows was were it was at, and yes, I'm sure heroin had something to do with what made these shows so epic. They used to tour with another great American band, that will surely get their due on the site soon, MC5, and the shows are still talked about today. This was when Iggy Pop would do crazy stuff like cut himself with broken glass, rub food stuffs and other things all over his shirtless body, the band was always playing incredible stuff and, during these live shows, that was when Iggy Pop supposedly created stage diving. I don't know if it is true or not, but the fact that a lot of people credit him with creating this, I mean, how cool is that. Stage diving has become commonplace now, but imagine being there when it first happened. You have to have a crowd that is really into your music, so much so that they are willing to hold you up when you dive into a sea of fans. I love that Iggy Pop is the supposed creator, because who else could it really be. Iggy Pop is so believable as the man that invented stage diving.

After many epic live shows and many problems with hard drugs, the band all got sober and released their third, and final record as the traditional Stooges, "Rough Power". They recorded this album with David Bowie, who had become good friends with Pop, as the producer. The album is hit or miss, with most of the criticism being thrown Bowie's way for over producing, but it is still an okay record. You can definitely hear Bowie's fingerprints all over this record.

The band broke up for the final time after "Rough Power". Pop has gone on to do wonderful things as a solo artist. He has worked with many great musicians and producers, guys like Brian Burton and Josh Homme, and has had a lot of success. Pop is the undeniable star of this great group, but I cannot end this blog without mentioning how great the Asheton Brothers, Ron and Scott were. They were both just as important to the Stooges sound and uprising as one of the greatest punk rock groups ever. They have since passed, as has everyone else that was first involved with the Stooges, but Iggy Pop is still plugging along.

I also cannot end until I name some of the great bands that the Stooges influenced. I already mentioned the Black Keys, but other bands like Sonic Youth, Rage Against the Machine, REM, The Red Hot Chili Peppers and the late great Kurt Cobain have all said that the Stooges were big influences, and they have all covered them, one way or another. The Stooges were finally, after 7 tries, inducted into the Rock and Roll Hall of Fame in 2010. It was a longtime coming.

Look, I will be forever grateful to the Stooges for showing me that punk rock can be good. It doesn't have to be simplistic and the singer doesn't have to scream into a mic or be emo. You can be yourself and make great music, which the Stooges did. They are more than worthy to be called one of America's greatest bands.

Ty

Ty is the Pop Culture editor for SeedSing and the other host of the X Millennial Man Podcast. Who do you think the Greatest American Band is? Come tell us all about it. Also, follow Ty on twitter @tykulik.