New Years

In the dawn of a new year, at the beginning of a new decade, it is reassuring that "Star Wars" parodies will not only remain but thrive... forever.

Consumer-priced editing software and the invention of Mash-Ups are to thank for this one and even though I'm not 100% with the equating of Chewbacca to an African-American person, who else would play B.A.? ..

Episode I: Examined

I should be writing. I know, I know... this is writing, but not "work writing." I'm procrastinating. But I don't feel too bad.

If you're anything like me, you have a myriad of problems with the Star Wars prequels, but not enough time to dedicate to going film by film, instance by instance, dissecting all that is wrong and bad with the three films which brought the series into lame land.

There is, however, at least one man who is nothing like me. He has gone to the trouble of not only thinking it all through and producing a video critique, but he even includes interviews with friends to prove his points.

Attached is Video One Part One of SEVEN in his series on why Episode I is, in his opinion, awful. It's ten minute long. It's safe to assume that the other six installments are all around 10 minutes, too, so if you additionally assume it took him 2 days to work on each clip (there's a lot of editing work put into these), and assume he took a couple days to write each chapter, that comes out to around 30 days -- an entire month -- dedicated to this thing.

Now I don't feel so bad that I'm not writing that screenplay I promised myself I'd finish by the end of 2009. But I do feel a little bad that he stole my idea* (a while ago a friend and I talked about creating a short video podcast dedicated entirely to what's wrong in the prequels. We assumed we had enough material for at least 25 episodes).

This is the only chapter I've had enough time to watch**. Some day I shall probably get through the other six (time is on my side: if it takes me years and years, that won't make The Phantom Menace any better).

Enjoy.

*I'm sure a million other people "had" this idea as well. It's to this guy's credit that he actually followed through on something and did it. It's this same logic I use to not complain about groups like The Jonas Brothers. Yeah, their music isn't so inspired and a lot of people could have written it. But you know what? They didn't. These guys did.

**Not from working, mind you.

Ridiculous Clothing

It only takes one item to prove you are a fan, but if you take two one items and wear them simultaneously, you cross some strange social line dividing the sick from the normals.

I went to sleep wearing this shirt...

...then woke up in the morning and threw on a sweat shirt...

...resulting in this ridiculous, over-done combo:

It's like I'm on the Batman track team or something.

Holy Dodged Bullets.

Occasionally I pay attention to my "YouTube Recommends" section, and today I'm kind of glad I did. On it was a video of the 1966 audition for "Batman" -- not for Adam West and Burt Ward, but for Lyle Waggoner and Peter Deyell. Waggoner (whose name means "He of Wagons With Extra Letters") may best be known for being the Attractive Man on "The Carol Burnette Show," but I've never heard of this Peter Deyell dude. After this audition he has two listed credits, one of which is "Delivery Boy" on "Santa Barbara;" probably not a recurring character.

I'm not here to just crap on non-superstar actors. They got a chance, and I'm sorry they didn't find more success. But when you watch this audition, you kind of see why they didn't find their fortunes here. You also have to hand it to the creators of the show (William Dozier in particular) for casting their show properly. When you think about it, this was an incredibly challenging show to cast for, seeing as how they had a high-profile guest character every single week. They solved this by (mostly) casting the greatest person possible for the role. Seriously, try picturing anyone else playing Penguin.

But the show also needed a solid center, and that was not the oddly-homosexual undertones brought to you by the audition seen here (though there's no "straight" way to read the line "when she finds out what you've been doing on our supposed fishing trips" and not sound... y'know). I love how it starts in the middle of a crisis, but Bruce Wayne is reading a book. Then he kind of looks to Dick like he's been caught napping in class. Magical.

Off Topic... but enough complaints that it might be about "Star Wars"

Spoilers ahead...

I love reading the Onion's A.V. Club for reasons I cannot fully fathom (that's not the spoiler). Maybe it fills my inner snark to read someone snarkier, or maybe it's their tell-it-like-it-is approach to movie criticism that I enjoy (a film is never perfect, and they recognize this). I also love reading lists of any kind, ranking the 10 Blankiest Blanks for no reason other than I like to see where people list stuff.

But the A.V. Club's list of the 50 Best Films of the 00's is flat out misguided. Perhaps the result of a group vote you just end up with a weird assortment of films, and their rankings end up more arbitrary than logic would dictate.

For example -- and this is where it gets slightly on topic -- THE DARK KNIGHT is ranked #41 of the decade. #39 is THE PRESTIGE.

This is wrong. I'm not simply sticking up for THE DARK KNIGHT (quite the opposite, actually, as I will probably laboriously deal with in future posts), I'm of the camp that found THE PRESTIGE predictable and out and out lame. I cannot be the only person to see this movie and notice we were seeing an awful lot of the back of one character and never his face. There's a reason -- because seeing his face would reveal that he's played by Christian Bale, too, thereby undoing the "big secret" that he has a twin and that's how he does his magic tricks.

But the other characters could see this dude's face, right? Are they that dense? Apparently.

Other surprises/annoyances of the list:

-MOULIN ROUGE made it. A pretty film that has collected dust in our DVD collection. I think if I watched it now I'd laugh at -- not with -- the musical performances. C'mon... a tango "Roxanne?" We barely need the regular version of that song.

-No room for UP. Maybe they're just playing tough with recent entries, which I can understand. And maybe it'll be all over their "Best of 2009" lists... but it seems like UP was pretty great. I'm glad WALL-E and THE INCREDIBLES made the list (and with INCREDIBLES being ranked higher!), but to leave out UP just feels wrong.

-AMERICAN PSYCHO is #34. Really? It's 2/3's a good movie, and then 1/3 a not-so-hot one. It's not bad, but again... better than UP? Didn't MONSTERS, INC. come out during this decade? (I like Pixar. Back off).

-The only LOTR film that made it was THE TWO TOWERS. This would qualify as "surprising" for this list. If we're talking theatrical cuts, I would tend to agree: the theatrical cuts of "FOTR" and "ROTK" don't belong here.

-KILL BILL, VOL. 1 made it, not VOL. 2. Again: "surprising." And another one I favor. I prefer this one if for no other reason than I never have to deal with endings, one of my personal hurdles.

OK, so it's not all that outrageous. I just like to hate on THE PRESTIGE. But I don't think that's a reason not to dislike this list. Maybe they threw it on there because added with THE DARK KNIGHT and MEMENTO there are three Christopher Nolan movies on the list, the personal leader (PT Anderson had 2 as did the Coen Brothers). And maybe they're going the way of Rolling Stone magazine and angling for a big interview with the guy. Or they like him that much and love the taste of his butt crack. Or maybe they're afraid Bale will scream at them (he's got 3 on the list, too). Whatever the case, it's lackluster to me and I'll prove it in future posts ad naseum where I point out Nolan's directorial flaws for Batman. It's gonna be great.

EDITED TO ADD: Upon re-examining the list, one of the real winners is Alfonso Cuaron. He along with Ang Lee and Richard Linklater each have two movies on the list, and while that's still one below Nolan's 3, Cuaron's 2 are both in the top 15. So... get out the ticker tape, right?

New Old News... or Old New Old News?

Re: the title -- this isn't brand new information, but it's new to me.

But it's new to me about old information about something

new that's also not new. Screw it.

If the guys at RiffTrax provide nothing else, then they allow me to

"enjoy" crappy movies more. I mean, I kind of have to watch the

prequels, but that doesn't make things any easier.

Fortunately, they blast them pretty hard. It's wonderful.

I still can't bring myself to endorse this treatment for the original

trilogy: I need SOMETHING worthwhile to have come from the

last 30 years.

"The Hound of the Baskervilles" review -- How Batman Is It?

For all the Batman I've exposed myself to, I've never gotten into Sherlock Holmes, one of the greatest influences on the Batman myth. On a whim -- and admittedly somewhat influenced by the upcoming movie -- I picked up a couple of Arthur Conan Doyle's books in paperback at a used book store. I finished quickly with "Hound of the Baskerville," and I'm starting "The Adventures of Sherlock Holmes" now. Several things struck me about the relationship between Holmes and Batman, and just Holmes in general. Interestingly enough, I'm now going to list them.

1.) The "genius" of Holmes is kind of a myth, but a fun one. It's a delicate thing, mystery writing. The writer must know his story inside and out in order to plant clues for the characters and the reader to follow, and possibly get confused by... yet the writer must know exactly why things are getting confusing because to him or her, there is no mystery. This is where Sherlock Holmes comes in and usually explains away all mystery as attributed to his brilliant deductive mind. That may be so, but I couldn't help laughing a little at this brilliant deductive mind because it seems like cheating, since the writer who knows how the mystery really plays out is also writing Holmes. I know, I know... it's ludicrous. Of course the writer knows, that's how it works. It's just sort of funny to think about. I suppose this is what proves Doyle was talented because he was a) smart enough to tell this and many of this Holmes stories through the eyes of the less-brilliant Dr. Watson, thereby giving the readers an ally in confusion and befudlement and b) Doyle makes matters so complicated that when Holmes steps up and deduces everything out, it comes as a relief. You see this a lot on shows like "Lost" (see my earlier post about why Sayid is that show's Batman), where the story is so crazy and tangled and messed up that if anyone you trust steps forward and gives you a square answer, they suddenly sprout a halo over their head. Also to Doyle's credit, the times when Holmes delivers these "How'd he figure that out" moments are crafted so nicely that you just enjoy the experience.

2.) Who Would Win In A Fight Between Holmes and Batman? Good question, myself. It depends on the type of fight. My first semi-true exposure to Sherlock Holmes was in a See-N-Play record-comic collection where Batman solves a murder in England with someone who turns out to be the ghost of Sherlock Holmes (odd that Batman doesn't piece that one together until the very end... who else wears those double-billed hats, Batman?). There they obviously worked together and helped one another out. But who had the upper hand?

Physically, it would appear the victor is Batman. He's honed his body, traveling the world and learning martial arts of every kind. Holmes can hold his own in a fight, but I have to think that if you spend every single night swinging around on a rope, you're probably going to kick some fine puzzle-deducting ass handily.

If it is a battle of wits/detective work, now things get interesting and I feel the victory should go Sherlock's way, if for no other reason than he is the character who inspired Batman, not the other way around. Normally the first one to do something is the leader in these types of things... to me, anyway.

3.) Is the song "Baker Street" by Gerry Rafferty inspired by Holmes' headquarters? And if so -- or even if it's not -- will it be a musical cue in the latest "SHERLOCK HOLMES" film by resident King Douchebag director Guy Ritchie? Only if there's slow-motion punching to accompany it. Judging from the lyrics, it does not appear the song is inspired from much of anything, except for sexy sax solos. Either way, I can't stop singing this song -- and its solo -- every time I read it. As it should be.

So How "Batman" is Sherlock Holmes? Probably only 6 out of 10 Batmans worth, but that might get bumped up to a 7.5 the more scowly I picture him in my head, probably happens because the way Doyle describes the way Holmes pacing in "Baskervilles" always reminds me of an image from "The Laughing Fish" where Batman does the same (at the bottom).

Enjoy...

New "Ya-Ya's" Review

I realized recently that unless they really get their act together, the Rolling Stones will only have released one album of new material for the entire first decade of the 21st century. That has not stopped them from re-releasing and remastering old material, which brings us to the 40th anniversary edition of "Get Yer Ya-Ya's Out," the best live Stones record ever released, and maybe one of the best live albums ever, too.

Since this is a reissue of something classic, it naturally comes with an inflated price and several "bonus" features all totaling around $50 for something only a die-hard would buy, but if they're a die-hard, then they already have it. It also comes with the original review of the album by Lester Bangs in Rolling Stone magazine (that way you can find out if the album's good before you... buy it...?). It's all a little underwhelming for $50 in my opinion, and I was sure I would just ignore it.

Enter iTunes, where for $5.00 you can legally own the 5 previously un-released tracks of the Stones' headlining concerts in Madison Square Garden (for more money, you can get cuts from opening acts B.B. King and Ike & Tina, but for the purposes of this blog, we'll be focusing on the music of whatstheirnames). That's 10% of the price for 100% of the value (no offense to Ike & Tina. Well, maybe to Ike, but not Tina).

Eager not to spend too much, I snatched up the 5 tracks and immediately started wondering how I should listen to them, presently and going forward. Do I listen to them as stand alone tracks, as a separate set bundled together, or do I integrate them into a complete 15-track "Ya-Ya's" playlist, which may include juggling of the original track listing and consequently result in my having to make a Garage Band version with proper fades, so that I can complete the illusion that I am actually listening to this as it was performed 4 decades ago. Psychosis is time consuming.

This brings up one of the questions I've had since first listening to "Ya-Ya's" and watching the unofficial companion film, "GIMME SHELTER," a documentary/concert film shot of the same shows.
Fact: The Stones played 2 nights at Madison Square Garden
Fact: None of the song versions on "Ya-Ya's" appear on "GIMME SHELTER." That is to say that the version of, say, "Jumpin' Jack Flash" is different on the album from the one in the movie.

Questions: did they do this on purpose, or were they required to accommodate some legal clearances? Do the rights to the MUSIC belong to the record company, so they released other versions to the film company? Or vice versa? Who got to pick first? How did they decide "this one for that, and that one for this?" And was there studio trickery involved with the mixing of both? The "SHELTER" version of "Satisfaction" has a rambling improvised ending with Jagger going on about not giving us any bullshit well after the song's official lyrics complete. That version is not the version of "Satisfaction" which has just been released...

...sort of. You can hear his "We've got to find it!" bits at the end of the newly released track, which sounds similar to that of the movie version. Why didn't they just release the full rambling version from the movie... which now might not be as full as I thought because the film version skips one of the lyrics, and I always assumed this was true to the performance, but now this newly-released cut has all three stanzas...

And if the truth IS that they had to pick different versions for the album from the movie, then why could they include the Jagger-to-crowd banter as it was on both?

Like I said, it's time consuming. A quick study of Wikipedia listed the possible set list of this 1969 tour, and I've been going with that. It's altered a little from the album version, and I can't tell if the differences jar me because A) the album's pretty great as it was when it was released, so any change is always gonna freak me out; B) it doesn't work as well that way, period; or C) I just haven't spent enough time cross fading the levels to make me believe it.

I think the truth is A. The semi-reliable source claims "Sympathy for the Devil" came in the #3 spot, but that just seems weird. It's a strong rave-up of a song, and it seems odd to go from "Carol" into that and then cool things down with "Stray Cat" and the blues set. This might explain why the newly-released tracks weren't offered as an incorporation into the classic album... it was classic for a reason. They worked hard to get it right, they did, and no money-grubbing re-issue is gonna mess with that document.

Of the music it self, the new old tracks are mostly good, but I suppose I can see why they were left off. "Prodigal Son" is that jambly version you get on the "SHELTER" DVD (sort of: it's not EXACTLY that version... you know what I mean), and it's far from the best thing they did on the night. "You Gotta Move" is good, but far from electric or essential. The aforementioned "Satisfaction" is enjoyable if for no other reason to realize that they've HAD to play that freaking song since its release, and any weird cache of anti-pop-establishment cool anyone may have given them for not playing it -- 'cause, hey, it's not on the album of the concert, right? -- is blown.

The gem of these new old songs however is shared between "Under My Thumb" and "I'm Free." I've always liked "Thumb," and the band has always seemed to play it great live. Nearly every version of that song is just plain good, and this one is no exception in that regard, but what I wasn't expecting was how well it flows into "I'm Free" as they do here in a medley. I don't know where the line dividing "derivative" or "inspired connection" is with these songs. Basically, the guitar bits done for the chorus in "Thumb" sound exactly like those of the lead in "I'm Free," and as I play it over and over I wonder if the band just discovered this themselves and thought, "Well, crap, those songs are almost the same damn thing!"

Whatever the case, it works great, and the only reason I can think for leaving these off of the original release is due to space issues. They might have had space to give to one, but that meant losing the other, which would be a shame. I've never been a big lover of "I'm Free," but this version is absolutely excellent, with a lyrical guitar solo and a propulsive, faster-than-the-studio-cut beat. The studio version feels flat by comparison; the mark of a great live performance. In the little searching I did, I can't even find a stand-alone live version of "I'm Free" quite like the one released here, and I'm too giddy to objectively consider its greatness. Listen to it for yourself with "Thumb" and you'll see. There's something uplifting in this misogynistic double-header.

Which brings me to the final thesis on "Ya-Ya's" and the band itself. It's worth noting that the lineup for these concerts included no horns, back-up singers or acoustic guitars (sorta... I guess the two extra bluesy tracks are acoustic, but you get my point), with Ian Stewart as the only "non-band member" band member helping out on the keys. This was probably the last time the Stones played major tours in such a way, and it fuels their creativity as well as their rock artistry. Got a song like "Sympathy" that featured bongos on the album? Too bad. We don't have bongos on tour. What do we do? The low-techness of this performance seemed to focus their energies and harness their concentration. Richards and newly-christened Taylor had to find their electric interplay, creating a weird kind of double-lead guitar sound where you can't tell who's who anymore. The result is a unified sound on an album that demands your attention.

IF YOU GET ALL THE NEW OLD SONGS: the set list appears to be found here.

IF YOU CAN ONLY AFFORD ONE SONG: You're cheating yourself, but get "Under My Thumb." Here's a version that's kinda like the one included, but slower. The new cut is more like the one in "SHELTER."


IF YOU CAN AFFORD ONE MORE: get "I'm Free" and listen to them back to back all night.

Eye-Ball Hooks

Babies like contrasting images. Black on white that sort of thing.

I have a lot of Batman shirts.

I gave Henry a bath by sitting in the tub facing him.

This is what he stared at the entire time.



And he didn't take his eyes off it. Well, that's a little over-stated, but he would lock on, that's for sure.

Induction

The way I play guitar, my son is either gonna love the Rolling Stones or haaaaaaaaaaaaaaate them. I can play a few other songs from other bands (White Stripes and Weezer are up there... Even some Electric 6), but without question the band catalog I play with the most frequency is the band I can't seem to stop talking about and isn't it completely obvious by now, I mean their name is in the freaking title of this blog I don't have to tell you.

Most times it's been just me, Henry, and my acoustic guitar. So far the pop-rock song that is his favorite (and I use the term loosely, considering we're talking about a young child who's other "favorite" things include being changed out of pee diapers and lights) is Nirvana's "Come As You Are," but when I'm not warbling a softer version of the Cobain voice, I fall back on the Rolling Stones. In these short 12 weeks of the boy's life, he's had a variety of reactions to my performances, so here now are those reactions:

"Dead Flowers" Very good. Maybe it's the peppy beat or the way I sing it or I don't know what, but it's been the song to yield the most consistent positive responses, which recently have manifested into actual grins, not just things we hope are grins.

"Gimme Shelter" F. Not having it. It seems too intricate for both his young brain and my crappy skills to handle and make great.

"Till The Next Time We Say Goodbye" OK as long as I sing it like a lullaby, sort of.

Brown Sugar (a capella) So-so. It's not great, but when I get the guitar down I think it'll get a little better reaction.

"Sympathy For the Devil" Less than OK. It's not out and out bad, but it's not one where I'm anticipating many requests.

"Tumbling Dice" Great. Who knew that a song about unfulfilling sexual conquests in a gambling context would draw grins from the intro alone.

Truth be told -- and this goes for all these songs -- I don't play "Dice" just like the original version. I'll change lyrics (like in "Dead Flowers" I'm not gonna sing "I won't forget to put roses on your grave." I change it to something like "I won't forget to put roses out for the brave." True, the final refrain of this exact line is kind of awkward, but my audience can't even hold his own head up, so I hear few complaints. What I've learned best, however, is how certain genres of music begin, particularly the one where popular rock songs are turned into lullabies, making for sacrilegious "baby safe" versions of songs far too mature for infant ears (these were intended for head-banging teenagers, after all).

But now I get it. It's not that somebody wanted to go out and "butcher" a bunch of Metallica songs by making them wussy. It's that they love singing to their kids and they also love Metallica. So why not?

So... Why THESE Topics?

When I'm hanging out at the traditional late-night blog mixers, I often get asked by the more traditional writers, "Mr. Mohtaz, why did you chose to focus your typings on those three seemingly unrelated topics?"

"First off, it's pronounced 'Mah-tuz,' like 'Not-as,' but with an 'M' instead of an 'N.'"

"Forgive me."

"Don't worry about it," I assure them. "It happens all the time."

"Oh, good," they sigh, and start filling their mouth with complementary shrimp as I explain that my reasoning for this blog fixation is like that of every other internet business: because there was almost a need for it.

These are three immensely popular topics, all of which have been more universally, more appropriately and more thoroughly covered by a multitude of better looking websites. But not all at once. And I'm willing to bet that there are probably a few people out there who wish the could read the words of a guy who simultaneously hums the "Batman Returns" chase scene music while imagining he's in a tunic and doing a guitar-riff leg kick. Just like they do.

While these are all independently popular topics, it stands to reason that if I cast a wide enough net, I'm sure to catch something. There must be others like me out there. There just has to be.

Although there's really doesn't have to be. A quick Google Image search of "rolling stones batman star wars" gave me mixed results, and the closest thing I could find to a thesis photo for this blog would be two covers for Rolling Stone magazine.

This one...

...and this one...

("Star Wars" has been on RS a number of times, but none of the others really compared with this one).

I'm pretty sure I don't have any exactly-like-minded friends in my close circle. I know many fans of "Star Wars," and there has been a major up-swing in the Bat-cult lately, but I usually lose people when it comes to the Stones. In an informal pole of my Facebook profile a few months back, I believe I had approximately 3 other friends who list the Stones under their Favorite Music Info (used to be you could just click on your info and get a list of friends who shared this commonality. Not any more. You really know what you're doing, Facebook). This may sound small, but keep in mind... I have about 500 friends. That's not small: that's infantesimal. Either they're all closeted fans, or they don't care that much, or that means that I know 497 other people who don't give a rat's rat about this band, and I kind of believe that. I've tried multiple times to convert/educate people to their gospel, with middling success.

But I'm not in the Trojan horse game with this site. Not at all. I'm in the worlds-coming-together game. I'm in the niche-market game. I'm hoping to discover others like me. Searching for people to do one-stop comiserating when things get rough, as they tend to do and don't seem to have any intention of stopping any time soon I'm staring at you, "Wars" legacy.

So hopefully some Batman fan will enjoy my take on how the old 60's show was an underrated source of great Batman material (more on that to come) and then discover my musical tastes and say to himself (or herself... but let's not kid ourselves), "Holy Giant Lips, Blog-man! I'm a new parent who likes listening to 'Goats Head Soup' when the sun's almost down and I'm driving on the highway with my hand on a lightsaber TV remote , too!" And then the probable-he will be sure to seek me out the next time we're all at the Blogger Mansion. I'll be the guy with his head in the chocolate fountain.

Low Points Series: The Stones' "BLACK AND BLUE"

A series, if you will. And you will. As is my custom, from time to time I choose to dwell on the awful, and this blog's topics shall be no exception. Especially since they're so good at producing such awfulness with great verve and spirit.

The Rolling Stones' 1975 release "BLACK AND BLUE," specifically the song "Hot Stuff."

(Look at this stupid cover. Nice collar there, Wyman. A giant collar doesn't make your tacky necklace any cooler.)

What fresh turd is this? Like many fans of things out there -- I often find myself unable to give up on the bad moments of something I love. I'll re-examine it, hoping to mine out some new nugget of at least goodness, if not greatness, but willing to settle for okay-ness. Sometimes the stars align and I find a chunk I can call "not a complete waste of my time."

Then there's a horrible song like "Hot Stuff" that stinks of lazy, good-for-nothing bullshit.

Albums like "BLACK AND BLUE" present an interesting challenge for the adventure-seeking fan. Scanning the album sleeve, one looks past what is possibly the worst album cover imaginable and realizes there are absolutely no commonly-known songs listed. And there's only eight on the album. You would think -- as I might have, oh so many naive years ago -- that this means these could be eight undiscovered gems. And you would be very wrong. As the Stones dealt with the resignation of Mick Taylor, the album was a kind of recorded audition, and we all know how productive and listenable auditions can be, right? This led to a lot of noodling and a lot of jamming and generally a lot of crap.

A lot of crap. And that's saying something, because as I've pointed out, there are only eight songs! When it comes to B-Level Stones work, you get a couple radio hits, some rockers in between and then the rest are duds. You bat .500 and you call it good. Like their most recent album, "A BIGGER BANG." 16 tracks. 8 good-to-great ones, 4 so-so's, and the rest are plain bad, and that's the way it is. I'm happy to linger in a world where "Rough Justice" and "Look What the Cat Dragged In" exist without "She Saw Me Coming" and the like. This is the point of CD's and MP3's.

But back in the mid-70's, fans had to either skip around with a record needle or sit through tracks like "Hot Stuff," which is catchy in all the wrong ways (those ways being "it's repetitive and simple and you couldn't get it out of your head with a pick axe, and not for lack of trying). A really friendly review (and they exist, by the way) would call this kind of song "experimental." A more realistic review would call it "a nightmare." It's a kind of rasta-disco jam, and if you're like me you never thought you'd ever enjoy anything with the words "rasta" and "disco" and "jam" placed together, and you would be 100% correct.

(Man, it gets worse when you fold it out, too. It's the most bored avant garde portrayal of "Our Town" ever. On the beach, apparently!)

It also brings to light the power of horrible singing, vocal interpretation and the like. When you're Mick Jagger, and your only lyrics of note are "Hot stuff, can't get enough" repeated over and over and over and OVER again, you feel it is your duty as the singer of these stupid words to at least make them... well, not "interesting," but "different" in some way. That means you sometimes sing it straight, then louder, then you lift up the end, like "Hot stuuuuuUUUFF! Can'tgetenuff. Hat-stuuuuUUUUFF!" This is supposed to make it good.

To make matters even more horrifying, it's five minutes and twenty-one seconds long. Now, I get it: the Stones have always been a shaggy band. They're not the Ramones--they don't just hit it, quit it, and move on. I have come to understand that. But there's "shaggy" and then there's "overstaying your welcome." And then there's "you've overstayed your welcome, the party's over, you puked in my punch bowl? Where did you get that suit? That's my dad's suit. Don't throw that suit in the punch bowl! Now it's noon on the next Monday."

There are probably worse songs in the Stones catalog than "Hot Stuff," but I believe there are no worse songs starting off an album. For the sake of scientific method, let us only include the album starters the band wrote themselves. This includes "Paint it, Black," "Sympathy for the Devil," "Gimme Shelter," "Start Me Up" (which I kinda can't listen to any more either, but because it's overplayed), "Brown-f***in' Sugar," "Miss You." And those are the hits, guys. Somehow it was determined that "Hot Stuff" can hold these songs' collective jock. Of all 29 qualifying albums (studio and live), I would say that maybe "Dance Pt2" from "EMOTIONAL RESCUE" is as annoying as "Hot Stuff" (still that one's only four-some minutes long) and the only thing anywhere near as awful in the pre-Ronnie Wood era would possibly be "Yesterday's Papers" from "BETWEEN THE BUTTONS," and that's from the UK version. The US version put "Let's Spend The Night Together" in the #1 slot. Even "Sad Sad Sad" is better! That hurts. The best thing I could say for "Hot Stuff" is that it does successfully set the tone for the album. After it's done, you know what you're in for.

So can I do it? Can I listen to "BLACK AND BLUE" and find something worth while in "Hot Stuff?"

No. I can't. In the 10+ years I've owned the album, I've probably played it all the way through twice (I'm guessing; I tend to forget my nightmares), and I've probably purposely re-played only two or three songs, none of which are "Hot Stuff." Additionally, "Hot Stuff" marks a dangerous audio landmine in the middle of the mostly-enjoyable first disc of "LOVE YOU LIVE," right after the incredibly rocking versions of "Happy" and "Star Star." At least on that album the song is where it should be, bookended by songs that can help make the pile of goat dung seem like it's worth a damn. To have this song be the first impression of the album is like leading off with your pitcher and he gets hit with a 95 mph fastball--you're already starting off the game poorly.

WARNING: The following video contains not only this crappy song, but some of the silveryiest jackets ever.

"EVIDENCE!"

You may have seen this before, but it's pretty funny to see that Fios guy and a (politely here) "touched" Batman get the words "Harvey! Dent!" firmly stuck in my head.

See more funny videos and funny pictures at CollegeHumor.

Timely As Always, "Today Show."

Yeesh... almost unwatchable. Almost.

So much awkward standing around. Even Episode II had some dialog between the unnatural pauses.

However, if you think Kathy Lee is an idiot, at least she got her quote correct (I'm looking at you, Hoda). And big ups to Ann Curry for correctly labeling the throne as belonging to the Emperor and NOT to Darth Vader.

Crap Mentors

Why do the (arguably) best movies in a series have these crappy mentors?

So I finally picked up a copy of "The Dark Knight" for my personal ownership, and I've been sporadically watching it between diaper changes, and while I've certainly enjoyed it multiple times, one thing that has stuck in my craw since viewing one is that Alfred is a crappy mentor.

Sure, I get it. He's sarcastic and offers a lighter side to Bruce Wayne's gloomy demeanor. But he also gives advice. Some of it insightful (the whole "some men want to watch the world burn" is insightful, if not very helpful). Some of it just seems illadvised.

THERE'S A SPOILERS A HEAD, Y'AR!

I'm thinking mostly of the scene after the death of Rachel Dawes, Bruce's oldest friend and long time love. She was blown up. She is not coming back. On top of everything else, Harvey Dent was nearly killed and lost half his face to an oil burn. Alfred enters the Wayne penthouse and finds Bruce still half in his Batman outfit, the mask and gloves strewn about.

These are VISUAL CUES, Alfred. Bruce is upset. He's in tears. The only other time in this series have we seen him in tears like this involve his parents' murder, so this is probably significant.

Bruce asks if he brought this horror upon the city and says that he wanted to inspire good. And what does Alfred say? "You have inspired good. But you spat in the face of Gotham's criminals. Didn't you think there would be casualties?"

Yeeeeeeeesh, man. You might get away with calling this tough love if there was a hint of love in it at all. But the way it's played, it sounds like an old man telling a boy who just lost his pet puppy, "Forget it. Puppies die. Who cares?" It's not exactly inspirational and I've never understood why Bruce didn't just jump out a window after this speech.

This corelates to my mutual obsession with "Star Wars" and the bad mentor of Yoda. Sure, he's trained generations of Jedis to do battle and use the Force, but Yoda's not what you'd call a "touchy feely" kind of guy. Luke Skywalker -- the galaxy's only hope at survival -- likes his friends, and when he sees a vision of them in trouble, he wants to go after them. Of course, it's a trap, and Yoda knows this. EVERYONE knows this. But Yoda doesn't explain it to Luke that way. Instead Yoda gives Luke what must be the shittiest bit of advice to ever come out of the "Star Wars" movies, and that includes the ways to flirt demonstrated in Episode II. When Luke asks if he should sacrifice Han and Leia, Yoda says, "If you honor what they fight for, yes." I know Yoda's not in the hero-making game, he's in the strong-Jedi-making game, but I've still never heard someone say, "In order to save the world, you should sacrifice a few innosent friends" and be considered a great guy.

Now it's true, the little puppet puts a little more care into this brand of "tough love" than Michael Cain did in his scene, but it still masks the crappy mentoring only so much. The crappy mentoring is made even more clear in the prequels where Yoda seems to go on and on about how Anakin's love for someone is going to get him in trouble (hey! and just like that, I found something that was actually CONSISTENT in the prequels to the original trilogy!). Ultimately, isn't this "Care only thiiiiiiis much" philosophy what cost the Jedi the galaxy, to say nothing of their lives? In a cruel irony, Yoda and his shit mentor abilities live on to train and poorly advise another 30 years before becoming the first Jedi to die of disappearing heart failure. But his creed remains clear in a Monty Burns way: Friends, family... these are the hurdles you must defeat if you are to be successful.

Oh, and in "JEDI" Yoda kind of lied to Luke about Anakin being Darth Vader... and then tries to pretend he's sleepy! Worst liar in the galaxy you are.


So here's to you, Yoda and Alfred. You seem like you're good at what you do, but many times the heroes succeed in spite of you.

Can I Always Get "You Can't Always Get What You Want?" Pt. 2

I've GOT IT... again.

I've figured out why this particular version of "You Can't..." is set apart from the others.

It's a Joe Cocker version.

See it this way: Cocker covers the Beatles' "With A Little Help From My Friends" in what has to be one of the best covers at the time, maybe ever since I can't see how he got that kind of intensity out of what is essentially a flowery Ringo tune. It's that intensity that fueled the original version of "You Can't..." to be so great. The intensity that comes with having a boys' choir backing you.

Now the Stones "couldn't" tour with a full boys' choir (at least not in 1973; I'm fairly certain they could put the money together today), so they had to figure out a way to ratchet up that kind of intensity (yes, I'm going to use that word a lot). And they did it with emotion.

The '73 Tour version has all the lyrics, which the "CIRCUS," "LOVE YOU LIVE" and many subsequent versions do not. It also still has a legitimate horn section, including what sounds to be a French horn at the beginning, but very importantly it does NOT contain a keyboard version of a French horn (I'm looking at you, "LOVE YOU LIVE"). Keyboard substitutions for instruments sound exactly like what they are. That, and crap.

Any time I catch "Satisfaction" again, I'm always kind of amazed at how effectively shouty Jagger is by the end "I can't GET NO's," and he employs that same type of, oh, what's the word, INTENSITY to the build up in this '73 version. By the time we get to that final reworking of the opening stanza, with all the instruments that have picked up as the song has progressed playing at full power, he has nowhere to go but up. And he does it.

That's why this version's the best one. It starts out as a sad song, then gets to a kind of angry sadness that transforms into catharsis.

That and it's in a different key. But that's all tech stuff.

And that's the reason why I'm going to find a way to acquire this version for my own. YouTube has done well to prevent downloads of their videos, so I might just contact the guy who posted it. Hopefully, if he doesn't get spooked into thinking I'm a cop, he'll help me out.

Every Story Has A "Batman"

As I watch a TV show or movie, especially of the grand mythology variety like "Lost," I eventually discover which character of the ensemble qualifies as that show's Batman. In other words, which character is two steps ahead of everyone, can adapt to any situation and can get stuff done with few questions. They're often the ones with the worst sense of humor about things, but they're also the guy's you'd want on your side in a fight and they remind me of what I love most about the Caped Crusader. Sometimes they're obvious, sometimes less so. Here's the guide.

"CSI" -- Grissom. Fairly obvious, since he is the kind of emotionless, logical leader of the group.
"Lost" -- Originally, John Locke. Currently, Sayid. Locke became too enamored with his island religion, so we look to Sayid to stay smart (in the world of "Lost," that's as easy as actually asking questions. Questions like "What the hell is going on with this crazy island?").
"Alias" -- Jack Bristow. A no-monkey-business badass, he is a classic "This Show's Batman." He's the guy who put a guy in a choke hold 'til he died then brought him back to life -- without breaking a sweat (key!) -- then told him, "I'll do it again if you don't answer our questions." By the end of the show's run, Jack deserved a better show.
"Star Wars" -- It's R2D2. Think about it: if you need a ship repaired, or flown, or a lock picked, or an escape made possible, you wouldn't call Han or Luke or even Obi-Wan every time. You need The Man. And in this case, the Man is R2... except when he's being eaten by monsters.
"Seinfeld" -- Jackie Childs. This may be a bit of a stretch, but it still holds up. Jackie always has a plan, and that's a top Batman quality.

More to come as I'm still working on just who the Dark Knight of "Friday Night Lights" might be.

Can I Always Get "You Can't Always Get What You Want?"

I don't think it's ever been my favorite song until recently. Now it's the song I can't stop playing over and over again. But which version to choose from? Ah... that presents the problem that almost qualifies as "interesting."

There are obviously several, and when you find yourself to be a fan of a band, you discover that these alternate versions just appear in your collection. I didn't set out to have 3.5 different versions of the song, and yet between albums, collections and live shows I have built up my selection.

Oddly, with all these versions, I still don't actually posses the one I would consider The Best. It's all a personal preference thing, you understand, but it's mine and I'm in charge.

I have the full album cut from "LET IT BLEED," then the trimmed-down B-side version on my "SINGLES COLLECTION" (that's the .5, since it's the same song, technically, just trimmed for radio play... even though I don't think I've ever heard this non-choir-intro version played on the radio), the pre-"BLEED" live version on "ROCK N' ROLL CIRCUS" and the other live version on "LOVE YOU LIVE." But the one I want comes from the 1973 tour (the one with Stevie Wonder) with Mick Taylor on the solo and the song at a full sexy strut.

The first time I heard this version was on a copy of a bootleg CD titled "UPTIGHT," referencing the Wonder song they played during the show. "You Can't..." opened the disc, and it was a mid-tempo fare. The rave-up part was gone--it stayed the same tempo--but what made this tour's version of the song so affective for me was the simple build of a massive sound-wall up and up and up as the song moved on.

To go against my earlier rules, I hereby attach the following example video. It's all I have.



The qualities vary and my preferences have shifted as the years wear on. "You Can't..." is one of those rare Rolling Stones song which was better on the album cut, then made lamer by the trimmed version, then a little better in the 70's, then back to not so great again. The Stones often have varied results with their songs while translating them to stage*. But this particular version, the '72-'73 version, the drugged out version, the horns and guitars and emotional version is my current king. I can't stop seeing an image of myself weeping whenever (if) Richards or Jagger dies, and I'm playing this version over and over again. Like I am now.

*Songs that improve when live include "Miss You," "Shattered" and the Chuck Berry covers. Songs that do not improve when live are "Sympathy for the Devil" after 1970 and "It's Only Rock n' Roll."

Here are my versions

Radical Blog Overhaul: Rolling Stones, "Star Wars" and Batman

Since Henry was born, the title of this blog became completely out of date. And since I can assume veeeeeeeeeeeery few people are religiously reading, I've decided to make the title not only out of date but completely useless and confusing by dedicating this valuable webspace (and your valuable time) to my three pop-culture obsessions: The Rolling Stones, "Star Wars" movies, and Batman.

I think these are the three things that consume most of my waking day. If I'm not humming a Stones song, then I'm humming a theme song. If I'm not wondering how someone would fit a cape under their shirt, then I'm thinking about how the Millennium Falcon is laid out inside (It's really kind of twisty and turny, right?).

So that's what I'm gonna be writing about from now on. This and only this.

Yeah, yeah, I have a new baby. And he's great. But the way I think/act/behave/play guitar, he's either gonna love these things, too, or hate them with the kind of passion normally reserved for cults and radio hosts (zing).

This blog won't completely ignore the day-to-day life of being a new dad. But it will mostly ignore them. Either that or it'll deal with what it's like to wake up in the middle of the night to do a feeding in the context of "Some Girls."

A few notes to start off with:

1) This won't be a news blog. It's not very helpful at all. If new material comes out, I might comment on it, but strictly from a personal place, not in a "Hey, I'm the first one to tell you about the new Arkham Asylum video game cut scenes for the X-Box that weren't available on yak yak yak-box!" You've obviously got the internet, so if you're into that kind of thing, you can find it. I also don't claim to be an expert or a completist on any of these things. As of this writing, I don't own every single Stones record, don't subscribe to any Batman comics and have yet to see the new "Clone Wars" movie and/or subsequent cartoons. In this regard, this blog will be very nostalgic. Which is something I'm great at.

2) I won't be posting videos all the time. I might, but probably not. I've been a part-time contributor to TheTripwire.com for some time now, and my column "The Greatest Song At This Moment" is more in line with the style of this site -- it's an excuse to talk about something I like for as long as I like. By posting it on a blog, it makes it feel like a conversation, even though many people probably won't give a damn about it.

3) Many people won't give a damn about this. And I don't care. I may wear dark-rimmed glasses, but that appears to be as underground, non-mainstream as I get. I can't get into "Blade Runner," I don't often read alterna-comics, and a lot of indie music bugs the crap out of me.

4) Comparisons and Parallels. I'll be making and drawing a lot of both. You may debate these as you with, but don't expect a conversion. I've had a strong personal relationship with two of these subjects (the non-musical ones) for nearly 32 of my 33 years, and I made up for a lot of lost time on the third in the past 12 years, so any discoveries are most likely going to be personal ones.

5) I'm gonna try not to be a jerk. Seriously. All preceding evidence to the contrary, I want people to find this enjoyable. I'm casting a big net here, picking three incredibly, world-wide popular subjects for discussion. Chances are that everyone likes at least one of these things.

There's probably more now, but I have to go. New-Father stuff. I know... I'll never escape it. Nor do I want to. Except for maybe here a little. We shall see.

Our Baby The Prisoner

Henry is 2+ weeks old as of this posting, and since his first day with us we've given him the civil treatment of a P.O.W.

To wit...

1. Swaddling. It's basically a straight jacket, but with a frog pattern, which makes it okay. Newborns shudder a lot, and that makes their yet-to-be-controlled arms flail about uncontrollably, which wakes them up in the middle of the night.* So you swaddle them. Forcing their arms down. Mostly against their will.

*For no good reason. As opposed to the perfectly legitimate ones that happen 3 times a night.

Watch as this woman restrains a baby in a track suit.


2. Keeping Him In A Cage/Watched At All Times. The cage/crib analogy is pretty obvious--"Back to the Future" did it best--but it's one thing to be kept in captivity. It's another to feel like eyes are on you at all times. Babies need constant attention, but if they only knew how much spy attention we gave them. We've placed listening devices in their rooms, we keep them guarded at all times, they rarely see the sun or get fresh air. And we're constantly monitoring how often and how much they poop. Creepy.


3. Torture. Often times, Henry falls asleep while nursing, and every single doctor and expert says wake him up by any means necessary. Not that American lives are at stake, but this basically means mild torture. It starts with the face, where we rub his cheek and chin, trying to get him to open his mouth (our way of making him talk, if you will). Babies don't like to be cold, so another trick is to undress him. Remember that?














The last resort, as any good torturer will tell you, is water. We play with his toes dry at first, but then we start dripping cold water on them.
As you can imagine, we feel GREAT about doing all of this.

5 Lame-Oh Things I Love That Mean I'll be A Great Dad

1) Cleaning out the lint trap in the dryer. Nothing says "scratch satisfaction" quite like scraping my nail against the fine grate and hauling off a big hunk of fuzz.

2) Watching The Same Movie Over And Over. True, my young son will probably not give me much choice in the matter, but if it's anything I've seen before and tolerated, I bet I'll be okay. I've seen "Hoosiers" probably 542 times in my life. This kid doesn't know what he's up against.

3) Sighing. I'm a pro. A champ. I learned from the best -- my own father -- and some day my son will inherit my abilities as well. The "Groan Sigh." The "I'm Outta Here" Sigh. The two-part "I'm Tired and I'm Tired of THIS" combo sigh.

4) Wearing The Same Clothes "Uniform." It's not that I've been wearing the same clothing every day, day in day out, without cleaning it (that would be crazy. ...Wouldn't it?). What I mean is that I have a standard uniform of button-down, short-sleeve shirt over some sort of relaxed pants wear (jeans or shorts or something). My son will have much to rely on when he knows my Dad Uniform is on the scene.

5) Pushing Horrible Jokes. And I mean PUSHING. Like I won't stop telling the same crappy pun-laced horror no matter how many people walk away claiming they're "Just gonna go check something." And no pun is beneath me. I'll reach as far as I can for as little return as there is (that being zero). It doesn't matter. I can't help it. I'm a father now.

Realizations!

As the induction date comes upon us, I've been realizing many things:

1.) The chances of me going to the delivery room in sandals are probably 2-to-1.

2.) Same goes with me wearing a Macaroni & Cheese T-Shirt.

3.) I will probably think about where to park while we're there for 5 hours before we go and zero hours during actual delivery with a 30 minute stretch just before we leave.

4.) Since we're bringing a laptop with which to watch DVD's, I will probably put in more time on the DVD selection than I will in who to call on our way to the hospital.

5.) My kid will either love or hate the blow-shit-around guys who come every week (sometimes twice a week). I don't know which to root for. If he loves them, then he won't cry... but he'll love something that drives me nuts. If he hates them, then we have something in common, but he probably won't nap through their visits.

5 Movie Characters/Actors You Never Want to Play Your Dad

Nothing against them personally, but if you were a character in a movie and you had these guys playing your father, chances are that your father either doesn't understand you to the point of burying himself in his career or he blames you for the death of one of your siblings.

1. Robert Patrick. The T-1000 has that creepy stare down, and he's never lost it. Nor will he ever lose it. He played "Unforgiving Mr. Cash" in "Walk the Line" because it required the least amount of imagination from the audience ever. "Oh, that dad held a grudge, huh? I'd buy that."

2. Jeremy Piven. Seems like the biggest douche bag walking today, and that's including Guy Ritchie (A-Rod, I'll never forgive you for making me sympathize with this guy. Now I gotta give "Sherlock Holmes" a chance!). Plus he's always leading with his chin, in a kind of "Hit me. Go on, hit me. Y'know you wanna" type of way. If your movie dad does this and you actually take him up on the challenge, you will surely get smacked around.

3. Robin Williams. This dad can't seem to take things seriously. Plus, when your movie mom finally wises up and decides to divorce him, he won't see that as an end either. He'll see that as a chance to win his kids back with accents and wigs. Granted, he's Robin Williams, so he's probably already tried this a million times (Reagan voice, gay hairstylist voice, et al), but this would be the worst timing. On top of all this, he seems to make a career out of movies where he plays a dumb dad. Coincidence?
You'll also never get a word in edgewise. Ever. EV-ER.


4. Any Dad in a Hitchcock Movie. Lord, watch over the children of Hitchcock movies. He even put the characters his own daughter played through the ringer. If you're a Hitchcock Movie Dad, then you're one of the following: a) dead. b) murdered and dead. c) neutered/impotent and obsessed with murder (according to my college film teacher). or d) about to be dead by murder. None of these are good qualities in a father. Evidence: "Shadow of a Doubt." Joseph Cotton rolls into town and could woo this guy's woman--even though it's his own sister!--while the dad wusses around and chatters like a ninny to his buddy named Herb. It's sad and embarrassing. (around 6:50).


5. A Stormtrooper. You could do worse than Anakin Skywalker. At least he cares about stuff, and comes home most days. He takes care of business. Even though he kiiiiiiiinda tries to kill his own son, at least he was also thinking about the future and his kid's career. But if a Stormtrooper ever had a kid, that kid would change his name. Watch this video (around 5:00) for the worst of the bunch. That could've been your dad! The guy who couldn't shoot the largest character in the galaxy with a golden torso strapped to his back.

Over-Due

As of midnight Friday, we went past our due date. I thought nothing was wrong with this, but I'm very wrong.

Everything is wrong.

Because now we have to endure the never-ending torture that is friends and family asking us where the baby is.

It's not like Christmas, which happens predictably on the same date of the same month every year. The baby's birth date is more like Easter: you never really know when it's coming until it's here.

Logically, nobody should expect a baby to show up precisely on his due date. But these are family, friends and well-wishers we're talking about. Logic has nothing to do with it.

They all (and by "they all" I mean "the people reading this blog") try to cover their intentions by using humor during their inquisition, but we're not idiots. We know what they really mean. Here's some examples and translations:

1. Walking up to us in the parking lot and saying, "Well...?" This one makes us feel great. It also reminds us of how little control we have over the universe and makes us feel small and powerless. Translation: "I know when your baby is due and you should pay more attention to schedules."

2. "Still No Baby Yet?" Translation: "I'm bored and driving cross country and I don't have a way to ask about this pregnancy thing that doesn't include the lateness of the delivery." Our sarcastic answer to this one is, "Yeah, we had him. But we're keeping him a secret from the world and not talking about him. You know... just like any first-time parent would."

3. "You know, my friends who were due on Thursday had their kid THAT DAY!" Translation: "I have time-sensitive friends. You should be in charge of your body more?"

Note to Self

Jokes become less enjoyable when your wife is due in 2 days.

I wouldn't get in trouble if Facebook statuses weren't so easy to update.

People only read what they wanna read.

I don't often practice good judgement.

Period.

Baby Names: The Biggest Spoiler Ever

In the post-Twitter world, protecting a secret has become very difficult. Particularly when that secret is something your closest relatives all want to know right now.

The name of our child has been kept secret since we found out we were pregnant, and with good reason. I once batted around a possible name with a friend who promptly responded with horror, "You can't name your kid THAT!" Revealing the name after the kid is born acts as insurance. After he's born, we'll hand our son to our friends and introduce him. This way, no one -- no matter how jaded -- will hear the name and look down at the tiny bundle in their hands and say, "You have a stupid name."

There were many factors to consider when choosing a baby name. Fortunately, there are about a million baby-name books all claiming to be the best baby-name books ever to help make matters even more confusing (actually not "a million," but Amazon.com does list 21,553 hits under the search "baby names." So... I'm sure they're all wonderful).

Things we considered were:

Alliteration: Our last name starts with "M." If we choose "Marcus," for example, is his name going to be too cutesy?

Joke Names: These are popular among younger parents. Specifically teenagers. I remember two juniors from my high school naming their newborn child "River Bed Smith." Jeez. Not to get too judgy, but foresight was obviously not their strength to begin with.

Family: Do you have it in you to be so sure your name is great that you want to pass it along to your child, too? And then you're setting up a real trend. The pressure is on your kid to grow up and have ANOTHER child with that name. Without even knowing it, you've started a tradition that could be potentially annoying.

Baby Names For Adults: I always remember that Toby from "The West Wing" named one of his children Huck. Which is cute... for a baby. For a 35-year-old balding dude working in an office, it's probably a reason to use his middle name. The realization that we're not only naming a baby but naming an adult was one of the greatest and most shocking revelations of this process. That and the whole delivering the placenta part, but we'll cross that road when we get to it.

Proud Parents

Someday, I'll be able to look at my son's achievements and say, "They're just as impressive as those guys who made huge pants."

I kind of with they'd roll the cuffs.

GI Joe

Our due date is coming up. August 7.

It's the same day that "GI Joe: Rise of Cobra" opens in theaters worldwide.

My life has become a strange cycle of symbolism and memories made sort of new and stomped around.

I watched "GI Joe" the cartoon when I was a kid and now I'm having a child--100% confirming my adulthood--on the same day that the live-action movie version of my childhood cartoon comes out.

Will my child get into GI Joe because of these new movies? Or will he watch the old cartoons? Or new-old cartoons?

Will he appreciate things like this:

Will he seek out the truth to appreciate "Body Massage?" And by truth I mean the original ham-fisted moralizing cartoon?

And I almost forgot to mention that MY "original" childhood cartoon was based on toys from the '60's. So we're now on our third leg of recycling what is essentially a nicknaming toy.

Less than a week away. I'm screwed.

Inappropriately Adorable

I can't tell what's cuter: the kid's solid hair or hearing his tiny voice sing "I shot a man in Reno, just to watch him die."


I'm wrong. Neither of those is the cutest part. The cutest part is that he's singing a song about being stuck in prison for murder on a guitar covered in flower stickers.

Now THAT is inappropriately adorable.

Giving Up Swearing

Many things will obviously change when I become a father, but one of the most difficult changes will be giving up swearing.

It's my release valve. When steam builds up, swearing is the whistling smoke coming out of my mouth. I realize this is a crappy example to set for my kid (in my house, "crap" won't be considered a swear*), so I must choose from one of these three strategies to make my house a "clean" house.

1. Become The Cleavers.
It's not that Ward never got upset. It's that he never let it show. And it trickled down to the boys. The worst you ever heard from them was "Aw, gee." They called their least favorite people "creeps" and when they got really ticked off, they'd say "Aw, gee" again.

On the other hand, this sheltered non-swearing life may have resulted in the boys being idiots. I have to at least let the kid know why he cannot (for social reasons) be named "Beaver."


2. Replacing Swears With TV-Appropriate Words.
A little more creative, since I'd have to come up with the appropriate word on the fly (in the heat of the moment, how am I gonna think to replace "s***" with "spit?"), but it can be done. Editors have gotten incredibly creative with the technique of filling the spoken space of a swear word (like "Mother-BLANK-er") with family-friendly fare. Don't believe me? Have a look...


3. Swearing Like Yosemite Sam
This might work well on two levels. One: I can still scream as loud as I please, while two: the baby can't begin to repeat any of it. With the other solutions, he can distinguish specific phrases, but with the Yosemite Sam method, it's anybody's guess. I'll take my chances that a two-year-old won't master "Ragglefrassabaggi-traggle" to anyone's offense.



*I once said, "Aw, crap" in high school history and the teacher came over to quietly and sincerely discipline me for "swearing." I take a weird bit of Schadenfreudic pride in the fact that this same teacher was later caught and disciplined himself for having an affair with a student.

Non-Breeder Translations

When your pregnancy is coming down to the wire, you being to realize how many inane questions you've heard over the course of 8.5 months. And how many times you've heard them. Today's translated phrase I've heard a more times than I care to think about is...

"So... Are you excited?"

The smart-ass answer is, "Nope. First kids are dull, right? No reason to expect anything to alter this day-to-day living."

I've never been asked if I'm excited by a current parent. Those guys are veterans. They've been through it already, and now we share a bond which reaches beyond empty words.

The people who ask if we're excited are childless loners and/or people hurting for conversation. They (correctly) realize the baby is never far from my mind, so they know asking about anything in the neighborhood of parenting will get a conversation going. But what they might not consciously realizes is that they're freaked out, too. They can't believe this friend -- so like them in many ways -- who was childless for his entire life will now be weighed down with the gruesome task of responsibility.

And they also realize IT COULD HAVE BEEN THEM! Inside they could be as freaked out as this kid at the car wash...


Keeping it together yet terrified. Then they turn to the bottle.

So that's it. Stop asking me. Of course I'm excited, but that's not why you're asking. You're asking me for survivor tips and I have none.

5 Underated Parenting Techniques For Dads

1. Ignoring Your Child. Experts and experts in magazines will tell you that the best way to raise a child into a great adult is to give them plenty of hands-on attention. Balderdash.

According to the movies, the best thing a kid could get from his dad is a handshake at age 15 and then silence for the rest of his life.

That's what happened for Indiana Jones, and look how he turned out.


He turned out great. He might have given birth to Shia LeBeouf, but that can hardly be blamed on Indy's dad.

2. Plural Wives. I'm only 2 seasons into "Big Love," but I've already asked myself a question that any normal person would ask himself when confronted with such delightful polygamy: Wouldn't all the extra wives make up for my many parenting flaws? The answer is, "Most of the time, yes." Sure, Sarah and Benny have problems, but those are normal for any well adjusted teenager. The rest of the time, they're polite, well-adjusted kids.

I mean even though Niki is a pretty crappy mom, at least she can fix anything. She's the B.A. Baraccus of polygamy living. You try to become the Mormon Wal-Mart and go hunting every now and then while your wives hold meetings about how to schedule having sex with you.


3. Being Murdered. Obviously this isn't a perfect plan, but sometimes we must put our children's lives, happiness and careers before our own. That means the ultimate sacrifice: being murdered under traumatic circumstances. Not only will this give your child uncanny focus and drive, but he will most likely avenge you. And that's all we can really hope for.

And no, I'm not just talking about Batman. I'm talking about another well-adjusted, dedicated son: Hamlet.

Note: I'm not sure who put the music on this clip, but I'd love to meet them.

4. Becoming a Dog.
Yeah, it's gonna be rough. But how else are we going to show our kids that we love them more than our career as Tim Allen?


5. Being A Pro-Wrestler And Whoring Out The Family For Reality TV.
One of these times it's gotta work, right?

Baby Drawer

Many new parents-to-be ask themselves, "How soon can I put my baby in a drawer and pass him through a wall?" The answer according to the Kaisers of the 1950s is... "The Future!"

Introductions, Please

My wife has just been deemed "at full term," meaning she could give birth at any moment and the baby would not be premature.

That means the baby's ready. That does not mean I am ready.

It hasn't been my goal or dream to become a dad, but my goals and dreams have surprisingly little to do with anything going on at this point. What started out as a surprised look at a stick has turned into multiple registries, three showers, several living-arrangement-re-arrangements, tens of books and lots and lots of parenting classes. I had many things to be scared of, but until I started reading and going to classes did I learn that there are some things that exist that you didn't even know were possible, but you should be terrified of them anyway. In baby land, what you don't know not only can hurt you, it will make damn sure it does hurt you and make you look like a horrible person to other judgey parents.

I can't be the only ill-informed person out there, so in an interest of saving the world, I dedicate these words. For it is with our minds and our thoughts that we will conquer the great unknown and ensure our safety from every possible danger. Until we learn of a new danger that exists now and we realize we're screwed.

This is the first lesson of impending parenthood: you should be scared of everything. At any moment, a plastic milk bottle with the wrong rubber nipple could grab a knife and kill your baby as soon as look at you. Fortunately, the Businesses of the World have formed impressively named companies that fill a new parent's heart with "confidence" (aka "slightly less terror"). Some of these were named well. Some not so well.

Here is a list of the not-so-well's...

1. Similac Baby Formula.











The bread and butter of corporate synergy is cramming two half-words into a new glob of nonsense. "Simi" from the English "Similar," implies this formula is almost the same as the alternative (and "almost" is always good enough for your baby). Then there's "Lac," short for "Lactation," another way of saying "Boob Milk." Sure it sounds like evil A.I. software hellbent on destroying Earth and only the Justice League can stop it, but it's not really that creepy: it's just a corporate manufactured food stuff that your baby can get addicted to. Plus an adorable bear with dead eyes.



2. Seventh Generation Baby Wipes.







Going green is great, but someone needs to help this company out and put an apostrophe-s between the Company Name ("Seventh Generation") and their actual product, because... and it could just be me... it's sounds like these wipes have wiped away poop from six babies prior to your own. I'm no scientist, but I know what's gross.


3. UPPAbaby G-Lite and G-Luxe Umbrella Strollers.




This raises the fear that having words like "Uppa" and "G-Luxe" in close proximity to your child will turn him into a douche bag. Besides, when have you ever used the phrase "Uppa Baby" in a good way? (More like, "Hey! That spoiled food will mess uppababy," and "Are you nuts? Don't shove that pencil uppababy!")

4. RazBaby.



















Seriously? You kidding me? It's thiiiiiis close to being "Razr Baby," and I don't have to tell you that razors and babies rarely mix... right? Plus these guys make pacifiers. RazPacifiers. Nasty.




5. Hypnobabies.com







Again, another means-well service (they help facilitate drug-free delivery through the power--i.e. magic--of hypnosis), but shouldn't it be called "HypnoDELIVERY?" "Hypnobabies" sounds like what you're thinking: an army of toddlers who become killing machines through the power of suggestion when they hear the world "Marinade." Either that, or the babies are hypnotists, as the logo above would suggest. "Wah... Wah... Sleep, Mummy... Sleeeeeeeeeeeeeeep... forevah." (Note: Hypnobabies have British accents)