I have heard the music of the future and it is the sound of my childhood. A while back I was talking with some friends about what the new music will be; what will be the next generation's rock'n'roll or hip-hop. My friend said that the new electronic music could be it and I was dismissive but after listening to the latest Blalock's Indie Rock Playlist which was full of lo-fi Nintendo sounding songs, I'm starting to think that he might be right. Perhaps the music of the future will be more DIY with people auto-tuning their own lyrics over beats. Kids won't have to wait for The Cure or Kurt Cobain to put their angst to music; they can make their own misery.

There's also another reason that I think that the electronic music could be the future and that is this - I can't stand most of it. I've always wondered what kids would do that would upset my generation. What would we find to be unlistenable and this might just be it. Although maybe the kids have something else up their sleeves. I mean, I kind of saw shorter shorts happening but the rise of the sex tape and sexting is something I never saw coming (no pun intended, especially since it's not a good pun.) Hopefully, some great artists will find a way to harness this style but until then, we may be starting at a future of 8-bit songs and kitschy covers like this...

Posted by SoulHonky at 03:22 PM | Permalink | Comments (0) |Digg It!

It's a tough call. At first, I didn't think anything could beat the cover of the new Cosmo or as a friend at work said, "Razors out, crabs in!".
I thought that would be the top WTF? moment of the day but then I read Floyd Mayweather's quote, "That mother f----- Pacquiao, he can't speak no English. He never seen a contract he didn't like." I always laugh when I see people write, "Your an idiot" but Floyd just took Grammar Police Fail to a whole new level.

Posted by SoulHonky at 04:38 PM | Permalink | Comments (0) |Digg It!

With the return of Delonte "The Stepfather" West, the Celtics now have a bench that seems ripe for a reality show. We have Nasty Nate Robinson, the man who once jumped a teammate in the showers (no word if David Cronenberg is a Knicks fan and this is what inspired the naked shower fight in "Eastern Promises") running the point. At two guard, we now have Delonte who reportedly slept with LeBron's mom, definitely was arrested for having an arsenal of guns in his car, is bi-polar, and gives some of the best interviews in the NBA. Small forward will probably be held down by Marquis Daniels. He seems pretty normal but anybody who has a 14 karat gold necklace of his own head (see pic on the right) can't be all there. Power-forward is Big Baby, the slobbering big man prone to hissy fits when people call him out and has been none to shove child fans of opposing teams out of the way when he's celebrating. And finally, there's The Big Shamroq himself, Shaq. A man who has as many nicknames as Shawn Kemp has kids. Sadly, we don't have Rasheed Wallace anymore and Jermaine O'Neal doesn't really seem crazy at all but I think we have enough loose screws to go around. (Not to mention Luke Nukem and Von Wafer, he of the occasional temper tantrums.)

Posted by SoulHonky at 11:06 AM | Permalink | Comments (0) |Digg It!

Bristol Palin was announced as a contestant on this year's Dancing with the Stars and I have to say that I'm a bit disappointed that this is really the avenue that the Palin's are taking. On one hand, Palin the Younger is trying to present herself as a spokesperson for safe sex. Unfortunately, what most kids are going to see is the other hand; that Palin is now a celebrity, pretty much only because she got knocked up while she was near her mom's spotlight, and now she's getting to be famous because of it.

And unless Palin is trying to become a professional dancer, shouldn't she be focusing on getting an actual trade besides, you know, being a celebrity? I'm hoping for the best for the Palin family in this but while Dancing with the Star might be a great adventure for Bristol, I think it hurts the message she's trying to send to other youngsters and it also doesn't really seem to be a move that will give her or her child a stronger foundation for the future.

Posted by SoulHonky at 08:19 PM | Permalink | Comments (0) |Digg It!

I'm not sure how Cee-Lo is going to make a radio friendly version of this song but it should be a big hit. Most people know Cee-Lo from his Gnarls Barkley success but I recommend checking out his solo stuff as well as some of the songs from his original crew, Goodie Mobb.

Posted by SoulHonky at 07:16 AM | Permalink | Comments (0) |Digg It!

The trailer for Frank Darabont's new AMC series "The Walking Dead" is out and I have to say that I'm underwhelmed. I'm just not seeing anything that I'd really want to watch for two hours, let alone for an hour a week. I kind of hope the show is more of an anthology collection but maybe there's more than meets the eye when it comes to the main story and main characters. It does kind of make me want to take another crack at "Best. Apocalypse. Ever." which I thought could be a "Crash" type film with a bunch of seemingly random but interwoven tales of people waking up the morning after the world ends. But I still have to finish the pilot that I've been putting off for months and month before I commit to working on something else.

Posted by SoulHonky at 09:56 PM | Permalink | Comments (0) |Digg It!

Obviously, things will change over the coming weeks when more people get injured or roster spots are solidified but looking at the breakdown of most leagues, I think the best bet is to go RB and WR in the first two rounds and then another RB in the third. In the 4th round, you just take the best available player, be it Antonio Gates, Matt Forte, Wes Welker, or Brett Favre (and I might actually draft them in that order).

However, there's one thing that you have to keep in mind that no "expert" can lead you in (and something that the ESPN draft tracker is definitely not too helpful with) and that's knowing your league. For instance, I'm in one league that is RB-centric. In that league, I might be able to get away with taking two running backs and while still landing one of the better WR's in the league. I've done mock draft and usually going WR and RB in the first two rounds works best but that's because those leagues often have people grabbing a number of QB's and WR's in the early rounds. If everyone other team in your league goes RB/RB in the first two rounds, you'll be scraping the bottom of the barrel when it comes to your WR/RB position.

That being said, there are some deals to be had so far. Guys like Ahmad Bradshaw, Jahvid Best, Arian Foster, Cadillac Williams, Clinton Portis all seem to be slipping pretty deep into these mock drafts. Ditto for Wes Welker. In the ideal draft scenario, I usually ended up with RB in the first, WR in the second, then Pierre Thomas in the 3rd, Matt Forte in the 4th, Wes Welker 5th, and then either the best TE or QB available. If neither of them really wowed me, I often went with another WR like Percy Harvin. Now, I think some of these guys (like Forte, Welker, and Harvin) could move up in the ranking as the preseason wears on but this still seems like the best approach. The only way I'd really break from it is if I had a shot at two great backs. For instance, in one draft I was able to get Steven Jackson and DeAngelo Williams. I wasn't going to pass on Williams just to fill my quote at WR. After four rounds I had Jackson, Williams, Forte and Antonio Gates. My WR's were going to be thin but I can live with that since I had a top TE and three nice RB options.

As for QB, I know Brees and Rodgers (and Brady and Manning) offer some nice points but I just feel more comfortable with going late and maybe settling for Favre or Kevin Kolb. I also think Vince Young's intriguing and Carson Palmer could bounce back since he has a sick receiving corps with Ochocinco, TO, Antonio Bryant, Matt Jones, and the Greshem kid at TE. It's hard not to go after one of those two guys in the early second round but if you do that, I feel like it just puts more pressure on all of your next picks (especially at WR).

Well, I've now officially spent too much time writing about Fantasy Football so it'll be a week or so (when my leagues actually start drafting) before I chime in again.

Posted by SoulHonky at 08:45 PM | Permalink | Comments (0) |Digg It!

Well, it's that time of year again, when everyone is trying to figure out their fantasy football draft strategies (and the rest of the world tries to ignore the incessant fantasy football talk coming from their cooler co-workers). Before I go into my early round strategy, a word of warning... I'm terrible at fantasy football. I've had some decent years but more often than not, I draft a young guy before he is worth a damn ala having DeAngelo Williams his first two years but not his third) and my sleeper receivers usually don't wake up until they are looking for a 9 to 5 job. So odds are that you should ignore this but I still think it makes sense.

Looking at this season, there are two things that jump out at me: 1. there are almost know sure fire reliable workhorse backs and 2. there are even fewer elite #1 receivers out there. The first part of that is pretty obvious to anyone playing fantasy; the platoon has taken over and most every team is running a two back system out there now. However, I haven't seen part 2 be mentioned as much. But looking at it, the only receivers I really love are Andre Johnson and Randy Moss. Larry Fitzgerald is hurt, lost Anquan Boldin across from him, and has Matt Leinart throwing at him. Brandon Marshall's in a new system. I keep expecting a down year from Reggie Wayne. I had Roddy White last year and didn't love him as a #1. Calvin Johnson's a beast but how often will the Lions actually score? Now, I'm not saying that all of these guys are bums but if I had to pick between having a surefire #1 WR like Johnson or Moss and having a lesser back like Rashard Mendenhall instead of Ryan Grant, Shonn Greene, or even DeAngelo Williams, I'd do it.

So the way my top picks break down is:
1. Chris Johnson
2. Adrian Peterson
3. Ray Rice
4. Mo Jo Drew
5. Frank Gore
6. Michael Turner
7. Andre Johnson
8. Randy Moss

The wild cards are DeAngelo Williams and Steven Jackson. In Williams' case, he's going to lose carries to Jonathon Stewart and I also think that all defenses are going to really be focusing on the run 100% this year which could make things more difficult. If you get DeAngelo, you almost have to try to get Stewart which might be unlikely and, at best, just means you spent your 2nd and 3rd round picks on running backs from the same team. SJax have Megatron's problem - will his team ever score? Not to mention that he isn't getting any younger and, like the Panthers, the Rams have a passing attack that you'd almost rather see press their luck so the run is going to be priority #1 for opposing defenses.

So for me, Johnson and Moss go first and then 9/10/11 is Williams, Jackson, and Ryan Grant. Grant goes there because he's in a great offense and seems to be as low risk of a pick (albeit with little hope of a huge breakout year) as there is out there.

That brings us to the wraparound #12 and #13. For me the question is this: do you invest in one of the best remaining receivers, maybe go for one of the elite QB's, or just go with the usual plan of grabbing the best two running backs available.

I usually go running backs but if a draft pans out like mine has this far, you're picking between: Shonn Greene, Cedric Benson, Pierre Thomas, Rashard Mendenhall and then the Question Marks (Ryan Matthews, Knowshown Moreno, Beanie Wells, Jamaal Charles, etc.) Might it not be better to hold off and grab a QB or receiver? Why not grab a top QB or WR and roll the dice on Felix Jones in round 3 as opposed to taking Jamaal Charles now? I'm not a huge fan of QB's in the first round (especially because the one time I did it, I took Tom Brady and he went down in the first game of the season) but Brees and Rodgers are pretty damn great and I feel like there's a fairly steep drop-off after the top 4 QB's.

Honestly, I'm still a bit torn on what to do here so I'll hold off the answer to this until the second round post. But for now, I'm going to roll the dice with Shonn Greene at #12.

Posted by SoulHonky at 08:32 PM | Permalink | Comments (0) |Digg It!

One thing that has struck me as odd about the whole Mosque debate and the rising anti-Muslim sentiment out there is the fact that one of the main issues that people (especially Christians) have with Muslims is that they are too devout. It's odd that people keep lambasting Muslims for following their beliefs (for instance, commenters on Fox's site blasted a football player for fasting and not drinking water for Ramadan) yet at the same time, the Christians often call for more people to get back to the Bible. Glenn Back called for people to get back to their faith but if he really became more devout would he start clinging to some of the more outlandish Mormon claims, like black skin is the curse of the descendants of Cain and mark of an inferior people?

To me, it's crazy that people can be so stunned when the Taliban stones someone to death for adultery and then turns around and calls homosexuality an abomination. In both cases, the Bible calls for the death penalty (as well as a woman having sex before marriage and cursing your parents). And if you want to talk sanctity of marriage, Jesus himself (according to both Matthew and Mark) said that divorce was equivalent to adultery. Now I'm not saying that Prop 8 supporters should start stoning people but they do have to really look at the text that they keep quoting and see that it calls for the same atrocities that many people hate Muslims for.

The biggest example that many people give to differentiate the hateful Muslims and other religions is that Muslims want to wipe out other religions. Like the Christians never pulled any stunts like that. And like it doesn't say that in the Bible. The first commandment is that there is only one God and twice in the Bible it says that worshipping another God is punishable by death.

The biggest difference isn't the religions; it's the charlatans that have taken it over. Christian leaders often are just looking for money and some political power. They aren't trying to get their hands dirty with actual work (often because their hands are already dirty from their constant sinning). Also, Western Civilization often trumps religious beliefs. Case in point, people are getting fired up for football season but in the early 1900's, many states banned sporting contests on Sunday because that was the sabbath. Of course, now pundits have reasons for why playing sports on Sunday isn't REALLY breaking the Sabbath but that's just because religion has realized that it needs to bend with the times in order to stay relevant. However when it comes to think like homosexuality, the Church seems to think that it still had a card to play and the tide hasn't turned enough for them to start reevaluating the text as they have in so many other cases.

As for the Muslims, they still have too much faith to get with the times. I mean, the terrorists do have it right; we're trying to subvert their religion to get them caught up with modern day living and potential harmony. It's the main problem with the wars in the Middle East; we're bringing freedom to a land that still believe that freedom is the devil's workshop.

Since I'm just rambling right now, I'll switch topics and move onto the further hypocrisy of Sarah Palin. After Dr. Laura quit her show, Palin tweeted,

Dr.Laura:don't retreat...reload! (Steps aside bc her 1st Amend.rights ceased 2exist thx 2activists trying 2silence"isn't American,not fair")

Ignoring her ignorance on the First Amendment and what it really covers, I think it's ridiculous that she is up in arms about activists taking back the airwaves when her entire existence right now is basically about the Tea Party which is just a bunch of activists taking back the government. Also, I hope she'll be stepping up next time someone tries to censor a hip hop group or when someone demands a boycott of someone like the Dixie Chicks because they spoke their mind. It's just mind boggling to me that someone who basically has branded herself as an activist for the people gets upset when other activists accomplish something through the use of their collective voice. And how does someone have the right to a national radio show but it's completely fair for gay couples not to have equal rights.

Which reminds me, I'm tired of people posing the question, "Is homosexuality a choice or are people born that way?" Where's the third option? It's nurture. Maybe there's something that makes people more open to it but I really don't think that there's one gene that guarantees someone's sexuality. Because if there's a gay gene, is there also a fat chick gene? Is there an Asian school girl gene or a busty tramp gene? It's almost a cliche now, collegiate girls experimenting with their sexuality, do they have the "it's just a phase" gene?

I think that gay rights advocates might stay away from this because it shines light on the fact that if homosexuality becomes more accepted, there will be more homosexuals or at least more people willing to try things out. What keeps most people in their lanes isn't their genetics, it's the lifestyle that's been ingrained in their heads. Sexy phases (big lips are in! short hair is sexy! hairy chests are what women want!) don't come and go because of some shift in genetics. And there's always the prison example - when homosexuality is all you have, some people start to shift that way. It's only natural.

Posted by SoulHonky at 08:49 PM | Permalink | Comments (0) |Digg It!

Man, I really want to read the script "A Couple of Dicks" and find out what went wrong from the time the film made it onto the "The Black List" (a list of the best unproduced scripts in Hollywood) and then somehow became the almost laughless film "Cop Out". Now, admittedly, I'm not a huge fan of Kevin Smith but I thought this film really failed on most every level. It looked better than MacGruber but other than that, it wasn't even better than that flick. At least MacGruber had a handful of legitimately funny moments; Cop Out didn't really have any.

One of the problems was the casting. Tracy Morgan and Bruce Willis had zero chemistry together, not that their characters ever really felt developed or like a team. One problem is that Morgan rarely seems like a normal person. I love him in 30 Rock and any of his whacked out talk show interviews but in a role as a regular guy, it just doesn't work. The casting of Morgan goes along with the rest of the film which didn't seem to know what it wanted to be. It seemed like Smith was going for a feel like "Fletch" or "Beverly Hills Cop" but instead of giving us Fletch or Axel Foley, we just got two generic lead characters.

Maybe fans of Smith's work will like this (I also hated Zach and Miri Make a Porno but apparently some people enjoyed it.) but I wouldn't recommend it to anyone.

Posted by SoulHonky at 11:00 AM | Permalink | Comments (0) |Digg It!