New blog now up.

My new blog is up and running. Check it out: The Big Blog of Lists.

If you have any comments about the content of my blog, please post 'em there.

New blog in the works.

How's it going everyone? I haven't blogged in awhile and for the three of you that actually read this blog it must be very painful to not hear from me in so long (hardy har har). Anyway, what I currently have in the works may excite some of you: I will be starting a new blog that only focuses on lists! Yay! You know, top 10 lists? Some lists will be purely entertaining while others will be informative and/or serious. It's something I've been thinking about for some time. I've got a lot of great ideas for lists and just need to write it down. More deatils (hopefully) soon.

The most dangerous book ever!

So I was visiting one of my favorite websites the other day. I won't name the website because the guy who runs it posts a lot of smart and entertaining material there and I really don't feel like disparaging him by name. Anyway, as I was digging through the archives, I came across a list of what he thinks are the books that most messed up the world. I was cheering through most of the list as he named such despicable works as Mein Kampf by Adolph Hitler, The Pivot of Civilization by Planned Parenthood founder Margaret Sanger, The Protocols of the Elders of Zion (author unknown) , and The Manifesto of the Communist Party by Engalls and Marx. Wow, I was thinking, this guy gets it.

And then I saw the book he thinks has messed up the world more than any other book (including the ones I mentioned).

Darwin's Black Box by Michael Behe.

For those of you who aren't aware, Michael Behe is a scientist (a biochemist, I think) who believes in Intelligent Design. Broadly stated, intelligent design is the theory that one of the three pillars of Darwinian evolution, random mutation, cannot account for changes in macro-evolution (that is, one species changing to another) so an intelligent designer (God) must be involved in the process. The reason the author of the website lists this as the most dangerous book ever written is because (and I'm paraphrasing) it fuels attacks on science by religious fundamentalists who have a literal interpretation of the Bible.

Are you serious? Darwin's Black Box fuels attacks on science!?! Dude, the belief that the world is only 6000 years (a belief Michael Behe does not share), while silly, is completely harmless and doesn't affect science one whit. Only a morally confused dimbulb would list Behe's book as the most dangerous book ever. Marx and Engalls gave us communism whose followers murdered over 100 million people in the 20th century. Hitler's Nazism resulted in the Holocaust and WWII and 50 million dead. Sanger's organization Planned Parenthood has had a hand in millions of abortions. And The Protocols of the Elders of Zion has fed Jew hatred for decades.

And Darwin's Black Box is more dangerous? I want to vomit.

I don't care if you don't buy into Intelligent design. I don't care if you believe in Darwinian Evolution. I don't care if you have the harmless belief that the world is only 6000 years old! It doesn't matter! Science isn't damaged and people won't be murdered in the millions because of it. Frankly, if you believe Darwin's Black Box is the most dangerous book ever written or, Hell, dangerous at all, you're a fool.

Buy some damn wisdom, please.

It's a boy!

Yesterday (July 27th) at 3:46 AM my wife gave birth to our third child, Elliot. He weighed 8 pounds, 4 ounces and was 20 and 1/2 inches long. He's healthy, squeaky and grunty. He has semi-dark hair and is the first of our three kids that actually looks like me. He has blue eyes which is rather odd because my eyes are greenish-brownish (hazel) and my wife's eyes are brown. I know his eyes could change color but my mom has blue eyes so who knows. My oldest two kids, Bobby (seven) and Mary (four) are in love with their new sibling and want to hold him all day.

It feels so good to hold my new son. It's a special feeling that's hard to explain. I am very grateful that he is here and a part of our family.

Who is the best Pixar director?

So I saw Up a couple weeks ago with my wife and kiddies. It was typically Pixar which, of course, means it was a very good movie. While not on the same level as Toy Story 2 and The Incredibles, it was still quite enjoyable.

This got me thinking about the directors of the Pixar films and directors in general. I don't know about the rest of you, but when I hear about a new film and it sounds interesting I always look up the director. If the director has a good track record, it will be a movie that I might just see (assuming I like the director). If it's a piss-poor director or even one that's good but isn't my thing, I'll definitely pass on the flick. There are a handful of popular directors that I will absolutely not see anything from like Michael Bay (Transformers, Pearl Harbor, Armageddon) and Roland Emmerich (Independence Day, Stargate, 10,000 BC). I see those guys attached to a movie, I know the movie ain't worth seeing. On the other hand, if Clint Eastwood is directing a film, there's a pretty good chance it will be darn good.

That brings us back around to Pixar. Who is the best Pixar director? There are a total of ten movies, most of which were co-directed by two or more directors. Let's break 'em down:

Toy Story - John Lasseter
A Bugs Life -John Lasseter & Andrew Stanton
Toy Story 2 - John Lasseter, Lee Unkrich, & Ash Brannon.
Monsters, Inc. - Pete Docter, Lee Unkrich, & David Silverman.
Finding Nemo - Andrew Stanton & Lee Unkrich
The Incredibles - Brad Bird
Cars - John Lasseter & Joe Ranft
Ratatouille - Brad Bird & Joe Pinkava
WALL-E - Andrew Stanton
Up - Pete Docter & Bob Peterson

We can throw out guys who only co-directed one Pixar film simply because, well, they only co-directed one Pixar film. It isn't enough to rate 'em fairly. So Ash Brannon, David Silverman, Joe Ranft, Joe Pinkava, and Bob Petersen are out. That leaves us with five directors: John Lasseter, Andrew Stanton, Lee Unkrich, Brad Bird, & Pete Docter.

How do we rate them? Well, let's break down the Pixar movies.

To me, there are three levels of Pixar flicks: Great, almost great, and darn good.

The great: Toy Story, Toy Story 2, Monsters, Inc, The Incredibles. While very few of you would argue with my choices of Toy Story, Toy Story 2, and The Incredibles, I know there are many of you who don't feel Monsters, Inc. is one of the great Pixar flicks. You'd probably put Finding Nemo or Up (or both) in it's place. Fair enough. But it isn't your list. It's mine!

The almost great - Finding Nemo, Ratatouille, Up. Like I said, Nemo and Up would be in the great category for many, if not most, of you out there. And you'd boot Ratatouille down to the darn good category. But, hey, my list.

The darn good - A Bugs Life, Cars, WALL-E. Other than throwing Ratatouille in this category, I don't think too many of you disagree with what I have here.

Brad Bird has The Incredibles and Ratatouille to his credit. Not bad. That's one great one (in my opinion, the greatest Pixar movie is The Incredibles) and one almost great one in Ratatouille (a film I quite enjoyed).
Andrew Stanton has A Bugs Life, Finding Nemo, and WALL-E to his credit. He's a good director but, looking at my list, that's two darn good Pixar films and one near great one. Brad Bird is number one so far.
Lee Unkrich co-directed Toy Story 2, Monsters, Inc., and Finding Nemo. Two great ones and one almost great one. Okay, as a Pixar director, Unkrich now overtakes Bird. But just barely.
Pete Docter co-directed Monsters, Inc. and Up. Unkrich is still in the lead, Bird is second but barely ahead of Docter.
John Lasseter directed or co-directed Toy Story, A Bugs Life, Toy Story 2, and Cars. Two great ones and two darn good ones. I still think Unkrich wins with Bird and Lasseter tied for second.

Now I know Unkrich "only" has co-directing credits on all three of his Pixar movies while Bird and Lasseter have sole directing credits for The Incredibles (Bird) and Toy Story (Lasseter). I suppose I could come up with a points-based system that would give those who have directed more consideration over those who have co-directed but, hey, isn't that a bit much? Do I need to go into it that deep? Maybe. If I just look at who directed and co-directed what, I gotta go with Bird and Lasseter over Unkrich. So maybe it's a three way tie, really. Do we need some sort of tiebreaker? Yeah. We do. It's called Toy Story 3 to be released in 2010 and it's directed by Lee Unkrich.

How do you rank the Pixar movies? Who is your favorite Pixar director?

4 movies that I used to think were cool but now realize are retarded.

4. Indiana Jones and the Temple of Doom - In Raiders of the Lost Ark, the humor flowed naturally out of the action. It was organic like when Indy shoots the guy with the big sword; it was natural, not forced. In Temple of Doom, it seems like all the elaborate action sequences are done so Indy can make a crack or two. And who the hell builds a roller-coaster in the middle of a mountain? Over yawning lava pits? Oh yeah, we had to have that mine-cart racing sequence to set-up Indy's funny crack about water. And he gets too much of it! Hilarious. I suppose one can still enjoy the movie if you see it as a parody of the previous film. Just view it like Spielberg's career since Raiders: it's not to be taken seriously.

3. Born on the Fourth of July - There's a lot of stupid things I believed when I was younger; that Vietnam was an unnecessary war and Tom Cruise could act were two of them. As many of you are aware, this Oliver Stone movie follows Ron Kovic's journey to Vietnam as a Marine, his subsequent injury that paralyzed him from the waste down, return home, fun with Mexican whores, and eventual anti-war crusade. As I've studied history, I've became aware of a few things about Vietnam: we were fighting the most evil ideology in the history of the world in communism and Ron Kovic (as portrayed by Oliver Stone) is a friggin' retard! The war was a noble one, mishandled by politicians, yes, but still noble. The defeat of America in Vietnam not only hurt us globally for decades to come but it cost the lives of literally millions of Vietnamese and Cambodians many of whom were tortured to death. Maoist communism is particulary vile and anyone who was against our efforts in Southeast Asia is either stupid or ignorant. Probably both. When I was stupid and ignorant, I loved this movie. And then I grew up.

2. Independence Day - I can't believe I used to love this film. I mean, for crap's sake, it's directed by Hollywood hack Roland Emmerich (who would later give us crapfests like The Day After Tomorrow and 10,000 B.C.). I like a good alien invasion story and I guess my hopes for the film along with the special effects blinded me to how bad this film really is. Repeated viewings only magnify the film's flaws. It's another big summer blockbuster that dazzles us with big explosions and alien motherships but gives us nothing in the way of character development.

1. Star Trek IV: The Voyage Home - Most Star Trek movies are retarded: that's just a matter of course. But The Voyage Home reaches new depths of retardation by playing the weenie greenie, tree-hugging, self-righteous, holier-than-thou card (it is Star Trek after all). It's bad enough the crew have to save whales but, they tell us in the movie, those humpbacks are upset at humans for all those years of poor treatment. And while I agree that humpbacks have every right to be upset at humans, there isn't a whale in the oceans that thinks about this. Just like Klingons, whales are animals. Whales are only concerned with eating, reproducing, and trying not to be eaten. They don't swim around pondering existence (or anything else for that matter). I mean, I used to love the movie for it's humor. Now, with it's heavy-handed messaging, it's about as funny as Al Gore. Plus there's too much Chekov. Always too much Chekov. And yes, he is retarded.

Good arguments against same-sex marriage.

The main reasons to oppose same-sex marriage (incorrectly referred to as gay marriage by just about everyone) are:

1. Same-sex marriage will do irreparable damage to male/female distinctions. The great thing about marriage is that it combines a man with a woman. Women and men are very different and, since most marriages result in children, a child should have the best chance possible to have both a mother and a father. A mom and a dad each give something to children that two men or two women can't. But if the distinctions between male and female are torn down, then legally opposite sex couples cannot be favored by adoption agencies. Children who are put up for adoption should have the right to go, if at all possible, to opposite sex couples. The argument that denying same-sex couples from marriage is the same as denying inter-racial couples from marrying is silly. There is no difference between a black human being and a white human being; male/female differences, however, are huge.

2. No civilization in history, secular or religious, has ever recognized same-sex marriage. Christianity, Islam, Judaism, Hinduism, Buddhism, the secular men of the Enlightenment, none of them have ever recognized same-sex marriage. And a "handful" of lefties think they are more wise than every civilization that has come before? That's hubris, folks. Conversely, every major religion in history have recognized inter-racial marriage. When many parts of the US banned inter-racial marriage, they were at odds with Christianity, Judaism and every other religion on Earth.

3. What do you think will happen in sex education classes if same-sex marriage is allowed? By law you will have to not only explain what a man and woman do sexually, but you will now have to explain, in graphic detail, what men and men do sexually and what women and women do sexually. Kids are confused enough about sexuality. This would only make it worse.

4. Religious freedom will be in jeopardy. Sooner or later, if same-sex marriage is allowed, someone will sue a religious institution because it discriminates against same-sex marriage. Heaven knows how such court cases would be decided. So much for the so-called wall of separation if this happens.

The media and leftist groups tell us homosexuals can't marry unless we redefine marriage. It isn't true. Homosexuals have never been prevented from marrying in this country. Any homosexual man can marry a woman (provided she's willing) and any homosexual woman can marry a man. When you go and get a marriage license, they don't ask your sexual orientation.

Tortured values.

As the left continues to rape the word torture, i.e. remove from the word it's meaning (like they did/are doing to the words Nazi, marriage, and rape), I just have one question: If you guys on the left are against torture, why didn't you support the invasion of Iraq and the removal of Saddam Hussein? The former dictator of Iraq tortured his own people by the thousands in brutal ways most of you can't imagine and you don't care; our CIA waterboards three scumbags and it's the worst thing ever.

I just don't understand it. I guess when you look at the world from the point of view of George W. Bush haters, truth, consistency and intellectual honesty are pretty far down on your listed values.

Name for new White boy.

Well folks, my wife and I have decided upon a name for our son (second son, third child) three months before she's even due: Elliott. Elliott was my wife's maternal grandfather; technically he was her step-grandfather. My wife never new her biological grandfather because he was killed in an accident years before her birth. So Elliott Randall was the grandpa she knew. He passed away in 2002 only one day after the birth of my first child, Bobby.

Elliott is a diminutive (short-form or nickname) of Elias which in turn is a cognate (a cognate of a word is a word in another language which comes from the same root) of Elijah. In Hebrew, Elijah means "my god is Yahweh". Everything you wanted to know about the name Elliott, right?

What about middle names, you ask?

You read that right: names. My wife and I have a thing about giving our sons two middle names: we like it! So I mentioned my wife's grandfather, the grandpa she never knew, earlier in this blog entry, remember? Well, his name was Edward. Now if you folks have been paying attention, my wife and I briefly considered Edward as a first name for this new baby due July. It didn't win but second place ain't bad! Elliott Edward--sounds good, we're almost done! My wife's paternal grandfather's name was--are you ready?--Emery. I know what you're thinking: "You crack-smokin' hooligan! Three 'e's? And short 'e's at that? You sonuvagun!" So the kid's name--and it's a mouthful--will be Elliott Edward Emery White. Heh.

Elliott, as stated above, means "my god is Yahweh". Edward means "rich guard", Emery, which is derived from the name Emmerich, means "work power", and White means, uh, "white". If you have a punchline for this, please share.

So anyway, there it it is. A name for number three!

A few of my favorite things.

Favorite sports team - San Francisco 49ers.

Favorite athlete - Steve Young.

Favorite movie - Big Trouble in Little China.

Favorite actor - Robert Duvall.

Favorite director - Clint Eastwood.

Favorite American - John Adams.

Favorite living American - George W. Bush.

Favorite American president - (tie) George Washington, Ronald Reagan, and Calvin Coolidge.

Favorite Metallica song - "Whiskey in the Jar".

Favorite AC/DC song - "Rock and Roll Ain't Noise Pollution".

Favorite symphony - (tie) Dvorak's 9th symphony (aka "Music from the New World") and Beethoven's 9th symphony.

Favorite classical music composer - Beethoven.

Favorite television drama, all-time - The Shield.

Favorite television drama, current - Dexter.

Favorite Saturday Night Live cast member - Phil Hartman, rest in peace.

Favorite comic book - The Avengers, the classic comic book that ended a few years back.

Favorite comic book character - Captain America, the classic hero who was killed a few years back.

Favorite comic book artist - Georg Perez. He's still with us.

These are a few of my favorite things.

Respecting the president.

I try not to badmouth the president regardless of who he is. If I have disagreements with the commander-in-chief, I try to be as respectful as possible while being truthful at the same time. I don't act toward President Obama like the left did toward President Bush (which was disgraceful). So when my son and I talk about the current president, I am always respectful even though President Obama has been a disaster thus far (I don't want him to be a disaster but his policies are hurting my country).

We talked about President Obama last night. I was watching the news and the president came on and I said to my son, Bobby, "That's the president of the United States."
"I know." My son replied matter-of-factly.
"Do you remember his name?" I asked.
My son thought for a minute and said, "No. But he's the first black president."
"Yep. His name is Barack Obama." I replied.
"Oh, yeah!" Bobby exclaimed.
I went on, "You know I voted for the other guy, John McCain. But even though my guy lost, Barack Obama is still my president. I just don't think he's doing a very good job right now. I want himn to be a good president but right now he isn't a good president."
My son looked at me and said, "Why?"
I took a deep breath and said, "Well, the country is hurting right now because we, as a country don't have a lot of money."
My son, who is seven, surprised me with his reply, "Yeah, I know, people spend too much money."
"Yep," I said, "People spent too much money and got into trouble and now President Obama wants the government to spend even more money because he thinks it will help ."
"Well that doesn't make any sense." Bobby replied.
My son is right, of course, it doesn't make any sense at all.

When I discuss President Obama (as in the example above), I do so respectfully even though I think he lacks depth and his policies are hurting my country. We should all be respectful toward the president even if he isn't "our guy".

Here a gaffe, there a gaffe.

You know how President Bush was mocked by the mainstream media and late night comedians mercilessly because he would fumble a line during a speech or mispronounce a word here or there? If you believed Chris Mathews and Jon Stewart, President Bush did this all the time and it was a sign that he was stupid.

Never mind that President Bush's slips were infrequent. Never mind that he made no more verbal mistakes than any other public figure. Never mind that his mistakes were played over and over and over again by a media anxious to make President Bush look like an idiot. Never mind all that because the former president has nothing on President Obama when it comes to gaffes.

Just go to YouTube and type in "obama gaffes" and you'll be deluged with videos of the current president and his endless gaffes. They mostly come in three flavors:

1. Innocent errors - Innocent mistakes are ones anyone can make. Like referring to Rapid City as Grand Rapids as he did when he was campaigning last year. No biggie, right? Right. Except if it were President Bush that said it, the media would have played it over and over again and mocked Bush for being out of touch or something.

2. Factual errors - President Obama makes a lot of these. Claiming President Kennedy's meeting with Soviet leader Khruschev averted disaster during the Cuban Missile crisis (when in fact Kennedy's meeting led to the crisis) is just one of many There is no excuse for historical ignorance from a president of the US. President Bush did not make mistakes like this. President Bush was far, far more historically literate than President Obama is.

3. WTF?!? errors - These are ones that simply leave me--and should leave you--dumbfounded. Powerline commented on a recent gaffe that, frankly, left me stunned. This one is simply bizarre and, if the media reported on it, would make President Obama look like a moron.

And what the hell is the deal with the teleprompter? Barack Obama takes it with him everywhere. If President Bush used a teleprompter half as much as President Obama does, he would have been ridiculed endlessly.

Good gravy, folks!

My point here is not to mock President Obama for his gaffes (though his historical ignorance is troubling). Rather, I am trying to illustrate how biased the media is: They hated President Bush so they would grab onto the smallest thing to make him loo bad; they love President Obama and will purposely avoid making him look bad. George W. Bush is a smart guy. So is President Obama. They, like everyone who gives a lot of public speeches, will make mistakes. It doesn't mean they're stupid or incompetent (President Obama may be incompetent but it has nothing to do with verbal gaffes), it simply means they are human.

Yes, Barack Obama is human.

The worst president ever?

Michael brought this up a few days ago over at his blog, All Now Mysterious . . . (link over at the right side) and historical accuracy and honesty requires me to add my buck fifty.

Those who say President George W. Bush is the worst president in U.S. history are historically illiterate buffoons. I won't list the alarmingly high list of mediocre presidents of the nineteenth century (especially pre-Civil War). I need only list the terrible presidents of my own short lifetime to make my point that not only is President Bush not the worst in history but he's actually been a good president.

I was born during the Nixon administration. Bush worse than Nixon? Watergate, price controls, and Vietnam anyone? I happen to think Vietnam was a just war but Nixon pulled our troops out of the region and mass slaughter--including one-third of all Cambodians--was the result. Communism is evil, folks, and Vietnam was a just cause.

Gerald Ford, a good man, was a terrible president. He was a completely ineffective commander-in-chief. It wasn't really his fault (Congressional Republicans didn't see him as legitimate because he wasn't elected; congressional Democrats wouldn't work with him because he was a Republican) but he had no noteworthy accomplishments as president.

Jimmy Carter. Perhaps the worst president in history. He wouldn't back the pro-American Shaw in Iran and that nation fell to Islamic extremists. He created two incompetent federal bureaucracies in both the Department of Education and the Department of Energy. His policy failures are hurting us today. And then as an ex-president . . . the guy is a worthless human being.

George Herbert Walker Bush and Bill Clinton weren't bad presidents but they both left a lot of foreign policy messes that George Walker Bush had to clean up. Iraq and Islamic terror chief among them.

Bush's eight years in office are notable because of a soaring economy during the vast majority of his presidency, his response to September 11th, and his subsequent liberation of fifty million people in two nations. Folks, Lincoln brought freedom to a few million slaves. President Bush brought freedom to fifty million slaves. Or do you really think Saddam Hussein and the Taliban were kinder masters than Southern slave-owners?

Look, not only is President Bush not the worst president in history or in my lifetime, he's one of our better presidents. The second-best in my lifetime after Reagan.

When those of you who don't like Bush say he's the worst ever, it doesn't say anything about the former president, it says something about you. It makes you look like fools.

Obama administration not off to a good start.

I want President Obama to be a good president because if he fails to be a good president America fails.

Of course, how I define good president and you define good president could be very different. Point is, President Obama is not off to a good start. Signing executive orders to close Gitmo (or look at closing Gitmo) and lifting a ban on funding international pro-abortion family planning groups I can stomach because, after all, President Obama is a liberal. But a couple of other things this week made me raise an eyebrow of concern.

Thursday night President Obama met with the White House press corps. But Mr. Obama soon got testy when a reporter asked him a question. Didn't the president promise us this administration would be the most open and honest one ever?

On Friday, President Obama told GOP congressmen that they should not be listening to Rush Limbaugh. Nevermind the arrogance of such a staement, it just isn't a smart move to admit to your political opponents you fear Limbaugh.

I know it's early and these may just be the miss-steps of a green president but it is entirely consistent with similar gaffes and bouts of hubris that were common during Mr. Obama's campaign.

Is it important? While I hesitate to attack President Obama, he is one of the most arrogant politicians I've ever seen. The office of president can humble a man or destroy him. You need look no further than Nixon and Clinton to see how arrogance can destroy a presidency (or nearly so in Clinton's case).

Five really bad Star Wars characters.

Jabba the Hutt - A fat muppet just doesn't scare me. Maybe it should.

Ewoks - Episode VI: Attack of the Teddy Bears.

Padme/Queen Amidala - From queen to crybaby in three episodes.

Boba Fett - The most feared bounty hunter in the galaxy . . . beaten by a blind man with a stick. But, hey, he looks cool.

Max Rebo - A rejected muppet from Sesame Street. Seriously, the character is so obviously a muppet (and a bad one at that) they could have used Grover or Miss Piggy and it would've looked more real.

I'm grateful for President Bush.

Ingratitude is the ugliest human trait. You won't see it here.

Thank-you, President Bush. Thanks for keeping us safe for over seven years. No one believed after September 11th we would go seven years without an attack. But we didn't get attacked. You, President Bush, get the credit.

Thanks for giving us fifty-two weeks of uninterrupted economic growth after 9/11. Contrary to claims by the left, things were good for the majority of Americans during your presidency.

Thanks for being classy. Heaven knows your political opponents weren't classy. But you're better and you showed it.

Thanks for winning the war in Iraq (yes, we've won). You liberated 25 million people from one of the worst tyrants in history.

Thanks for being a good president.

Names for number three.

My wife is pregnant with our third child. I have a son, Bobby, who turns seven this weekend and a daughter, Mary, who just turned four. The sequel to Bob and Mary will be released sometime in July.

With every new kid comes a name and my wife and I get to decide what that name will be. My wife and I prefer names that are both traditional and family. My son is named after my maternal grandfather, Robert, while my daughter is named after my wife's maternal grandmother, Mary. Maybe not original but in this day and age, it seems it is becoming rare to honor family members by naming new additions after them. Heck, I'm named after my own great-grandfather so it's a family tradition. Only problem is that my wife and I are running short on good, solid grandparent and great-grandparent names for our future kids (that is our children's grandparents and great-grandparents).

As I stated earlier, Robert is the name I gave my son after one of my grandfathers. Problem is, if we have another son, my paternal grandpa's name is out of the running. Two reasons: One, I wasn't close to him (he was a good man but because of my parent's divorce, I didn't get very close to my dad's side of the family) and two, I'm not naming a son Elwood.

Other names borne by our parents and grandparents are out because of other reasons. My dad's name, Craig, is out because, well, Craig just doesn't sound right for a baby. And I'm not really that close with my dad. My father-in-law's name is LeRoy. Look, my father-in-law is a great man but his name is still LeRoy. Some other male names on both my side and my wife's side have their own problems as well. Female names on both sides are out. Two are too old-fashioned and two are weird. Damn weird.

Thing is, you're probably saying to yourselves, just pick a name you like. If it has to be a traditional name, fine, just find a good one that you guys both like. Look, fella, I don't tell you how to name your kids, you don't tell me how to name mine. It is very important to both me and my wife that all our children carry first names that honor either their grandparents or great-grandparents. It's necessary for us.

I've actually gone back to to my great-grandparents and looked at names. I found one that my wife and I both like for a girl: Clara. And one of my wife's grandfather's (she has three because one died and her grandmother remarried) is actually okay: Edward (Teddy for short?). I don't know, but right now, that's all we've got.

Hey, do you like comic books?

If you like comic books and you're not reading Robert Kirkman, what the hell's wrong with you?

Seriously, folks, Kirkman, who currently writes Invincible, The Walking Dead, and The Astounding Wolfman is just about the best writer around right now. He always manages to hit just the right balance of action, humor, and drama.

Invincible, which is now in the 60s as far as issue numbers go, is the story of a teenage hero who has girl troubles and a messed up personal life. Isn't that Spider-Man, you say? Yes, if Peter Parker's parents were still alive and his dad was Superman.

The Walking Dead is set after a zombie apocalypse. I'm not a zombie fan but the book is excellent. Look, all the zombie films I've seen (except for 28 Days Later) are silly and stupid (sorry George Romero) but Kirkman's book does something different with the big disaster that a lot of so-called disaster movies--including zombie flicks--tend to miss: What happens after the disaster? What happens to the world, to the survivors after the credits roll? That's what makes The Walking Dead so interesting. The survivors have to deal with a new world and it's how they handle eachother (and the zombies) that make the book so darn interesting.

I haven't picked up Wolfman yet but I will. Robert Kirkman is the best there is right now. Pick up Invincible or The Walking Dead in trade paperback format. If you don't like it, don't blame me. It's likely you have some sort of mental defect. Seriously.