I've frequently said that you can convince most people of almost anything by using just four words. Those words are "They did a study."

You don't have to know who "they" are. You don't have to know how the study was done. You don't have to know how the data was collected, what standards were used in interpreting the data, how long the study took, or how large the sample size was. "They did a study" is all you need, because everyone knows that only smart people do studies, and they're certain that someone else who is very smart (and oh, so honest) checked up on these folks to make sure that everything was on the up and up. "They" are frequently considered to be an unimpeachable source.

So now, we have incontrovertable evidence that listening to sexy music makes teenagers have sex earlier. We know this because, well, they did a study.

The study claims that over a thousand virgins were interviewed on the phone. Obviously, this was not done in L.A. or Albuquerque. Then two years later, they were interviewed again, asked if they'd been popped, and what music they listened to. Hey, kids wouldn't lie about sex, would they?

The study focused on rap and hip-hop, of course, and proved that the "demeaning" sexual mesages made boys seek females relentlessly, and girls see themselves as sex objects.

Does any of this sound familiar? Of course it does. They did a study about rock, too. And disco. And probably swing jazz.  And they found the same things.

While not a parent myself, I was once a teenager, and remember a lot of that time. I will now share with the parents in the audience an uncomfortable truth, one I hope you are ready for.

You see, teenagers fuck. A lot. And they enjoy it, despite the fact that most of them aren't doing it very well.

And this is nothing new. My generation got it on all they could to the smarmy strains of "Lost in Love" and the sexy sting of "Paradise By the Dashboard Light". My brother probably lost his virginity listening to "Slow Ride" by Foghat. And how many guys owe their first piece of ass to the Beatles or Elvis? Miles Davis? Glen Miller?

Or even Bing Crosby?

You see, anyone who was once a teenage boy remembers that regardless of the music you liked, getting to home plate was job #1. Teenage boys have always been like that. The phrase "Young, dumb, and full of cum" wasn't coined by Tupac.

And girls have always been likely to see themselves as sex objects. That's why they preen so much. That's why they stuff their bras and follow fashion so closely. No one gets a navel ring to meet MIT entrance requirements.

And as always, adults that couldn't wait to slough off the social stigma of virginity themselves seek to blame the music that their kids love and that they can't stand. I wonder, how many people involved in this study still like to listen to "Walk This Way"?

I also wonder why they think the music comes first. Isn't it equally possible that the kids who are more interested in sex in the first place pick the sexier music to listen to?

So what to do? Ban the music? That will just make the kids want to hear it more. Probably, the only halfway effective thing would be to have Beyonce do a song about using condoms.

So what artists in particular are spreading teenage legs the most? I don't know.

But when I find out, I'll hit Nat up for a special podcast.

* With apologies to Frank Zappa.

*(People tend to see what they want to see, regardless of what is really written, so what's the point in actually taking the time to write something? Just fill in the blank yourself.)

The first time I remember seeing Martin Mull was in the late 70's, on some variety show or another. He was already on Mary Hartman, Mary Hartman but I didn't watch that, so he wasn't familiar to me. He was just a guy with a guitar who sang a very funny song where he hummed the dirty parts to make it fit for prime time, and then ended up humming the majority of the song. I thought it was a riot. He was promoting an album called Sax and Violins, which I remember almost buying once, before choosing something else..

The next time I saw him was on the hilarious show Fernwood 2Nite, which I DID watch, owing to the fact that I was then allowed to stay up later. His career sped up from there, mainly on TV but also in film, and there's hardly anyone who doesn't know who he is. I remember wondering in the beginning, though, why he didn't do more music.

It turns out that he'd been there and done that. In fact, he released albums and performed in nightclubs throughout the 70's. His act was a combination of stand up comedy banter and humorous songs, competently played. His first album even had Levon Helm from The Band on drums and background vocals!

His live act was a combination of music and patter. He'd basically tell jokes to set up the songs, then do the songs, which were jokes in and of themselves. I kind of doubt that anyone was sneaking recorders into his nightclub shows, but there are a few radio recordings out there, like this one.

This week's selection is from a show at Chicago's Ivanhoe Theater on Febuary 2, 1977, during his tenure on "Mary Hartman, Mary Hartman." It was recorded by WXRT, the greatest radio station in existence. He'd just put out a new record and was talking to the audience about that as well as "MHMH". It sounds like a smallish to medium crowd, and seems to be the second of two shows done that night. It's pretty funny stuff. The cut is more than half talking, and the song, "I'll Hate Myself in the Morning", is short, but as I said, funny stuff.

Here it is!

No one won the contest, which surprised me, but such is life. Since I'm actually mailing out prize discs, I don't feel obligated to make it TOO easy. Besides, as I told O'Tim, it's fair for me to win once in awhile.

Next week: This guitarist turned down an invitation to join the Rolling Stones, so they took his former bass player instead. First to get it gets a copy!

When I set up this imaginary fistfight between Matt Dillon and James T. Kirk, I meant

THIS Matt Dillon....

(the guy with the star),

NOT this Matt Dillon.....

....whom I had forgotten about altogether. Shit, Yeoman Rand could kick HIS ass.

Not so crazy now, am I?

One of the vital functions of parenting, I am lead to understand, is preparing the little joy bundle in question for independent, adult existence. Making sure they can make the right decisions, know how to handle adversity and strive for success, and function well in a society with certain laws and mores. To educate them in the process and requirements of being an acceptable, if not exemplary, member of a particular society. To make sure that what is expected of them is also natural to them.

Yet, when I listen to parents speaking to their children, and think back on the things my parents told me, I see that most, if not all, parents fail to do this in a fundamental way, because of something they seemingly can't help doing.

Lying.

Oh yes, people lie to their children every day, all over the world. I don't mean nice lies, like Santa Claus or "Sure you'll be pretty when you grow up". I mean things that are fundamentally untrue in the real adult world. Examples follow.

1) "You can't judge a book by its' cover".

Well, this holds true in a fashion...... appearances can be deceiving, and we can all be surprised. However, that's not usually what parents are trying to tell kids with that statement. They're trying to get their kids to be more accepting of others and not judge them by their clothes or skin or the color of their hair. They want their kids to go play with those slovenly redheaded stepchildren, get to know them, and stay out of Mom's hair while she gossips with the other moms.

Yet, as adults, we judge books by little but their covers. We don't have time to get to know everybody, and they all must be judged in some way. When you go to the mall, you can spot the trailer trash right off. When you go to see a professional, you expect him to wear a tie. Not that a tie performs any particular function that a professional requires, but just because he can't be a professional without one. Sans the tie, he's just some idiot schlub. With it, the same guy suddenly knows what he's talking about. Female professionals are spared the tie, of course, but should have on  a nice outfit and have no visible tattoos. If your OB/GYN has "Live to Ride, Ride to Live" tattooed on her neck, you just might switch, eh?

Furthermore, people will insist upon judging books by their covers in police investigations, the last place where such a tactic could be useful. How many times have people bemoaned the lack of profiling in airline security? "It's the Arabs that do these things, so why are they checking people who aren't Arabs? It's a total waste of time." I'm sure you've heard this one a few times.

It's stupid. It wasn't an Arab that blew up the Fed building in Oklahoma City. It wasn't an Arab that blew one off at the Olympics in Georgia, although it was Arabs that they wasted two weeks looking for. The last time I checked, "Jose Padilla" was not an Arabic name. Neither was "John Walker Lindh". Of course, Arabs do blow things and people to smithereens, but to rely on that only creates an unnecessary hole in any security procedure or police investigation.

Oh, and how often does a woman who can sing well, but isn't super hot, get a shot at the top 40?

2) "It doesn't matter if you win or lose, it's how you play the game."

Right, that's why steroid use is rampant in pro sports. That's why colleges don't always give accurate grades to their star athletes. That's why politicians regularly use any dirty trick they can to win. That's why voting districts with high populations of black people got fewer voting machines in 2004. In adult America, winning is all. Do it however you can. No one wins "Survivor" by keeping his/her word or caring about others, right?

Just yesterday I heard of a Republican who is running for Senate right now.... I forget where, but I'm thinking Virginia..... who is behind in the polls, so he's channeling Republican funds to a Green Party candidate. He hopes this will draw votes away from the Democrat who is favored, and allow him a win. Legal? Probably. I find it despicable, though, as it disregards the purpose of an election - that is, for the will of the people to be expressed- and turns it into a manipulative exercise, so that he (and his Party, which is so much more important than the country itself) has a chance to win. Never mind winning on his merits. Odds are he hasn't any. It makes you wonder what might have happened in 2004 had the Dems been disingenuous enough to fund a Libertarian candidate.

Who cares, anyway, right? It's not as if most of us vote anyway. We have little use for it. We tend to tell our kids that it's a duty, though.

3) "Honesty is the best policy."

Right, look in the mirror and say THAT on April 14th. Dishonesty is universal in the adult world. I don't even need to go into politics with this, as dishonesty is expected and accepted in that arena. The only political lies that bother anybody are those that come from the OTHER side. Your guy never lies..... that damn media just twists things around to make it look that way. Even adults that strive to be honest with others will usually lie to themselves, at least.

Parents tell this to kids not to make them honest adults, but to keep their kids from lying to THEM. This will work for awhile, as people will always forgive a small child for being utterly tactless. As they get older, the parents will tire of the embarrassment and teach their kids about "little white lies". Lying to pull one's ass out of the griddle is usually taught by example. And let's not forget that lying is frequently "Just good business."

4) "Two wrongs don't make a right."

Remember when you were young, and "He hit me first" was no excuse? Remember when saying that would still get you punished, because you knew very well - or were supposed to - that you weren't  to hit ANYONE, regardless? And you'd always get the same old lecture.... "It takes two to make a fight."

Not in the adult world. ANYWHERE in the adult world. If Country X kills 100 innocent citizens of Country Y, then anything Country Y does after that is justified, because Country X did it first. So Country Y, when they kill 10,000 innocent citizens of Country X, is simply defending itself, and has done no one any wrong. They can then, if they wish, march straight into Country Z. They didn't do anything, but Country Y doesn't like the way Country Z is looking at them. Besides, Country X did it first, and they're all friends over there. Meanwhile, Country X had their own axe to grind against Country Y in the first place, because they had it coming. Yeah - this is the ADULT world.

We show it in our justice system as well, although among industrial nations America is pretty much alone. I mean capital punishment, of course. We demonstrate our commitment to life by killing those we believe have killed others. I word it that way because we don't always have the facts straight in these courts of ours, and innocent people do go to jail. They also get the death penalty.This is usually no problem for the families that need closure and the lawyers that have political aspirations.

It's not all their fault, though. How many times have you heard someone say that an accused person should be executed when they haven't even been convicted yet? How many people in America honestly feel that the only thing wrong with the death penalty is the fact that the scum get a few chances to appeal it, as if they WOULDN'T if it were THEM on the chopping block? I've met people who consider the possibility of executing a few innocent people as an acceptable margin of error! They are not even slightly interested in justice..... only revenge. Again, they would feel different if it was their lives on the line.

I could probably go on forever, but I think my point is made. Of course, people will always claim that they're trying to make their kids into better adults than they themselves are, and perhaps that's true. I think it gives us a reason - besides sheer hubris, that is- for the fact that teenagers won't listen to adults. They've observed the adult world a bit, and figured us out.

And I am not, of course, suggesting that parents start teaching their kids the virtues of bigotry, opportunism, dishonesty, and revenge. It all makes me wonder, though.

What kind of world might we have if we held ourselves - and each other- to the same standards to which we hold an eight year old?

Okay, perhaps not in the traditional - or any actual- sense of the word "exciting", but since I can do polls now, I might as well do it! Needing more storage space for photos, I decided to stick a crowbar in my wallet and upgrade my blog service. I got a bunch more space, polls, and now there's no ads (didja notice?). In addition, I can ban your ass if you rile me too much.

So I feel that I'm wasting part of my $3.00 monthly if I don't have polls! I plan to have a new one every Sunday. Obviously, I haven't had a good idea for one yet, so suggestions are welcome. Note that you can comment in the poll as well as vote. Voting is mandatory. I've been practicing Paula's glare, so don't push me.

The poll is to your right, in the sidebar.

"Is it a man or a building?"

Well, it's actually a man named AFTER a building. This building:

Taj Mahal has been on the scene for 40 odd years now, and always on the fringe. While primarily a blues musician, he has a talent for blending the blues with other styles as well, often creating something entirely unique. No one can play the down-n-dirty, nitty gritty delta blues like Taj, either. I imagine he'd set Robert Johnson back a respectful step or two.

This is why it's difficult to pick one song to show you what his music is like. The fact that my Taj Mahal boots span 40 years pokes at the problem spot a bit also. Thus, I've posted two songs this week, and that isn't enough, either.

The first is an example of Taj playing traditional acoustic blues in his own distinctive style. You can tell that he's dead serious about his music, but that's only because he has so much fun with it. The song is one of his signature tunes, "Fishin' Blues", from New York City's Bottom Line in October of 1974. Taj is bursting with energy, and infecting the entire audience with that energy by force. You can tell they're having a lot of fun.

This song clocks in at 4:20, so smoke 'em if you've got 'em. Click here for "Fishin' Blues" at NYC's Bottom Line in Oct. 1974.

If this tune sounds familiar, you might know it from the Lovin' Spoonful's wildly inferior (IMO)  pop version in the film "What's Up Tiger Lily".

Fast forward 30 years to the Winnipeg Folk Festival in Manitoba, Canada. I now give you a taste of Taj's current flavor. His music of late has been injected with a Pacific island groove, a highly dancable electric mix of blues and beach. I toyed with the idea of using "Fishin' Blues" again, as it sounds very different from the one you've just heard, and he's STILL having a good time with it. Variety wins out, though, and I think this selection best displays the newer sound.  His band is called The Hula Band, and this is the "New Hula Blues".

Click here for "New Hula Blues" at the Winnipeg Folk Festival on July 8, 2004.

Next Week: You've known him as a funny actor for about 30 years, but he started as a funny musician. First to post his name in the commments wins a copy of the show!

Addendum: Kudos to Mark for being the only one to at least TRY to guess this, although I don't personally know of a musician named "Chrysler". That doesn't mean there isn't one! I guess ol' Taj isn't as well known as I thought. He certainly isn't as well known as he should be.

Inspired by a debate taking place here and here, I have, with painstaking research and great expense of time, compiled a list of

13 things the Jews have NOT been blamed for, at least to any great extent.

1. The extinction of the velociraptor.
2. The disappearance of Amelia Earhart.
3. Sunspots.
4. The Zulu Wars.
5. Empty toner cartridges (except in law and accounting offices).
6. The Dust Bowl.
7. Shark   attacks (except in law offices).
8. The high price of rosaries.
9. Photographic red-eye.
10. Jimmy Swaggart.
11. The heartbreak of psoriasis.
12. Stryper.
13. Ragnarok.

Who says these guys never get a break?

Here's a little musical exercise I saw at Cheezy's. The first step is to write down 10 bands quickly- the first ten off the top of your head. Mine are:

1. Pink Floyd
2. The Kinks
3. The Grateful Dead
4. The Moody Blues
5. Led Zeppelin
6. The Who
7. Bela Fleck and the Flecktones
8. Jeff Beck
9. The Beatles
10. Phish

Then, there's the questions.............

1. What was the first song you ever heard by 6? "Pinball Wizard"

2. What is your favourite album of 8? It's impossible to pick just one, but I'm still very enamored of his most recent, Jeff.

3. What is your favourite lyric of 5? "Lots of people talkin', very few of them know the soul of a woman was created below."

4. How many times have you seen 4 live? Once. My first concert!

5. What is your favourite song by 7? I love their version of "Hoedown".

6. Is there a song of 3 that makes you sad? "He's Gone"

7.What is your favourite lyric of 9? I've delayed posting this for 24 hours because I just can't answer this question. I almost chose the 2nd verse of "Let It Be", but there are SO MANY OTHER good ones. Hell, the Revolver album alone has me stymied.

8. What is your favourite song by 1? "Echoes"

9. How did you get into 8? Through friends.

10. What is your favourite song by 4? "Watching and Waiting"

11. How many times have you seen 1 live? Three

12. What is a good memory concerning 2? Scoring a fantastic video boot of one of their 70's shows

13. Is there a song by 2 that makes you sad? "Celluloid Heroes"

14. What is your favourite song of 6? "Long Live Rock"!

15. How did you become a fan of 10? A friend who didn't like them but knew I would brought a disc over and played it for me.

* Not to be confused with "Copycatechism", which is plagiaristic religious instruction.