Revisionist History

Randall Cunningham, Gary Anderson, Robert Smith, Cris Carter, John Randle, Randy Moss… just a few names from the memorable 1998 Vikings squad.  Minnesotans fondly remember that remarkable NFL season as the breakthrough period in Minnesota sports history.

This being the 10-year anniversary, I took the time to sit down and reminisce with a few of the key members of the 1998 squad.

Randall Cunninham: I give all glory to God.  And my offensive line!  Listen, I’m a lucky man.  I mean, look at my NFL journey.  I had some great years in Philly, but I just didn’t have the supporting cast.  Things got so bad, by 1996, I was out of the league, installing marble countertops in Vegas.  Finally the Vikings called looking for a backup.  When Brad Johnson got injured, I had the opportunity to play QB for one of the greatest teams in NFL history.  What a year!  To retire after back-to-back titles in 98/99 and 99/00 — now that was sweet.  I’m sure John Elway would have loved to ride off into the sunset the way I did, but we just had the better team in Super Bowl XXXIII.  It was a team effort, and our defense did a great job shutting down Terrell Davis.  We forced Elway to beat us, and he came up just short.

Gary Anderson: I must admit, mate, I was pretty nervous lining up for that big kick against Atlanta.  I just said to myself, “Gary, you’ve been perfect this season.  How will the fans remember you if you blow this one?  This is the most important kick of your life.”  After I gave myself that lil’ pep talk, I just booted it right through the uprights.  Felt great.  Didn’t have any tough kicks in the Super Bowl and finished my career with a perfect season.  Brilliant!

Robert Smith: I was pretty banged up after that Atlanta game, so to be honest with you, the second and third titles were a little sweeter for me.  But Leroy Hoard did a great job running the ball in Miami against Broncos.  Not to take anything away from Leroy, but with Cris, Randy, and Jake Reed running routes, no defense was equipped to stop our passing game.

Cris Carter: It was great to cement my status in Minnesota sports lore as a champion.  Heck, the street they named after me intersects with Puckett Place!  I feel like that ’98 squad helped cultivate a winning attitude in Minny.  Had we not brought home that Super Bowl trophy, who knows?  Maybe KG and the Wolves wouldn’t be defending another title right now.  Maybe Johan and Torii wouldn’t have spurned the big contracts to play for the Twins in a winning city.  We’ll never know.  I’m just glad Gary made that kick against the Falcons!

John Randle: Super Bowl MVP, I still can’t believe it.  I just put my war paint on and got to work.  Remember that commercial with me chasing around the chicken wearing the Favre jersey?  It was like that, only the chicken wore #7.  I kept my motor running and ended up with six sacks, but the whole “D” played great that day.  Tough way for Elway to go out, but I gotta give props to my boys Robert Griffith and Big Head Orlando Thomas in the secondary.  Linebackers Eddie McDaniel and Dwayne Rudd made some key plays.  Those fellas were all over the field.

Randy Moss: I’ve been in a Vikes uni ten years already?  Damn.  My rookie year was straight cash, homey!  That first taste… I can’t explain it.  It was the beginning of something beautiful.  Sure, we had a couple tough years afterward.  You’ll never believe this, but I heard talk that Red McCombs was thinking of trading me to the Raiders.  The Raiders!  You believe that?  You can’t break up Daunte and me; we’re a unit!  Split us up, and I bet Daunte would try to carry the entire load and probably just get himself hurt.  But then we drafted AP, and now we’re right back on top of the mountain.  We got a legit shot at repeating this year…

IRVING, TX 11/26/98

* cross-posted at sports-uncut.com

Fwd: FW: FWD: Fw: Don’t Think, Just Agree With Me

What follows is one of the ridiculous forwards currently in circulation. Other than some basic formatting, I have made no alterations to the original text. I took the liberty of appending commentary from the author’s perspective which was omitted from the original piece (in italics and parentheses).

Why I Can’t Vote For Obama

By Huntley Brown a black christian
(Everything I’m about to say is okay because I’m black, therefore allowed to criticize Obama. It can’t be considered racist because, hey, I’m black!)

Dear Friends, (Dear people I hope won’t actually put any thought into what I’m about to say,)

A few months ago I was asked for my perspective on Obama, I sent out an email with a few points. With the election just around the corner I decided to complete my perspective. Those of you on my e-list have seen some of this before but it’s worth repeating… (You know, Bill Ayers, terrorist, Obama. We “conservatives” like to repeat smear mantras.)

First I must say whoever wins the election will have my prayer support. Obama needs to be commended for his accomplishments but I need to explain why I will not be voting for him. (I don’t actually listen to anything Obama says, but I’m told he has accomplished things.)

Many of my friends process their identity through their blackness. I process my identity through Christ. Being a Christian (a Christ follower) means He leads I follow. I can’t dictate the terms He does because He is the leader. (Go ahead and dismiss the movement that is Barack Obama’s candidacy. People just like him because he’s black.)

I can’t vote black because I am black; I have to vote Christian because that’s who I am. Christian first, black second. Neither should anyone from the other ethnic groups vote because of ethnicity. 200 years from now I won’t be asked if I was black or white. I will be asked if I knew Jesus and accepted Him as Lord and Savior. (It would be a shame to consider where the candidates stand on real issues like health care, the economy, education, and foreign policy. I just ask myself, do they agree with me on one or two wedge issues?)

In an election there are many issues to consider but when a society gets abortion, same-sex marriage, embryonic stem-cell research, human cloning to name a few, wrong economic concerns will soon not matter. (Economy, shmeconomy! The world as we know it will crumble if a couple gay dudes get married. Really, you’re worried about the economy?)

We need to follow Martin Luther King’s words, don’t judge someone by the color of their skin but by the content of their character. I don’t know Obama so all I can go on is his voting record. His voting record earned him the title of the most liberal senator in the US Senate in 2007. (Just in case you weren’t paying attention, I’m black. This requires me to mention Martin Luther King. Check that off the list.)

http://nj.nationaljournal.com/voteratings/ NATIONAL JOURNAL: Obama: Most Liberal Senator in 2007 (01/31/2008) (Look, Mom! I cited a source!)

To beat Ted Kennedy and Hilary Clinton as the most liberal senator, takes some doing. Obama accomplished this feat in 2 short years. I wonder what would happen to America if he had four years to work with.

There is a reason Planned Parenthood gives him a 100 % rating. (He doesn’t stand outside their clinics with pitchforks and call them baby killers.)

There is a reason the homosexual community supports him. (Yes, he doesn’t demonize them.)

There is a reason Ahmadinejad, Chavez, Castro, Hamas etc. love him. (No, really, I have proof! And here’s a link providing a definitive proof of how much these fellas love Obama. Sure hope it worked. Don’t bother checking it, though. Just take my word for it. Dictators love Obama. It’s true. Because he’s Muslim. That’s true also.)

There is a reason he said he would nominate liberal judges to the Supreme Court. (The nerve!)

There is a reason he voted against the infanticide bill. (Obama hates infants and wants them murdered. This is true, again, because I said so.)

There is a reason he voted No on the constitutional ban of same-sex marriage. (I don’t know about you, but gay people frighten me. Their existence threatens my way of life.)

There is a reason he voted No on banning partial birth abortion. (Because if there’s a chance mommy’s going to die during child birth, well, tough cookies. If Junior survives, he and Dad will make do just fine without mom.)

There is a reason he voted No on confirming Justices Roberts and Alito. (Obama: “While I certainly believe that Judge Samuel Alito has the training and the qualifications necessary to serve as a Supreme Court Justice, after a careful review of his record, I simply cannot vote for his nomination.

“The Judicial Branch of our government is a place where any American citizen can stand equal before the eyes of the law. Yet, in examining Judge Alito’s many decisions, I have seen extraordinarily consistent support for the powerful against the powerless, for the employer against the employee, for the President against the Congress and the Judiciary, and for an overreaching federal government against individual rights and liberties.

“By ruling this way so many times over a course of so many years, Judge Alito simply does not inspire confidence that he will serve as an independent voice on the U.S. Supreme Court.

“I do hope that if he is confirmed, he proves me wrong. I hope that he will uphold the best traditions of the Supreme Court as a bastion of equality and justice on behalf of every American citizen.”

I guess that’s the reason. He carefully considered Alito’s record. What an idiot!)

These two judges are conservatives and they have since overturned partial birth abortion.

The same practice Obama wanted to continue. (Matter of fact, Obama regularly performs these procedures just to satisfy his infanticide lust. I won’t take the time to Photoshop him with a dead baby, but you’ll just have to believe me. It’s that simple.)

Let’s take a look at the practice he wanted to continue.

The 5 Step Partial Birth Abortion procedures: A. Guided by ultrasound, the abortionist grabs the baby’s leg with forceps. (Remember this is a live baby) B. The baby’s leg is pulled out into the birth canal. C. The abortionist delivers the baby’s entire body, except for the head. D. The abortionist jams scissors into the baby’s skull. The scissors are then opened to enlarge the hole. E. The scissors are removed and a suction catheter is inserted. The child’s brains are sucked out, causing the skull to collapse. The dead baby is then removed.

(I urge you to disregard all else and make the connection between abortion and Barack Obama. Whatever you do, don’t take into account the fact that no sane human being actually encourages such a procedure. And you definitely don’t want to listen to Obama when he says, “On an issue like partial birth abortion, I strongly believe that the state can properly restrict late-term abortions. I have said so repeatedly. All I’ve said is we should have a provision to protect the health of the mother, and many of the bills that came before me didn’t have that.

“Part of the reason they didn’t have it was purposeful, because those who are opposed to abortion have a moral calling to try to oppose what they think is immoral. Oftentimes what they were trying to do was to polarize the debate and make it more difficult for people, so that they could try to bring an end to abortions overall.

“As president, my goal is to bring people together, to listen to them, and I don’t think that’s any Republican out there who I’ve worked with who would say that I don’t listen to them, I don’t respect their ideas, I don’t understand their perspective. And my goal is to get us out of this polarizing debate where we’re always trying to score cheap political points and actually get things done.” Source: Fox News Sunday: 2008 presidential race interview Apr 27, 2008)

God help him.

There is a reason Obama opposed the parental notification law. (There sure is: “Some States have parental consent laws, some don’t. In my particular State, it has been voted down because my people feel that if you ask them, ‘Do they want their kids to come to their parents?’, absolutely. But if you ask them, ‘Should you force them to do so, even in circumstances where there could be trouble that comes from that?’, they say no.

“This bill emanates from a desire that our children come to us when we have family matters, when our children are in trouble, that they not be fearful, that they not be afraid that they disappoint us, that they be open with us and loving toward us, and we toward them. This is what we want to have happen. The question is: Can Big Brother Federal Government force this on our families? That is where we will differ.” Reference: Child Interstate Abortion Notification Act; Bill S.403 ; vote number 2006-216 on Jul 25, 2006)

Think about this: You can’t give a kid an aspirin without parental notification but that same kid can have an abortion without parental notification. This is insane. (I may actually have a point here. Lighten up, folks, give the damn kid an aspirin.)

There is a reason he went to Jeremiah Wright’s church for 20 years. (Which is surprising, because all this time, I’ve been telling people he’s a Muslim. A radical one, too!)

Obama tells us he has good judgment but he sat under Jeremiah Wright teaching for 20 years. Now he is condemning Wright’s sermons. I wonder why, now? (If you’re like me, you agree with everything your pastor ever says. The same was true of Obama and Wright. They were on the completely in sync until Jeremiah told Barack he didn’t like the color blue. All bets were off after that.)

Obama said Jeremiah Wright led him to the Lord and discipled him. A disciple is one in training. Jesus told us in Matthew 28:19 – 20 “Go and make disciples of all nations.” This means reproduce yourself. Teach people to think like you, walk like you; talk like you believe what you believe etc. The question I have is what did Jeremiah Wright teach him? (To hate America, of course!)

Would you support a White President who went to a church which has tenets that said they have a 1. Commitment to the White Community 2. Commitment to the White Family 3. Adherence to the White Work Ethic 4. Pledge to make the fruits of all developing and acquired skills available to the White Community. 5. Pledge to Allocate Regularly, a Portion of Personal Resources for Strengthening and Supporting White Institutions 6. Pledge allegiance to all White leadership who espouse and embrace the White Value System 7. Personal commitment to embracement of the White Value System. Would you support a President who went to a church like that? (Hell no! I’m a black guy, remember?)

Just change the word from white to black and you have the tenets of Obama’s former church. If President Bush was a member of a church like this, he would be called a racist. Jessie Jackson and Al Sharpton would have been marching outside. (We can go ahead and infer that these tenets mean “Down with whitey.”)

This kind of church is a racist church. Obama did not wake up after 20 years and just discovered he went to a racist church. The church can’t be about race. Jesus did not come for any particular race. He came for the whole world. (Moses, however, only cared about the Jews. Now there’s a racist.)

A church can’t have a value system based on race. The churches value system has to be based on biblical mandate. It does not matter if it’s a white church or a black church it’s still wrong. Anyone from either race that attends a church like this would never get my vote. (Which is why I don’t vote for Jews.)

Obama’s former Pastor Jeremiah Wright is a disciple of liberal theologian James Cone, author of the 1970 book A Black Theology of Liberation. Cone once wrote: “Black theology refuses to accept a God who is not identified totally with the goals of the black community. If God is not for us and against white people, then he is a murderer, and we had better kill him.

Cone is the man Obama’s mentor looks up to. Does Obama believe this? So what does all this mean for the nation? (Look at this: I can connect Obama to Cone via Wright! Did you know that Kevin Bacon was in “Picture Perfect” with Olympia Dukakis who was in “The Naked Gun 33 1/3” with O.J. Simpson? Kevin Bacon is a murderer!)

In the past when the Lord brought someone with the beliefs of Obama to lead a nation it meant one thing – judgment. (Ahh, Judgment Day. How I long for you. Actually, I guess this is a good thing, right? All the rotten non-believers go to hell and I go to Heaven. Awesome!)

Read 1 Samuel 8 when Israel asked for a king. First God says in 1 Samuel 1:9 “Now listen to them; but warn them solemnly and let them know what the king who will reign over them will do.” (If you look carefully in the liner notes, there is a passage that says “Put your faith in the white maverick, for he shall cut corporate taxes.”)

Then God says

1 Samuel 1:18 ” When that day comes, you will cry out for relief from the king you have chosen, and the LORD will not answer you in that day.” 19 But the people refused to listen to Samuel. “No!” they said. “We want a king over us. 20 Then we will be like all the other nations, with a king to lead us and to go out before us and fight our battles.” 21 When Samuel heard all that the people said, he repeated it before the LORD. 22 The LORD answered, “Listen to them and give them a king.”

Here is what we know for sure. (We know that we exist. Or do we? I should have stayed awake during Philosophy.)

God is not schizophrenic. (Old Testament God and New Testament God are totally consistent if you speed read.)

He would not tell one person to vote for Obama and one to vote for McCain. As the scripture says, a city divided against itself cannot stand, so obviously many people are not hearing from God. Maybe I am the one not hearing, but I know God does not change and Obama contradicts many things I read in scripture so I doubt it. (You can lie, cheat and steal your way through life, repent on your death bed, and be granted passage to Heaven. But vote Obama, and you’re S.O.L. Sorry, that’s just the way it is. –Huntley 2:23)

For all my friends who are voting for Obama can you really look God in the face and say; Father based on your word, I am voting for Obama even though I know he will continue the genocidal practice of partial birth abortion. He might have to nominate three or four Supreme Court justices, and I am sure he will be nominating liberal judges who will be making laws that are against you. I also know he will continue to push for homosexual rights, even though you destroyed Sodom and Gomorrah for this. I know I can look the other way because of the economy. (I voted for Bush and he declared war against Iraq, which was Your will.)

I could not see Jesus agreeing with many of Obama’s positions. (You know, helping the poor and downtrodden, cutting taxes for the middle class, bringing about the end of senseless war, providing to health care to all. Jesus hates those things.)

Finally I have two questions for all my liberal friends. Since we know someone’s value system has to be placed on the nation,

1. Whose value system should be placed on the nation. (Remember what Jesus told the disciples at The Last Supper: “You mustn’t repeal the Bush tax cuts. Those earning income exceeding $250,000 can be trusted to filter that money back into society. Trickledown economics never fail. Now let us break bread.)

2. Who should determine that this is the right value system for the nation? (Never mind the separation of Church and State put in place by the founding fathers. Vote based on religious zealotry. It is the only way.)

Blessings,
Huntley Brown (a narrow minded fear-peddler)

Genuine Maverickitudeness

mav·er·ick: an independent individual who does not go along with a group or party

Now seems like a good time to revisit recent history.  During the run-up to the war in Iraq, we as a nation were ticked-off, paranoid, and ready to kick some ass.  The anger was palpable, and on the heels of 9/11, justifiable.  It was not popular to buck this trend.  Remember “Freedom Fries”?

Democrats and Republicans alike marched to the drumbeat.  Trite though it may be, a strong voice of opposition could certainly have declared him or herself a “maverick.”

John McCain sided with George W. Bush in his support for the war.

Barack Obama opposed the war in Iraq prior to the vote for authorization.  We hear this often; it is the backbone of his claim to sound judgment.  Rightfully so.  What we seldom hear, however, are Obama’s prescient comments in their entirety.

Here is the transcript from Obama’s address on October 2, 2002, two weeks before congress authorized war in Iraq:
Good afternoon. Let me begin by saying that although this has been billed as an anti-war rally, I stand before you as someone who is not opposed to war in all circumstances. The Civil War was one of the bloodiest in history, and yet it was only through the crucible of the sword, the sacrifice of multitudes, that we could begin to perfect this union, and drive the scourge of slavery from our soil. I don’t oppose all wars.

My grandfather signed up for a war the day after Pearl Harbor was bombed, fought in Patton’s army. He saw the dead and dying across the fields of Europe; he heard the stories of fellow troops who first entered Auschwitz and Treblinka. He fought in the name of a larger freedom, part of that arsenal of democracy that triumphed over evil, and he did not fight in vain. I don’t oppose all wars.

After September 11th, after witnessing the carnage and destruction, the dust and the tears, I supported this administration’s pledge to hunt down and root out those who would slaughter innocents in the name of intolerance, and I would willingly take up arms myself to prevent such tragedy from happening again. I don’t oppose all wars. And I know that in this crowd today, there is no shortage of patriots, or of patriotism.

What I am opposed to is a dumb war. What I am opposed to is a rash war. What I am opposed to is the cynical attempt by Richard Perle and Paul Wolfowitz and other armchair, weekend warriors in this administration to shove their own ideological agendas down our throats, irrespective of the costs in lives lost and in hardships borne.

What I am opposed to is the attempt by political hacks like Karl Rove to distract us from a rise in the uninsured, a rise in the poverty rate, a drop in the median income – to distract us from corporate scandals and a stock market that has just gone through the worst month since the Great Depression. That’s what I’m opposed to. A dumb war. A rash war. A war based not on reason but on passion, not on principle but on politics. Now let me be clear – I suffer no illusions about Saddam Hussein. He is a brutal man. A ruthless man. A man who butchers his own people to secure his own power. He has repeatedly defied UN resolutions, thwarted UN inspection teams, developed chemical and biological weapons, and coveted nuclear capacity. He’s a bad guy. The world, and the Iraqi people, would be better off without him.

But I also know that Saddam poses no imminent and direct threat to the United States, or to his neighbors, that the Iraqi economy is in shambles, that the Iraqi military a fraction of its former strength, and that in concert with the international community he can be contained until, in the way of all petty dictators, he falls away into the dustbin of history. I know that even a successful war against Iraq will require a US occupation of undetermined length, at undetermined cost, with undetermined consequences. I know that an invasion of Iraq without a clear rationale and without strong international support will only fan the flames of the Middle East, and encourage the worst, rather than best, impulses of the Arab world, and strengthen the recruitment arm of Al Qaeda. I am not opposed to all wars. I’m opposed to dumb wars.

So for those of us who seek a more just and secure world for our children, let us send a clear message to the President today. You want a fight, President Bush? Let’s finish the fight with Bin Laden and Al Qaeda, through effective, coordinated intelligence, and a shutting down of the financial networks that support terrorism, and a homeland security program that involves more than color-coded warnings. You want a fight, President Bush?

Let’s fight to make sure that the UN inspectors can do their work, and that we vigorously enforce a non-proliferation treaty, and that former enemies and current allies like Russia safeguard and ultimately eliminate their stores of nuclear material, and that nations like Pakistan and India never use the terrible weapons already in their possession, and that the arms merchants in our own country stop feeding the countless wars that rage across the globe. You want a fight, President Bush?

Let’s fight to make sure our so-called allies in the Middle East, the Saudis and the Egyptians, stop oppressing their own people, and suppressing dissent, and tolerating corruption and inequality, and mismanaging their economies so that their youth grow up without education, without prospects, without hope, the ready recruits of terrorist cells. You want a fight, President Bush? Let’s fight to wean ourselves off Middle East oil, through an energy policy that doesn’t simply serve the interests of Exxon and Mobil. Those are the battles that we need to fight. Those are the battles that we willingly join. The battles against ignorance and intolerance. Corruption and greed. Poverty and despair.

The consequences of war are dire, the sacrifices immeasurable. We may have occasion in our lifetime to once again rise up in defense of our freedom, and pay the wages of war. But we ought not — we will not — travel down that hellish path blindly. Nor should we allow those who would march off and pay the ultimate sacrifice, who would prove the full measure of devotion with their blood, to make such an awful sacrifice in vain.  (source)

You get it, right?  For the sake of closure, I’ll drive home the “maverick” point.  It’s a stupid, disingenuous branding effort by the McCain campaign.  And when the country needed him to be a real maverick, John McCain failed.  He was decidedly un-mavericky.

—————————————————————————–

If you haven’t seen it yet, I highly recommend taking the time to watch “No End in Sight”, a sobering non-partisan documentary made in 2007, now available for free on youtube.

Seeds of Suspicion and Lies

John McCain reaping what his campaign has sown.

The question posed in the embedded video was asked at a town hall meeting in Lakeville, Minnesota.  This is what a steady diet of right wing talk radio, Fox News propaganda, and fear-mongering hearsay will accomplish.

VP Smack Down!

When the comedy event of the season happens to be a Vice Presidential Debate, I can’t help but steal the shtick made famous by ESPN’s Bill Simmons (aka The Sports Guy).  You guessed it — the Running Diary!

7:31: And we’re live from Eagan, MN, home of snubbed GOP VP shortlister, Tim Pawlenty.  Surprise!  Bill O’Reilly is Keith Olbermann’s Worst Person in the World!

8:01: I randomly selected ABC as the channel on which to watch the talk-off.

8:04: Standard bailout answer from Joe Biden.  Nothing to see here; move along.

8:07: Sarah Palin wastes no time appealing to the soccer moms.  Fearmonger alert!  Soccer moms across the U.S. are frightened!  If only people had listened when John McCain tried to fix it.

8:10: Damn.  Just heard her utter the word “reform” about four times in five seconds.  Meant to keep a running total on the words “reform”, “maverick”, “Joe Six-Pack”, and “Hockey/Soccer Mom.”

8:13: Joe Biden points out “John’s” de-regulation record.  Also, we hear the first anecdotal story from Joe about a guy named Joey who couldn’t fill up his gas tank.

8:16: Governer Palin is sticking to her talking points and basically ignoring the debate questions.  She even slipped in a piece of her stump speech.  Nice.

8:22: Biden declares shenanigans on the McCain health care fleece… er, plan…bridge to nowhere…whatever you want to call it…

8:24: “Up there in Alaska.”  Add that one to the list.

8:27: Hey, Joe – that’s Governer Palin’s catch phrase!  You can’t say “Up there in Alaska!”

8:29: I hate when those greedy Main Streeters muck up our Wall Street.

8:42: A plan for Iraq?  How novel!

8:44: “Yer plan is a White flag of serrender.”  Ohhh nooo, we can’t have that now, can we?  A white flag would clash with the “Mission Accomplished” banner.

8:49: nuclear: nu·cle·ar [noo-klee-er].  Not nook-yuh-ler!  We’ve already been subjected to one prominent member of the executive branch who rapes this word incessently.  Haven’t we suffered enough?

8:53: “…waning days of the Bush administration…” By far the best thing Governer Palin’s said so far tonight!

8:56: Buzzwords!  Change is comin’!  Reform is comin’!  Rufflin’ feathers!  Maverick!

9:04: Governer Palin tries the Unfrozen Caveman Lawyer defense.  “I’m justa’ Washington outsider, I don’t understand yer crazy Washington ways.”

9:17: Sitting Vice President Vader thinks the VP should have more power.  Agree?  You betcha!

9:19: At least one of the candidates understands the role of VP.

9:21: “America stands fer bein’ unapologetic…”  To admit mistakes is to admit defeat!  U.S.A.!  U.S.A.!  U.S.A.!

9:23: Okay, could someone define “Maverick”?  Tom Cruise in Top Gun?  Mel Gibson?  James Garner?

9:25: Ahh, there’s the definition.  Empty, B.S. political slogan.  Thanks, Joe Biden.

9:31: Switching to Fox News.  Brit Hume giving his synopsis.  He doesn’t think Fox News will have the capacity to sort out the facts.  That’s likely true.

9:37: Bill Kristol: “I’m so biased.”  Gee, ya think?  On that note, I think I’ll turn off the TV.

There were a couple fender-benders, but this debate wasn’t the train wreck some were hoping to see.  Here are my thoughts regarding the McCain/Palin candidacy:  Governer Palin proved that she is not a complete and utter disaster, and John McCain is likable enough.  However, we’ve just had eight years of “Average Joe” rule and will suffer the fallout for generations.  Like millions of other progressive Americans, I love my country and believe in the promise it offers.  How can we possibly expect to attain greatness by electing average leaders?

Debate #1: Stalemate or Stale Rhetoric?

McCain: “We are winning the war in Iraq.” (Repeat x20.)  He implies Obama and the Democrats want to “lose” the war in Iraq.  Ludicrously simplistic in addition to being untrue.  It’s not a football game.  I was hoping for a more indignant response from Obama:  “Dude – there’s nuance here!”  Something to that effect.

McCain: “I want to put an end Ethanol subsidies.”  I hope you’re listening, farmers.

McCain: “Senator Obama just doesn’t understand.”  This is the same Rovian tactic (strategy?) used by Bush against Kerry in 2004.  Lamentably, Americans fell for this drivel last time.  Will we, as a nation, be so gullible again this year?  Obama (and the moderator) let McCain get away with this, and it was usually the last word. Obama has shown time and again that he not only possesses a clear and insightful understanding of our nation’s current and future needs, but that he surrounds himself with qualified experts rather than cronies and yes-men, a hallmark of the GOP.

McCain: “The troops and veterans know I love them and will take care of them…” Interesting, when McCain either chose not to vote or voted against every major piece of legislation regarding veterans’ benefits since 2005 (see below.) Yet he still supports dumping billions of dollars into the bottomless pit of Iraq and requiring troops to repeat tour after tour.

McCain: “When I was with Ronald Regan in 1983…,” “Back in ‘Nam…,” “When I lived through the first Great Depression…,” “When Pa bought our horseless-carriage from Henry Ford…” (All of these quotes are verbatim.) This guy is old. Republicans, who have suddenly become extremely PC, howl about ageism, but it’s a valid issue.  Good thing Senator McCain picked a highly qualified, knowledgeable running mate.

Palin: “Blah, blah… Obama wants to lose the war, blah… he doesn’t understand… blah, elitist… blah, blah, wants to sit down and talk to Iran?  That’s crazy talk!… blah blah.”    Wait… it wasn’t Palin who said that, it was Giuliani.  Weak.  Seriously, where was she?

Palin: (crickets…)

Veteran’s Issues – Obama (source)

Date	Bill Title	Vote	Outcome
05/22/2008	GI Bill and Other Domestic Provisions S Amdt 4803	Y	Amendment Adopted – Senate (75 – 22)
01/22/2008	Defense Authorizations Bill HR 4986	NV	Bill Passed – Senate (91 – 3)
10/01/2007	National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2008 HR 1585	NV	Bill Passed – Senate (92 – 3)
02/02/2006	Tax Rate Extension Amendment HR 4297	Y	Motion Rejected – Senate (44 – 53)
11/17/2005	Additional Funding For Veterans Amendment S 2020	Y	Motion Rejected – Senate (43 – 55)
10/05/2005	Health Care for Veterans Amendment HR 2863	Y	Motion Failed – Senate (48 – 51)

Veteran’s Issues – McCain (source)

Date	Bill Title	Vote	Outcome
05/22/2008	GI Bill and Other Domestic Provisions S Amdt 4803	NV	Amendment Adopted – Senate (75 – 22)
01/22/2008	Defense Authorizations Bill HR 4986	NV	Bill Passed – Senate (91 – 3)
10/01/2007	National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2008 HR 1585	NV	Bill Passed – Senate (92 – 3)
02/02/2006	Tax Rate Extension Amendment HR 4297	N	Motion Rejected – Senate (44 – 53)
11/17/2005	Additional Funding For Veterans Amendment S 2020	N	Motion Rejected – Senate (43 – 55)
10/05/2005	Health Care for Veterans Amendment HR 2863	N	Motion Failed – Senate (48 – 51)

The Embryonic Stem-Cell Debate

Disclaimer: The following entry has several hyperlinks. I strongly encourage you to read the first one, but after that, a quick skim should suffice.

In July, 2006, Michael Kinsley wrote what I consider to be the definitive article on stem-cell research (to summarize: Kinsley argues that if you oppose stem-cell research, you must also oppose fertility clinics). I don’t follow the scientific community closely, but I know there is great promise in this particular area of research.

Though I haven’t heard much about the issue on the campaign trail, embryonic stem-cell research is a politically volatile subject. Obama and Biden are all for it. It seems as though McCain may be waffling. It’s nearly impossible to pin down Palin because, per her handlers, she speaks only in generalities. But according to this (click “On the Issues”), she’s against it. Regardless, the Republican platform calls for the banning of embryonic stem-cell research.

George W. Bush declared in 2001 that stem cell research was unethical because it involved the destruction of human life. This was not helpful to researchers. And, believe it or not, he may have misled the public. Bush also vetoed a bill to expand funding for research in 2006. And again in 2007.

Okay, enough links. Far too often, liberal minded folk take the reasoned, cerebral approach when debating issues; perhaps a ruthlessly personal method would be more effective.

My mom has Multiple Sclerosis. It happens to be one of the many diseases which could greatly benefit from embryonic stem-cell research. Now, recall the aforementioned Republican party platform; their stance boils down to this: A frozen discarded embryo at a fertility clinic is more valuable than scientific research that could lead to a cure for my mom’s debilitating disease.

Whether or not McCain flip-flops on the issue remains to be seen. His recent position-shifting doesn’t inspire confidence, especially given his predecessor’s record. Just think where we’d be had Bush not stifled research. Would there already be a cure? Maybe not. Then again, maybe Mom would be moving around without her walker.

So, you know what? I’m taking it personally. A Republican vote is a vote against my mom’s life. A rigid “pro-life” ideology leads to a decidedly opposite outcome for people like her.

Horsepower = War?

In his weekly Tuesday Morning Quarterback column, Greg Easterbrook of ESPN.com made some very insightful remarks regarding fuel economy. How this doesn’t get more attention is beyond me.

I enjoy his entire column, but his articles are quite lengthy, so I’ve pasted the relevant text below.

Full articles can be found here and here.

Hold Your Horsepower: Gasoline demand has declined slightly since 2005. And a few months ago, Congress enacted the first tightening of vehicle fuel economy rules in two decades; barrel prices of oil are declining. So far, so good. But oil is still well over $100 per barrel, versus about $74 at this time last year, and gasoline still costs nearly a dollar more per gallon than at this time last year. The longer-term picture is bleak. In 1973, America imported 6 million barrels of petroleum daily. Currently it imports more than 13 million barrels each day. Yesterday I heard a radio announcer say, “Now that the gasoline price crunch is over …” Don’t make the mistake of thinking for one minute that America’s petroleum addiction is even close to fixed.

For cars, SUVs and light trucks, there are two forces at play in oil-addiction trends, but only one is generally recognized. Everybody knows the fad of big vehicles increases petroleum needs — according to the EPA, the average weight of passenger vehicles has risen 30 percent since 1988, while average MPG is down. The other factor, little acknowledged, is horsepower, which has risen even more sharply than weight. Twenty years ago, the average new passenger vehicle sold in the United States had 120 horsepower. For this model year the figure is 230, almost double. There will be no fundamental change in oil import levels until horsepower numbers change.

Like weight, horsepower depresses fuel economy. Simply knocking a third off the horsepower of new U.S. passenger vehicles would, in about a decade — as efficient new vehicles replace wasteful old ones — eliminate approximately the amount of oil the United States imports from the Middle East. Yes, it’s that simple. Race cars need lots of horsepower; suburban family cars do not. Excessive horsepower causes the United States to be dependent on Middle East dictatorships, engages military commitments to those dictatorships, drives up the price of oil and pushes down the value of the dollar. Horsepower is also the enabler of road rage — rapid acceleration allows cutting off, drag racing and sudden lane changes. Road rage entered national consciousness as a problem in the mid-1990s, exactly when the horsepower ratings of new vehicles began to spike.

Yet nearly all auto companies selling in the United States continue to introduce overpowered cars that require far too much fuel. The problem transcends brands, whether domestic or international. The new BMW 550i sedan has 360 horsepower and records just 18 MPG. Pontiac’s new 361-horsepower G8 GT is a small car that gets just 18 MPG. Only in America do small cars waste gasoline. Ford’s new Taurus sedan has a 263-horsepower engine which delivers only 22 MPG in its front-wheel-drive variant, an awful 19 MPG in the all-wheel-drive version. The Taurus isn’t a sports car, it’s a family car! Toyota’s new Camry, another family car, offers 263 horsepower and just 22 MPG. The Dodge Avenger, a family car, when ordered with the optional 255-horsepower engine posts just 18 MPG. Infiniti’s 320-horsepower FX45, Cadillac’s 403-horsepower Escalade and the 500-horsepower Porsche Cayenne Turbo achieve a dreadful 14 MPG. (All mileage figures in this column are the “combined” numbers that blend city and highway driving. Under real-world circumstances, especially stop-and-go commuting, many drivers average well below the official number.) Plus, the more horses, the more greenhouse gases. According to the EPA, a Porsche Cayenne Turbo emits 13.1 tons of greenhouse gases annually. Check any car’s MPG and greenhouse numbers here.

[+] Enlarge

AP Photo/Nick Ut

A 1968 Corvette — which had less muscle than a typical 2008 family car.

Less horsepower would mean better fuel efficiency, diminished petroleum imports and lower carbon emissions but, inevitably, reduced acceleration. Don’t buyers crave speed? Most cars are already too fast! Thirty years ago, the average passenger vehicle did zero to 60 MPH in 14 seconds; for 2008, the average is about 8.5 seconds. That new 263-horsepower Ford Taurus family sedan does zero to 60 in 6.5 seconds — the same acceleration as the 1968 Corvette with the famed 427 big-block V8. The new Camry and Honda’s comparable new Accord do zero to 60 in about 7 seconds. Acceleration of this type is not needed for everyday driving; such power is useful mainly for speeding, running lights and cutting others off. Lexus has aired ads boasting that its new IS-F model, with a 416-horsepower engine, does zero to 60 in 4.6 seconds; the new 480-horsepower Nissan GTR is even faster at 3.8 seconds. Both have dismal mileage ratings. Lexus is telling the business media the IS-F is intended for the United States and won’t be pushed in the company’s home market of Japan. There, the IS-F’s road-rage engineering and 10.2 tons of greenhouse gases released annually might be controversial.

In addition to reducing fossil-fuel use, dialing down horsepower would reduce highway deaths. Researcher Michael Sivak of the University of Michigan’s Transportation Research Institute has found that highway fatalities dropped sharply earlier this year as gas prices shot up, with highway deaths declining 22 percent in March and 18 percent in April. (Note: You can reach the Transportation Research Institute only by car.) This spectacular decline in deaths, receiving little public notice, came about, Sivak found, mainly when drivers slowed down in order to improve MPG. High-horsepower vehicles encourage speeding, because they make soaring above the speed limit feel effortless. If horsepower were reduced by sensible amounts, there would be less driving 80 MPH in 60 MPH zones, or 50 MPH in 30 MPH zones. Sivak’s numbers suggest that if America became sensible about speed, perhaps 8,000 lives per year could be saved. Eight thousand lives per year would represent more Americans saved than if all incidents of drowning were eliminated.

Federal legislation to regulate the horsepower of passenger vehicles, perhaps by establishing a power-to-weight standard, would reduce petroleum consumption, cut greenhouse gas emissions, lower U.S. oil imports, strengthen the dollar, and take some of the road-rage stress out of driving. So what are we waiting for? Whatever your answer, don’t reply, “No one can tell me what I can drive.” Courts consistently rule that vehicles using public roads may be regulated for public purposes, such as safety and energy efficiency. NASCAR races occur on private property — there, horsepower is nobody’s business. On public roads, horsepower is very much everybody’s business. You’d be laughed at if you asserted a “right” to drive a locomotive down the freeway. Where is it written we have the “right” to operate an overpowered car that wastes oil and pollutes the sky?

[+] Enlarge

AP Photo/Scott k. Brown

NASCAR cars need high horsepower, cars bound for suburban shopping malls do not.

Meanwhile, all the talk lately has been about getting drivers into hypothesized future vehicles that might get excellent mileage, such as plug-in hybrids. Even assuming such cars someday are in showrooms, the payoff is greater for getting people out of low-mileage vehicles right now, because low-mileage vehicles are disproportionate consumers of fuel. Assume an average year of 12,000 miles traveled. The driver who trades in a 15 MPG SUV or high-horsepower car for a 20 MPG standard-engine full-size car would reduce fuel use by 200 gallons. The driver who trades in a 20 MPG full-size car for a 25 MPG midsize would reduce fuel use by 120 gallons. The driver who trades in a 25 MPG midsize for a 30 MPG compact would cut fuel use by 80 gallons. The driver who trades in a 30 MPG compact for a 35 MPH current-technology hybrid would save 60 gallons. And the driver who trades in a 35 MPG current-technology hybrid for a 40 MPG advanced plug-in hybrid would save 40 gallons. By far the best oil-reduction bang for the buck lies in people giving up large SUVs, pickup trucks used for commuting, plus any type of overpowered vehicle, in favor of driving regular cars. The math is presented in detail in this paper by Richard Larrick and Jack Soll of Duke University. This suggests that instead of tax policy being focused on credits for buyers of high-mileage hybrids, and federal subsidies being focused on the development of high-mileage hypothesized future designs, tax policy should reward those who junk SUVs in order to buy regular cars. Tax programs to encourage drivers to junk old high-polluting automobiles were successful, so a junk-your-SUV program might work, too.

=======================================

Easterbrook’s follow-up:

More on Mileage and Politics: Last fall, after 20 years of strident inaction, Congress finally passed a bill to increase the fuel efficiency of cars, SUVs and pickup trucks. There was a lot self-congratulation on Capitol Hill. The law seemed to mandate roughly a one-third increase in new-vehicle MPG by 2020 - enough to eliminate the oil the United States imports from the Persian Gulf. Sounds great! But as your columnist wrote in December 2007, “TMQ is hugely suspicious … [there is] a waiver provision that says that if the new standards prove too onerous, automakers can ask they be waived. That is a formula for what Washington specializes in: the appearance of dramatic action while nothing actually happens.” So what’s going on in Washington right now? Pleading poormouth, the big three automakers are already asking for a waiver from the 2015 interim standard, which requires roughly a 15 percent improvement in fuel efficiency. That standard does not take effect for seven years, and already Detroit automakers are saying they can’t meet it.

Or perhaps, they don’t want to try. Lee Hyun-Soon, president of Hyundai, told the Wall Street Journal last week his company will meet the entire 2020 standard by 2015, and will do so entirely with conventional vehicles — no complex plug-in hybrids, just sensible engineering using existing technology. Whenever Washington seems to get serious about oil waste, Toyota, Honda, Hyundai and Subaru put their engineers to work — then build, at American factories staffed by American workers, vehicles that comply with MPG rules. Whenever Washington seems to get serious about oil waste, Chrysler, Ford and General Motors put their lobbyists at work to dilute or evade the standards. There are only 535 people in the United States so gullible they would believe Korean engineers can meet a technical standard, yet American engineers cannot. Unfortunately, those 535 people are the members of the United States Congress.

[+] Enlarge

AP Photo/Ron Edmonds

Are they the 535 most gullible people in America?

Has anyone from the mainstream media followed up on how last year’s seemingly strict MPG bill is being watered down? As Eric Patashnik of the University of Virginia details in his powerful and timely new book “Reforms at Risk,” reporters are often present when “dramatic” legislation passes, then treat the enactment as the end of the story — paying no attention as lobbyists later water down a bill. As Thomas Friedman points out in his important new book “Hot, Flat and Crowded,” the refusal of Congress and the White House to take any real action against oil waste has had the effect of transferring hundreds of billions of dollars to Moscow, and to the oil sheiks who support anti-Western and anti-Israel terrorism. If MPG standards were higher, oil demand would fall. Instead, high demand holds up barrel prices, enriching Persian Gulf dictatorships and Vladimir Putin. Why, Friedman asks, is Russia suddenly confrontational? Because in the past two years, Russian elites have gotten super-rich, owing to rising oil prices brought on at least in part by U.S. stupidity regarding petroleum waste. If Congress grants Detroit the MPG waivers it seeks, the stupidity will march on.

Meanwhile, back at the federal budget: In 1976, the entire U.S. national debt was about $800 billion, converted to today’s dollars. Last summer, Congress without debate and with barely any notice added $800 billion to the national debt ceiling — raising that ceiling by an amount equal to the entire debt a generation ago. With no debate! The U.S. national debt was $5 trillion in 1997, and has doubled to almost $10 trillion since. Why aren’t the young outraged? The old are acting irresponsibly — spending like crazy but unwilling to tax themselves, then handing the bill to the young. If the young were spending borrowed money like crazy, the old would be lecturing them. How come in Washington, the old can get away with behavior that would be called reckless for the young?

At any rate, the moment another $800 billion worth of borrowing was authorized, supposedly for “emergency” purposes, lobbyists got to work trying to seize every penny now. The big three automakers are now asking Congress for $50 billion of that $800 billion, supposedly to retool to build the fuel-efficient vehicles they had no way — just no way on Earth — of knowing they would ever be required to build. As Paul Ingrassia pointed out in last week’s Wall Street Journal, when Congress bailed out Chrysler in 1980, the deal was structured so that if the company recovered, taxpayers got most of their money back. But what’s being asked for now is pure subsidy — money taxpayers will never see again, and that will be used in part to fund the bonuses of overpaid auto executives who got their companies into trouble in the first place. (The Journal opposes the bailout, though the $50 billion would go to Corporate America.) Ingrassia further notes that when Chrysler’s Lee Iacocca tried to weasel out of the deal and keep the money that was promised back to taxpayers, Ronald Reagan stood firm and would not budge. Contrast Reagan’s sense of civic responsibility to the current president and Congress, both of which just cannot wait to give away other people’s money.

Now connect the dots! The automakers are asking for $50 billion in handouts to meet new fuel economy requirements — at the very time they are also asking for waivers from those requirements. If the past is any guide, they will get both the subsidies and the waivers. The net will be zero progress, more billions of dollars for oil shipped to anti-American forces in the Persian Gulf, and more debt handed to everyone under the age of 30.

Talk radio madness

I keep torturing myself, and I don’t know why.  When an idiotic right-wing talk radio host posed an insensitive hypothetical question on 9/11, I felt the need to contact him with my objections.  He was also blathering about Matt Damon’s recent comments.

Ben,

Here’s what Matt Damon is talking about.  http://www.ssa.gov/OACT/STATS/table4c6.html He’s not saying McCain is going to die, but the life expectancy of a U.S. male is 74.  Think about it.  It’s not morbid, it’s just a fact.  But whatever, I know the game.  The Rove playbook says you should keep from talking about real issues, and you’re doing a fine job of that.  The lipstick on a pig stuff yesterday was riveting.

Your hypothetical “If you were a terrorist, who would I rather have be president?” is in incredibly poor taste on this particular day.  Shockingly poor taste, actually.

I’ll play along though.  To answer your question, if I’m a terrorist, I want a Republican in charge because they have a track record of using terrorist attacks as justification to attack someone completely unaffiliated “my” efforts.

Republicans are always touting how tough they are on terrorism.  But you know what?  That bastard Osama bin Laden is STILL ALIVE.  Why?

I’m not holding my breath for a response, but some I thought you should hear some dissention, and I couldn’t get through on the phone.

Happy spinning.

Here was his reply, verbatim:

stoopt holding your breath it can hurt your life expectancy!!!

I’m not kidding.  That’s what he wrote.  Nevermind the poor spelling/grammar, it doesn’t even make sense!  I said I wasn’t holding my breath!  Whatever.

Hey – I found a couple posts from my old deleted myspace blog!

Originally published Tuesday, April 04, 2006… then randomly deleted by myspace in late 2006.

Movie of the Week

Movie: Butch Cassidy and the Sundance Kid (1969)

IMDb link: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0064115/

Length: 110 minutes

Why it’s worth watching/re-watching (without giving up any plot points): Great use of scenery, nice pacing, engaging story. But mostly, Paul Newman and Robert Redford. These two have legendary chemistry, (not of the Ledger-Gyllenhaal variety) and it’s just a pleasure to watch them operate. Come to think of it, I can’t think of better non-romantic duo than Newman and Redford. There are five main components of a good buddy team, as you’ll see below. Let’s break it down:

Newman & Redford ( BC&tSK, The Sting)

Acting skills: 5/5

Likeability: 5/5

Star Power & Charisma: 5/5

Chemistry: 5/5

Comedy: 4/5

Overall: 24/25

In relatively recent years, who can compare?

Jack Lemmon & Walter Matthou (Grumpy/Grumpier Old Men, The Odd Couple*)

Acting skills: 4.5/5

Likeability: 4.5/5

Star Power & Charisma: 4/5

Chemistry: 5/5

Comedy: 5/5

Overall: 23/25

* I have not seen The Odd Couple

Robert De Niro & Joe Pesci (Raging Bull, Goodfellas, Casino)

Acting skills: 5/5

Likeability: 3.5/5

Star Power & Charisma: 4.5/5

Chemistry: 5/5

Comedy: 3.5/5 (Funny like a clown?)

Overall: 21.5/25

Mel Gibson & Danny Glover (Lethal Weapon Series)

Acting skills: 4/5

Likeability: 4.5/5

Star Power & Charisma: 4/5

Chemistry: 4.5/5

Comedy: 4/5

Overall: 21/25

Eddie Murphy & Nick Nolte (48 Hours)

Acting skills: 3/5

Likeability: 4/5

Star Power & Charisma: 4/5

Chemistry: 4.5/5

Comedy: 4.5/5

Overall: 20/25

Chris Farley & David Spade (Tommy Boy)

Acting skills: 2.5/5

Likeability: 4/5

Star Power & Charisma: 3.5/5

Chemistry: 5/5

Comedy: 5/5

Overall: 20/25

Brad Pitt & George Clooney (Ocean’s 11)

Acting skills: 4.5/5

Likeability: 5/5

Star Power & Charisma: 5/5

Chemistry: 2.5/5

Comedy: 3/5

Overall: 20/25

Vince Vaughn & Owen Wilson (Wedding Crashers)

Acting skills: 2/5

Likeability: 4.5/5

Star Power & Charisma: 4/5

Chemistry: 4.5/5

Comedy: 5/5

Overall: 20/25

Robert Downey Jr. & Val Kilmer (Kiss Kiss, Bang Bang)

Acting skills: 4/5

Likeability: 3/5

Star Power & Charisma: 3.5/5

Chemistry: 4.5/5

Comedy: 4/5

Overall: 19/25

And just for the hell of it…

Jackie Chan & Chris Tucker (Rush Hour)

Acting skills: 0.5/5

Likeability: 3.5/5

Star Power & Charisma: 2.5/5

Chemistry: 4/5

Comedy: 4.5/5 (mostly unintentional)

Overall: 15/25

Obviously this is not the definitive, all-encompassing buddy-duo list. I will probably think of more to add later and/or field any suggestions from my 2.5 readers. Back to the movie of the week…

Downside you may have to overlook to enjoy the film: The film drags a bit toward the end.

My favorite scene/line from the film: Who are those guys?

My rating (out of 4): 3.89

One-word soundtrack/score review (if applicable): Solid.

———————————————————————————————————-

Movie of the Week

Movie: Super Troopers (2001)

IMDb link: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0247745/

Length: 100 minutes

Why it’s worth watching/re-watching (without giving up any plot points): Last night I was flipping through channels waiting for 24 to begin. I came upon Super Troopers on Comedy Central, and channel surfing ceased. Krista did not protest, and she even offered up this gem: It’s one of the best comedies ever. “Holy crap,” I thought, “she’s right.”

I have a theory. Expectations play a huge role in determining how one evaluates a movie. Super Troopers is a golden example. Back in ’01 or ’02, having seen what I considered to be lame previews, I had very low expectations when I first viewed this movie. Using my movie rating scale (0=worst, 4=best), I was expecting about a 1.5, and hoping for maybe a 2. What I saw was damn near a 4.

But Super Troopers goes well beyond just surpassing expectations. It has smart, witty, clever dialogue. It utilizes, but does not rely heavily on visual gags. In the end, it’s highly re-watchable and resides in the pantheon of great comedies along with Caddyshack, Animal House, Coming to America, and Christmas Vacation .

Downside you may have to overlook to enjoy the film: The same guys also made Club Dread.

My favorite scene/line from the film: You mean Shenanigans?

My rating (out of 4): 3.90

One-word soundtrack/score review (if applicable): Accompanying.