Some Generic Play on the Word Grey

"They're all idiots and they won't let themselves be happy." That was my wife's assessment after watching the second season finale of Grey's Anatomy. We had watched the show from when it had premiered into part of the second season. We stopped watching, however, when Meredith, the title character, crossed a line that we had hoped she would never broach: she took advantage of George. George and Meredith had been two of the only people left on the show for which we could generate some sympathy after all of the things that happened in the show. We liked Dr. Shepherd as a boyfriend for Meredith, but, oopsie , forgot to mention that he was married at the time. We'd liked Izzie, but then she started to date the jerk intern that nobody had liked from the beginning of the show. There was the chief of surgery, but it turns out that he had a secret affair...with Meredith's mother. Leading up to that fateful episode, George and Meredith were the only likable characters left, it seemed. Definitely the only ones of the core group of characters, and then they made out. And we were done with the show for a while.


Looking back now, it seems almost as if the writers on the show have made a conscious effort to turn our oppinions of characters upside-down. You like Shepherd? Not any more. Don't like Burk (because he was arrogent and seemed to embody all of the worst qualities of a doctor)? Bring him over for Thanksgiving dinner and make people love him. Think Alex is a complete jerk? Humanize him and make him a sympathetic character. Like Meredith? Have her passionately kiss a man the entire audience knows she doesn't love.

We would catch bits and pieces of the show here and there, but never a full episode because my wife would remember what had happened between George and Meredith and demand that the channel be changed. This went on until the finale for season two. Since it was such a fantastic hit, the network of course had to make it a three hour, two night event. We decided to watch. It was interesting to catch up on everything: Izzie and Alex aren't dating anymore; Meredith is dating a vet; George has cut his hair and has a girlfriend . The chief's niece is in the hospital, and wants to have prom. He gives her a prom and everyone has to attend. From the time in the first season that we discovered that Dr. Shepherd was married, we've been hoping that Meredith would just move on. Leave him behind and find another nice guy to settle down with. There were flashes where we thought she was going to do just that, but there always seemed to be something that would pull her back to him. The dog. The bomb. The anti-establishment rallies. Okay, I made up that last one, but you get my point: the writers were going to keep going back to the "will they or won't they" well. And then came prom. Everyone was in their finest clothing. The vet was there dancing with Meredith. Shepherd was there dancing with his wife. And of course Meredith and Shepherd lock eyes. Then they run off to an operating room and procede to lose pieces of clothing. "Have you seen my underwear? They were black." It was very remenicint to me of something that occured at my junior prom in which, just for the record, I had no part whatsoever. A girl had been wanting to date a guy for months. Pining over him. Finally, he said that he'd go to the prom with her. However, she decided to spend most of the evening on the dance floor with someone else's date making out. Like I said, very similar to what happened in the show. Well, except that the people involed weren't doctors; they were drunk.

And yes, I too am having a hard time believing that I just spent nearly 700 words just to be able to use that line.

Some Moments on Film

By J Gudy and Jeff Kamp

In no particular order, we present some of our favorite cinematic moments:

• Wolverine acting like Wolverine, X2 - When the mansion and the students are threatened, Wolverine doesn't have a moment with Iceman. He doesn't yell at the invaders demanding to know why they're doing this. He doesn't bake any cookies. He pops the claws and starts taking guys out as quickly, quietly and, um, perminantly as possible. Great job by Bryan Singer and the writers capturing the character of Wolverine.
  
• Bullet Time, The Matrix - Make no mistake: there are big problems with this movie franchise as a trilogy, but it would be difficult to deny the impact that this movie had on viewers and filmakers. From the first time we saw it during Trinity's opening sequence through every instance in the movie, it was very cool. Since then, however, it's been done (Spider-Man), parodied (Kung Pow), animated (Shrek) and over-done (the rest of The Matrix trilogy). Which brings us to the next point.
  
• Final credits rolling, Matrix: Revolutions - Because that meant that it was finally over. The Wachowski brothers ran into the problem that plagues so many that had early success: they refused to edit themselves. Both Reloaded and Revolutions over did what The Matrix did so well. Or, possibly audiences were just sick of it at that point.
• Man falling off Titanic hits railing and starts to spin like a helicopter propeller. It was the only part of Titanic that was watchable for guys on dates.
  
• "I am trainer of dolphins!", Ace Ventura: Pet Detective - There were many, many overused lines that entered the vernacular for a time after this movie was released. However, this German-accented rant is one of the few that remain funny today. All right? No, "Allllllllllllll righty, then!"
• Roy Hobbs' final homerun in the Natural. From the best sports movie ever filmed, we have the best scene. The only scene that repeatedly gives guys goosebumps. And don't tell anyone I said that.
• Donald Gennaro, lawyer, gets eaten off the toilet in Jurassic Park. The thing about this movie is that even though it was a blockbuster, groundbreaking special effects type movie, it never took itself too seriously. This is one of the most under-appreciated scenes in film history.
• The Dinks, from Spaceballs. It was too hard to pick just one scene from one of the greatest parodies of all-time, so we decided to catch you off guard and go with this. And don't tell us you don't have that song running through your head right now...Dink dink...dink dink dink DINK dink dink...Dink dink...dink dink dink DINK dink dink. You're welcome.
• French taunting scene, Monty Python and the Holy Grail. Another hard one to choose because the entire film is so good, but this scene gave us so many quotable lines..."You're mother was a hamster and your father smelled of elderberries!" "You see, we've already got one!...It's verrrry nice." "I fart in your general direction!"
  
• To round out the trilogy of most excellent comedies, we're going to go with a dual scene from the Princess Bride, the rhyming sequence with Fezzik and Inigo, and the face-off with Vizzini and Wesley.
  

As a reminder, this is just some of our favorite moments. We'll probably re-visit this list from time to time, especially when we can't think of anything to post.

Beck - The Radio Trump Card

In the time of chimpanzees I was a monkey.

In the time of iTunes, MP3 players, and podcasts, I was a radiophile...which really isn't a word, so the case could be made that I don't exist. But I digress...

Music has become infinitely customizable. MP3 players allow one to put exactly the music collection in their libraries and playlists that they want to hear. Music stores like iTunes make it possible for one to purchase just the songs they want to hear, instead of purchasing an entire album. Video didn't kill the radio star...computers did.

Don't get me wrong...I'm not advocating a change back to the covered wagon or anything like that. I own an MP3 player, and I've used it about 4 times. I've purchased songs from iTunes...the free ones I get from Mountain Dew caps.

What I'm trying to say is that I prefer the organized chaos and randominity of radio as opposed to having complete control of everything I listen to. For one, it introduces me to new music I would not otherwise hear. And it allows me to listen to music I either don't typically listen to, or forgot that I like.

I have ten preset music radio stations in my car that I rotate between. They range from light rock to hard rock, Christian to top 40. I will generally stop on a station if I know a song and like it, depending on my mood. But there is one artist that I will always stop for, no matter what. If I know that he's coming up in the next few songs, I will listen to songs I'm not particularly fond of just to listen to his songs. His name is Beck Hansen. He is the radio trump card.

I considered other bands for this honor, but they just didn't live up to it. U2 was in consideration, but some of their stuff I have to be in the right mood for, and their Pop album wasn't that great. Coldplay crossed my mind as well, but I still haven't forgiven them for Yellow, which might be one of the most insufferable songs released in the last decade. Smashing Pumpkins almost made the cut, but they have too few songs in the rotation now. Also, if you put up a Beck song to any song of those previous three artists, I would always to the Beck song.

Consider these songs, listed off the top of my head...Loser, Where It's At, Devil's Haircut, Lost Cause, and my personal favorite, New Pollution. For me, that's hard to top.

I would close with a cheesy tag line...but it's just not in me.

Re-thinking Diesel

When it comes to any sport, I have a strict one team rule. There is only one team for which I actively cheer in any sport. In basketball, that team is the Timberwolves. However, when I am watching a game, I do assess the teams involved to determine for whom I will be rooting. This determination may involve story lines, players, announcers, or standings. If the defeat of one of the involved teams will impact the standing of "my" team, I will be pulling for that team to lose. If there is a specific player on the team that I feel is being overly-hyped by the media without having earned it (see also: Kenyon Martin), I'll usually pull against that team.

This brings us to Sunday's game of the Miami Heat versus the New Jersey Nets. The team that I was pulling for won. Here's the strange part: I'm not sure how I feel about that fact. My assessment of the game went as follows:

New Jersey:

Vince Carter – I can't stand any player who purposely sabotages his team to force a trade whether by faking an injury, playing below his ability, or just plain whining about everything. Carter, in a rare bit of overachieving, hits the trifecta. Vince, however, is balanced on New Jersey by

Jason Kidd – Say what you will about his wife's shameless self-promoting, Kidd is quite possibly the best point guard over the last ten years. He's not a very good shooter, but he can affect the game by passing the ball to the exact right person in the exact right spot every time. I appreciate a pass-first point guard in this day and age. Because of that, he cancels out Carter.

Underdog factor - Let's face it, the Nets are not the favorites for this series. I have always had a special place in my heart for the underdog.

Miami:

Dwyane Wade – I love watching this guy play. He goes hard each and every day and puts his body on the line. While this doesn't speak well of his longevity in the league, it speaks very well of his heart and desire to win. Very much like a younger Allen Iverson without saying dumb things about practice. However, much like Jason Kidd, his positives are balanced by the negatives of

Antoine Walker – Early in his career, if he had played anywhere but on the east coast, he would have been forgotten a long time ago as another big man with a few skills who decided to just settle for the three-point shot. However, he somehow ingratiated himself to some Boston fans and therefore was considered to be good for a short while. Never liked him, myself.

So, according to our count right now, I should have been cheering for New Jersey. But then we come to the deciding factor:

Shaquille O'Neal – Realize where I'm coming from here: Shaq has always bothered me. He didn't really start to bother me until he was signed by the Lakers and moved into a major media area that gave him the outlet for his big mouth to spout about whatever he could think of, declaring himself the best center ever to play the game. In my view, he was committing an offensive foul almost every time down the court. I was once watching highlights with a friend of mine and predicted, "Watch this: Shaq will do a shoulder, shoulder, drop-step, dunk." I was off by one too few shoulders into the chest of the poor schmuck that was trying to guard him. There was once where he swung his elbow around and hit Rasho Nesterovic in the nose. Rasho’s face was called for the foul. I would get into long discussions with my friends, who for some reason *coughBANDWAGONcough* were Lakers' fans in the middle of the US, about how Shaq was overrated and if the officials called the game the way that the rulebook says that it should be called, he'd have mediocre stats at best and be on the bench for three quarters of the game at worst. Then a strange thing occurred. The Lakers ran into some personality (Kobe) issues that caused a very ugly break-up of a two-time championship team. Phil Jackson retired. Kobe won the heart of the ownership enough so that Shaq was traded away to Miami. Somehow (I'm still trying to determine how), this made Shaq a sympathetic figure to me. There is no way that the Lakers would have won their championships without Shaq, but yet they traded him away because the Robin to Shaq's Batman complained about getting second-billing. Yes, he's now considered to be one of the most talented players in the game, but they were ousted in the first round by a team that can't play defense. They will continue to do nothing probably until Kobe's off the team, but I digress. Shaq came out of the whole ordeal, in my eyes, as the victim of a selfish, spoiled brat. Meanwhile, he goes to a team with a player who might be as offensively talented as Kobe, but doesn't seem to carry the ego and selfishness (Wade). He's getting older. He's slowing down. He's gaining weight. He's not as good as he used to be. However, you still have to account for him; he can still take over a game; and he's working hard to get his team the W.

In the question of "who am I going to root for", Shaq (pardon the phrase) tips the scales. And to a certain extent, I'm not sure what I think about that.

Vikings Draft Recap

By J. Gudy and Jeff Kamp

Hey all What we’re going to be doing here is taking the Vikings draft apart pick by pick providing our own commentary on each and every one. Here we go.

Round 1, Pick 17 – Chad Greenway, LB, Iowa

Jeff Kamp: I absolutely love this pick. Before his poor 40 time at the combine, he could have been a top-10 pick and there was some doubt that he would be available at 17. It’s amazing to me just how much stock is placed on some of these “measurables” at pro days and the combine. It seems as though some football people fall in love with work-out warriors and people who can run fast when not in pads as opposed to people who prove it game in and game out on the field. Greenway proves it and immediately upgrades the weakest point of the defense. It’s nice when a pick is able to cover both best player available and a big need for the team.

J. Gudy: I agree that this was a fantastic pick. I wouldn't have minded trading up to get one of the "Marquee 3" at QB, but the team decided to go in a different direction, and for the time being, I can't complain. From what I've heard, Greenway will fit perfectly into the new Tampa-2 system, and this pick serves to make the NFC North probably the deepest division at LB in all of football. Huzzah and Huzzah!

Round 2, Pick 16 – Cedric Griffin, CB, Texas

J.G: The following is the extent of my knowledge concerning Cedric Griffin: "..............................................................." With that said, I don't think this was too bad of a pick. Many of the experts absolutely love this pick, and at least he could develop into a decent insurance policy, Brian Williams type of player for Fred Smoot, who I have doubts will fit right into the Vikes' system, especially with the character issues. However, the downside is that Griffin was the first pick of what could have been Abdul Hodge.

JK: I don’t know that Hodge would have been my pick here. I might have waited for the other second round pick. I like the Griffin pick since the Vikings need a nickel/injury replacement CB and he could develop into that guy.

JG: I'm not saying that Hodge should've been the pick here, I'm just voicing my overall displeasure of not drafting him after orignally having 2 2nd round picks, and 2 3rd round picks.

Round 2, Pick 19 – Ryan Cook, C, New Mexico

JK: The biggest question I have here is “Why?” Everything that I’ve seen on him has said that he was a fourth or a fifth round pick at best. Also, if the team needs a back-up center (which is a possibility due to Birk’s recent health issues), then why not go for Greg Eslinger? He won the Outland Trophy, which is given for the best interior lineman in the nation and could have been taken in the fourth or fifth round instead of taking a 6-7 center (who will be taller than the QB he’ll be directly in front of) with a second round pick. Oh, yeah, I forgot: measurables. *sigh*

JG: I'm hearing that Cook isn't going to be at center for very long. The team supposedly likes him at guard, which would make him an insurance policy if Marcus Johnson doesn't pan out on the right side. If we could get right tackle figured out, because I'm not a big Rosenthal guy, that's a pretty formidable offensive line. I also would lend credence to the theory that he's not really going to be playing a lot of center because the team signed Jason Whittle, who will be backing up all of the positions on the line. Or something.

JK: I like Johnson on the right side if he can get the mental mistakes down a little bit. There were too many false starts for my liking, but the dude was a rookie. Hopefully a lot of those will be taken care of and he can learn to mirror Hutchinson leaving right tackle the only real question mark on the line.

Round 2, Pick 32 – Tarvaris Jackson, QB, Alabama State

JG: I'm not really sure words can do me any justice to describe how much I disliked this pick when I first heard about it. Just like Cook, this guy projected to be a 2nd-day type of player, and we took him in the 2nd round. I was a big Brodie Croyle guy going into the draft, and this really disappointed me. With that said, we've been talking about how teams put way too much emphasis on workouts and various numbers. It appears that the Vikes identified their players early, went after them, and got them. I will give them credit for that. Jackson looks to be the same type of player as Donovan McNabb, and that worked out pretty well when Childress was in Philly, so I guess I'll have to reserve judgment for a couple of years so we can see how Croyle and Jackson have panned out.

JK: I agree about letting time pass until we are able to pass judgment. I heard an interview with his college QB coach (contrary to Coach Childress’ comments, he did have one) and according to the coach, Jackson has “the strongest arm [he’s] ever seen.” The coach spent eight years in the NFL as a backup QB, so that’s saying something. Of course, it’s like asking an Iowa fan for an assessment of Greenway, but still…

Round 4, Pick 30 – Ray Edwards, DE, Purdue

JK: Not a bad pick at this point in the draft. The Vikings don’t need a huge amount of help at DE since they have Udeze, James and Scott all returning, but if this young man can get his head on straight and listen to his coaching, he could be a steal. Of course, I think we said some of the same things about Dimitrius Underwood.

JG: I think this gets chalked up as an insurance pick for Udeze mostly. I get the vibe that the staff is more than a little concerned about his injury history. This was probably the perfect coaching staff for Edwards to get drafted by, so I think this will turn out pretty good for us.

Round 5, Pick 16 – Greg Blue, S, Georgia

JG: I know slightly less about him than I do about Cedric Griffin. If he's a capable safety though, I already like him better than Willie Offord. So that's a plus.

JK: First of all, I’d like to point out that Willie was playing fairly well before he was injured last season. Blue looks to be a pretty decent value pick here. Georgia seems to me to be a pretty good program. Because, you know, I’m an expert in college football…

Round 6 – Pick traded to Philadelphia for Artis Hicks

JK: I don’t necessarily mind going this route. Hicks already has pro experience, which can’t be said for any of the picks in the draft. He’s still young at only 27 and he has the versatility to have played three different positions last year for the Eagles. The Vikings needed some offensive line help on the right side and Hicks gives that to them.

JG: You can never have too much depth on the offensive line. It's brutal down there during games, and people (read Matt Birk) are constantly getting injuired. He should be ready to compete, and take a little pressure off of projects Cook and Marcus Johnson.

Round 7 – Pick traded during 2005 season to San Diego for Toniu Fonoti

JG: Basically, it comes down to Fonoti was a gamble that didn't pay off. We didn't have to pay too much for him, but it would have been nice to have this pick to float on a really big project type of player, preferably a WR, RB, or QB. Marcus Vick keeps echoing in my head, but he went undrafted, and probably won't do anything in the NFL ever. Scrolling through the 7th round picks, there were a few WRs taken, a couple of RBs, and a QB. At this point, I think a project would be more valuable to the Vikes than Fonoti was last year. But that's a risk you have to take sometimes.

JK: I didn’t mind the gamble that the Vikings made in picking him up. With the signing of Hutchinson, he became expendable since they play on the same side (no idea if Fonoti would have been capable of switching to the right side). At the same time, I would have liked to see them make an effort to re-sign him. He was coming off of a bad season in which he was probably rushed back from injury and was completely not in football shape, but the team was in desperate need of offensive line help (which I would contend was the offense’s biggest problem and not Daunte – well, that and coaching).

Post Draft – Firing of (now) former football front-office fellow, Fran Foley

JK: I liked this move. For one thing, he didn’t run a very good draft and, according to reports, he seemed to be not very well liked within the organization along with having pulled an O’Leary. Besides which, in the interviews that I had heard him give, he rubbed me the wrong way.

JG: I never really liked him either. I'm not sure what the difference between teams that just have a GM and a Coach, and this triangle of power stuff, but it didn't seem to ever work for the Vikings. What is it with the Vikings and coaches who embellish on their resumes? First George O'Leary, and now Foley. Can the Vikings get anymore screwed up as an organization. I don't think I'd be surprised to hear of anything coming out of winter park...

JK: In fairness to the team, O'Leary was prior to coming to the Vikings. Hopefully the organization's supposed focus on integrity will take care of some of these issues. From what I've heard, there were a lot of people in the NFL that were suprized that Foley was the pick for the position. I'm really hoping that they give the position to Studwell. We'd still have the triangle, but we'd have the scout (Studwell), the financial guy (Brzezinski) and the coach (Childress). I really like Brzezinski in his current post since he's been very good for the Vikings cap. That was mainly due to Red not letting Brzezinski do much, but he managed it well. I'd now like to buy a vowel.

On Uncreativity...

Creative Juices, you vex me...

It is my responsibility to write for this blog a minor column/thought/quip/whatever it may be every Thursday. So naturally, it is time for my first post, and I've got nothing. Zero. Zip. Zilch. Nada. You get the rub.

But as I've been tapping the vast expanses of my brain, I've realized that this is not just a problem for me, but also for the rest of culture as well. Uncreativity is rampant. Entertainment, sports, media, you name, they've got it. And I'm not sure what the cure is.

Let's look at a couple of examples.

1. CNNsi.com is starting to appear that aside from news items, they are incapable of generating any content unless it comes in list form (and yes, I realize that I am presenting examples in list form...I told you uncreativity is rampant). Whenever major themes hit a sport, they generate a list for it, and it's rather annoying. I've seen the 10 best hairdos in pro sports history, the 25 worst draft picks ever. I'm just waiting for the "Our 10 stupidest, most irrelevant lists ever" list.

2. Reality TV. That's a no-brainer. It wasn't really all that creative in the first place. But then they stick us with Deal or No Deal, which may or may not be a new low in television history. The premise of the game is that there are a number of cases that have been numbered and randomly inserted with dollar values up to $1 million. A person draws one case that they hold as their own, and then starts opening the other cases eliminating dollar values as they go. At strategic points during the game, a "banker" makes them an offer of a value less than $1 million to try to recoup his "losses". At any point during this, you can accept his deal rather than eliminate all of the cases and take the value of your case. You probably already know this, because the show is immensely popular. I have described it to emphasize that it takes no skill whatsoever. None. And I'm hooked.

3. News. I don't know how many times I've seen a story (that is one of those puff pieces, and not an actual news event), that at some point in time is run on the other networks with a slightly different angle. I have no examples here. Sorry.

You get the drift. What do we do about it? I don't know. We could probably read more. Maybe we could all write haikus together or something. All I know is that I've managed to get a post out of this, and now I'm off to watch Deal or No Deal and read my sports on CNNsi.

Following up on a previous post, one of the things that makes video games an easy target is how the game developers make poor choices. They write segments of code that contain explicit content and that content is never disclosed to the ESRB (the Entertainment Software Rating Board) because "it'll never be found." However, someone in the company is going to tell a friend. That friend is going to tell another friend and it keeps going until someone posts how to do it on a website and suddenly everyone is accessing the explicit content and people have more ammunition against video games. This is what happened with "Hot Coffee" and this is probably what happened with "Oblivion" having to change its rating from Teen to Mature because of being able to play with a topless character. Did Bethesda not whatch what happened to Rockstar? It's hard to be sympathetic with game developers being singled out by legislators when they keep doing things that shoot themselves (and their cause) in the foot.

Get off the shed! 2006-05-02

On April 16, 2006, the Minneapolis Star Tribune ran what was essentially a guest editorial by state Representative Jeff Johnson. Mr. Johnson was making mention of how he was introducing a bill that would levy a fine of $25 to retailers and rental agencies if they allowed an AO- or M- rated game to fall into the hands of someone under the age of 17, citing the desire to restrict their “access to extremely violent or sexually explicit video games.” Now, before moving on, let me state that I am a gamer and also the father of 2.5 small children and one under-age cat. When I play Diablo or Half-Life, it’s when the kids aren’t around and they will not play those games until I deem they are mature enough to understand the difference between the fantasy world of these games and the reality that they have to face every day. However, I would be against the bill Mr. Johnson has introduced for the fact that it singles out video games and video games alone for these penalties.

I can completely understand wanting to keep a child away from a game where a prisoner’s ear is cut off and he was soaked in gasoline. Oh, wait, that was Reservoir Dogs. Well, in another example, we would definitely want to protect our children from a video game where they would see a man get shot in the back of his head and he’s lying on the floor with his jaw blown off in a pool of his own blood. No. That was A History of Violence. I forgot that. Well, how about where a person is talking about wanting to kill all of the police. Shoot. Wrong again. That was Ice T’s “Cop Killer.” My point here is that while video games do have violent images and harsh language, there are examples from other media of comparable actions. However, Mr. Johnson’s bill would be limited to only video games.

When the whole “Hot Coffee” debacle for “Grand Theft Auto” was discovered (something for which Rockstar Games should have gotten into big trouble for, by the way), I remembered a lady in her 50’s or 60’s being interviewed and she said, “If I had known that this sort of thing was in there, I would never have bought it for my twelve-year-old grandson.” This is indicative of the larger problem with video games. It’s not that a kid can go to a retailer and purchase it for themselves, but that their parents and grandparents have no idea what the little letter on the front of the box means. This woman bought what was the equivalent of an R-rated movie for her grandson and it’s only from the media attention paid to the game because of “Hot Coffee” that she has any clue that there was any sex or violence in the game. If a person wants to punish anyone for allowing a child to view this content, it should be the adults who purchase these games.

Another thing that Mr. Johnson “forgets” to mention is the fact that other states (such as Illinois) have tried to do bills like this before, and each time, they have been struck down as unconstitutional. However, politicians continue to introduce bills that would limit the sale of video games. It is my belief that the majority of these bills are introduced with full knowledge that they’ll pass, but be invalidated by the courts. Even when they are struck from the law, the politian is still able to say, “I passed this law and I’m trying to help your families” in a bid for re-election. It has become all about getting the votes; never mind the fact that they are wasting the public’s money in getting the bill passed, enforcing it for the first time and defending the bill in a, usually, hopeless effort to keep it from being stricken from the law.

I really do hope that Mr. Johnson has the families’ best interests in mind, and this bill isn’t just a ploy to be able to claim that he cares about families. However, if he truly cared about the Minnesotan family, it would not be limited to just video games. It would include R-rated movies and compact disks with the “Explicit Lyrics” tag. Limiting it just to video games is why I’m against it.

I’m Jeff Kamp and I approve this rant.