Who's really at fault at OSU?

The line of the day comes from Tony Kornheiser on the ESPN show, Around the Horn. And I quote, "I'll bet there's some snickering going on in Ann Arbor."

It's funny and unfortunately; it's true.  Oh, how the mighty have fallen.

For those that may not know I consider myself a transplanted Buckeye, when I have been asked where my hometown is I always say Centerville, Ohio.

So I have some interest in the story coming out of Columbus.  Maybe I was foolish to think that things wouldn't get so bad that Jim Tressel would resign.  From what I am hearing I know that he is very much at fault for what was going on at Ohio State's football program.  He should have reported what he knew when he first knew it.

I think that the Athletic Director and the school's President had a little bit to do with it too.

But I think that the majority of the blame lays squarely at the feet of the NCAA itself. I personally believe the NCAA is shamelessly using student athlete's to make huge amounts of money.

I understand that you can consider scholarships as a form of payment. But these kids need more than their housing, books and education paid for. My understanding is that the student athletes really don't have the time to get jobs and I believe I have heard that they are not allowed to get jobs anyway.

Two to four years of cafeteria food, no money to go out on? What kind of a payment is that?

I know that a number of student athlete's will go on to have pro sport careers and will make more money than most of us ever will make in a lifetime. But that is not the majority of those kids. The majority will have to get real jobs and live life like most people do.  For those kids where is the payoff for all the hard work they had to do to be student athlete's.

Where is the payment from the NCAA for them. Where is their share of the money that the NCAA is making off of them for their athletic ability? I don't have the numbers but I am sure that the NCAA and it's member schools make billions of  dollars per year off of essentially free labor.

How is that more right than what went on in Columbus?

Real viewpoints from a wheelchair or scooter

Why do people who walk swing their arms when they walk; but not when they are carrying things?  I have been told that people swing their arms for balance, doesn't holding things make you more unbalanced?

If you see a disabled person who looks like they need help ask them  if they want help before you jump in an help them. My best friend's husband has a bad habit of helping me when I don't need it. Sometimes when I am struggling to do something it is just a matter of me learning how to do it.

The best example I can think of is when I am getting into a vehicle for the first time. I don't know if any able bodied person notices that every car seat is a little bit different. There are slightly different approaches I take to getting into different kinds of seats. Sometimes struggling is a good thing; allow a disabled person the chance to experience something different if they choose to.

I have often wondered why people stare at me? Am I that ugly or it it just cause I am disabled? And if it's because I am disabled, why stare?

For those who are parents, if your child has questions about people who are disabled talk to them about it. And if the child asks what's wrong with the disabled person; it might be a good idea to ask the disabled person if they are OK with talking about their disability.

I don't know how many times I have been out somewhere and have heard a child ask their parent's what's wrong with him (as they are pointing their fingers at me usually) and the parent just shushes them and pulls them away from where I am.

I am not much of a kid person but I do enjoy it when a child asks me about my disability.

I have often times wondered what it would feel like to walk like most people do. I can't imagine standing with no braces and no walker.  I have tried to imagine it and I just can't.  And I have wondered if anyone has tried to imagine what it is like to be me.

I have seen and experienced many things that I don't think able bodied people experience much. The weirdest might have been once as I was wheeling down a road in Tampa a car with four african American stopped their car beside me and asked me if they could pray over me.  I said "sure why not" and they proceeded to get out of the car and surround me and pray for me.

The most amusing thing ever was when in high school Missy Wilson came up to me one day, blushing, and asked if she could ask me a question. I replied yes.  She blushed a little more and asked me" how do I go to the bathroom?"  At the time I was using braces and a walker and I asked her of she new how other guys went to the bathroom. She said that she did and I told her that is how I did it too. Every time I think of that conversation I chuckle.

I haven't seen her name on Facebook or on any high school related site. I hope she has had a good life.

Finally, for any disabled person who may be reading this: if someone is carrying you up a flight of stairs  NEVER crack a joke that makes that person laugh. I have done that and believe me it is a dangerous thing to do.

Could have been????

I know they say that everything happens for a reason. And for the most part I agree with that sentiment

I think all the mistakes I made helped me to learn and grow as a person. I think it all helped me to be who I am now and overall I like who I am now. Even though it seems that not many people like me and for the most part I am OK with that.

But know and believing all that does not keep me from wondering about what "Might have been".  By the way does anyone remember who sang that song?

And that starts with me being mainstreamed into regular school. For those that may not know disabled kids were  not in regular class rooms until 1974, I think. From first grade until fifth grade I was in a classroom for disabled kids, which apparently was a little different from regular classrooms. I did not have homework or take science classes until my six grade year at Watts Middle School.

And in my opinion, that was not a good thing for me.Mainly because I believe that if I had had to learn how to study earlier I might have learned more about discipline. I am not and never have been a disciplined person. And believe me I have tried. I am better than I have ever been at consistently doing want I need to do, like housework and keeping the checkbook updated. But I think I should be better at that kind of stuff than I am.

Heck, I actually like writing these posts but I can't even get myself to do this everyday.

And unfortunately, I don't think the Centerville School System helped me out much to help me learn discipline. I was the first handicapped person to be mainstreamed there in 1976. I am probably the only person in the world who remembers that the Centerville Times did a story about me being the first disabled student in Centerville Schools. And I really think that because I was the first one the school system wanted me to at least appear successful. I can honestly say now that I got some grades I did not deserve.  Because I was physically slow I was allowed to leave classes early and arrive to the next class late. And I took full advantage of it.

The only people who were trying to instill any kind of discipline in me were my parents and one or two teachers along the way.  I even seem to recall my parents talking to me about holding me back a year. Maybe that should have happened.

And if I sound like I am blaming others for this fault that is mine and mine alone; I blame myself more than anyone.  I was given an opportunity to succeed and I blew it.

And I could go on and on about how if I had done things differently life would be different but my basic premise is this: there are plenty of times I wished I could go back and do things differently. And a part of me believes that if I knew then what I know now I would do things differently.

But the real truth is I will never get that opportunity and I will never know

To all my friends and family who tried to get me to do things differently.  THANK YOU.

Too Far?

I have often wondered at what point does the local and national media's right to know cross the line of possibly impeding the prosecution of a case?

I don't have the answer for that but it has been on my mind a lot lately.

The city of Ocala where I live is so small  that we don't  really have a local station, there is Fox 51 but I think it's a station only in name. Most of our "local" stations come from Orlando. And Orlando is the basic area of where the biggest case in the country right now began.

It's only been two days of the actual Casey Anthony court case and I am already tired of the gavel to gavel coverage, which is being broadcast by five different stations. I only remember CNN covering the OJ case live, so this is that X's 5.

But my questions about how coverage of this case  really began about two months ago.

When the judge announced that he was going to move the court case out of Orlando the station I watch for news, WESH 2, began an investigation to try to find out where the judger was moving the case to.

I did/do not get why WESH thought it was so important to find that out.  The reporter, I think it was Dan Billows, even went so far as to actually try to get the judge's aide to tell him where the trial would be moved to.  I thought that if they did find out where the case was being moved to that could hinder the possibility of getting a fair trial.

There was even a perfect example for why the movement of the case should not have been known. For those who may not know, during the pretrial jury selection phase a woman (I didn't get her name) shouted out during the proceeding that Casey Anthony not only killed her daughter but was also responsible for the death of others.

I could easily see that if where the case was going to be moved to there could have been numerous incidents like that or even the possibility of  someone who thought Ms Anthony was definitely guilty finding their way on the jury.

Tonight on the news it was reported that a Grandmother and her grandson haven't been seen in two days. I had zero problem with them showing their pictures during the entire report. But did they really have to try to get all the details of what went on before the police were done with their investigation? And did they really have to speculate about things that they said the police wouldn't confirm.

Personally, I believe the news should give out as little information as possible until the police feel they are able to release details.  If it hasn't happened yet, I can see the day coming where a defense attorney could get  a legitimately guilty person acquitted of the crime because the news was irresponsible in  their coverage of the case.

And that would be the day when I know for sure the media went to far.

We're still here

cult  (kʌlt)
— n
1.	a specific system of religious worship, esp with reference to itsrites and deity
2.	a sect devoted to such a system
3.	a quasi-religious organization using devious psychologicaltechniques to gain and control adherents
4.	sociol  a group having an exclusive ideology and ritual practicescentred on sacred symbols, esp one characterized by lack oforganizational structure
5.	intense interest in and devotion to a person, idea, or activity:the cult of yoga
6.	the person, idea, etc, arousing such devotion
7.	a. something regarded as fashionable or significant by aparticular group
	b. ( as modifier ): a cult show
8.	( modifier ) of, relating to, or characteristic of a cult or cults: acult figure

It is  very sad that their are people out there like Preacher Harold Camping. He is the person who said that the world was coming to an end last week.  He also predicted the same  thing to happen in 1994.

Personally I believe he is a person who feeds off the weak, and those who are without direction.  But for him to achieve the control and manipulation he probably craves he uses those who are still searching for the meaning of life and a connection to God.

I put the definition of a cult at the beginning of this post because every time I have heard of what Mr Camping has said, seen the signs his church has put up , the tracts his people have handed out and the amount of money that has been speculated his church has taken in; the word cult comes to mind.

And when I think of cults I think of David Koresh and the Branch Dividians, Jim Jones and the suicides and, in my opinion, Hitler and the Nazi's.  I don't understand how these men had the abilities  to obviously influence people and manipulate them. Unfortunately, they use God in a perverted way to satisfy whatever needs they have.

And that scares me and angers me.

It scares me because at one time in my life I believe that I was vulnerable enough that worse things could have happened to me than what actually happened. Fortunately for me, I never really looked for God or meaning of life. I did somewhat for awhile but only because at the time it was what I thought I was expected to do.

I don't ever remember really questioning whether or not God existed; honestly before my early twenties I don't ever think I thought much about God at all. But in my mid twenties I read part of the bible for the first time and I saw things in my life which started to show me God's existence and that was/is all I feel the need to know.

My real struggles were/are still dealing with parts of my disability and the fact that I never expected to be 45 and still living alone. And there were a couple of times where women I knew used that to their advantage and ultimately hurt me emotionally.  But I am glad now that those things happened; they helped me to grow. I still fear that I will die without ever finding the right woman, if she exists, but I do have a bit of acceptance that if  that is what God thinks is best for me that is how it will be.

But I fear for those who seem to be weaker minded than me. It bothers me whenever I have heard of people giving their life savings to a church. It bothers me that Mr Camping's church has taken in money because of the billboards  and the attention that they have received.

And it bothers  me that their are people out there who are so vulnerable to not just churches but who are so lost and alone that they put their dependence into people who will just misuse the trust they are given.

And it angers me that there are people out there who prey on the weak and disadvantaged basically because their own needs are all they care about.

Ultimately, for me there are times when it is a little harder to accept that it is all part of God's plan and that even though we may not see it, His will is being done.

Economic wonderings

I am not an economist by any stretch of  the imagination. In fact, until about five years ago I was terrible at balancing my check book.

But I do not understand how raising the debt ceiling can possibly be a good thing. I think that all that would really do is devalue the dollar and encourage more federal spending for the social reform that President Obama wants.

Doesn't raising the debt ceiling essentially mean the government can print up more money to spend? And doesn't that lessen the value of the dollar? And in this rough economy that we have now isn't it more important to make the dollar stronger?

We don't need to create more social programs. We need to reform that system and make it more effective for what it is supposed to do. It is supposed to help those who really need the help and it was supposed to be a short time aid for those who just needed retraining or going to school so that more people could be working and growing our economy.

I know from personal experience there is no incentive to work towards getting off of well fair.I was married for a few years (yes, it is hard to believe) but when my ex had a job, my benefits were drastically cut. We were actually better off financially when she wasn't working. And I know there are many others who are like that.

Personally, I have always thought that after getting a job a person's benefits shouldn't be taken away for 3-6 months so they can become really financially stable.

At the same time, I  don't understand why republicans want to give the rich tax breaks just for being rich. I understand that the principal is that they will use the tax breaks to put back in there businesses. But I highly doubt that is the way it works in reality.

Personally, I think that if the rich are given tax breaks there must be procedures put in place so they have to put that money back into their businesses and incentives for creating more jobs.

In these times I think it is much more important to get people working and growing the economy than just do the same old same old.

Finally, I am not sure that this fits here but I don't think I want to write a whole post about our national debt.

I remember that back in the 80's a huge deal was made of how much the national debt grew under Presidents Reagan and Bush senior. I have heard from two different sources that the national debt under President Obama is higher than all the other Presidents combined. That blows what little mind I have.

Where is the stink over this. Is the liberal media that strong?

Political thought processes differ

I have always liked Rob Lowe. I think he is a good actor and seems to be a good guy. I can never remember whether Mr. Lowe or Tom Cruise are from Dayton, Ohio which is basically where I grew up. Even if Mr Cruise is  from Dayton I still don't like him much. But I am rambling.

I like Rob Lowe even better now than I did a couple of days ago.  I saw his interview with Bill O'Reilly and I enjoyed it.  I did more than just enjoy the interview, however, I found a slightly different way to put perspective on something I have been thinking.

For some time now I have been thinking that liberals feel things through and conservatives think things through.
Mr Lowe stated that some thing a lot more eloquently that same thing and explained what he meant better than I could have.

Unfortunately, I did not write down what he said, but I will do the best I can to explain it. He made the statement as an answer to a question about why people in Hollywood has a liberal mindset. Mr Lowe explained that as actors they have to delve more into emotion as a way  to prepare to play a character. And the skill and ability to do this made  actors more empathetic towards others. And he stated that he felt that conservatives were more logical and tend to look at numbers and find the quickest solutions to problems.

I doubt Mr Lowe will ever read  this I hope that I came reasonably close to his explanation. If I did not I apologize.

His explanation helped me view my thought differently. When I have had the thought that liberals think things through I have always thought of that in negative terms. But somehow thinking that is just a part of their thought processes puts things in a different light for me.

But it also makes me wonder if having different thought processes is any part of the political divide that is now in this country. And is this any part of why the divide is greater than it has been in my life time.

Gene Roddenberry was a visionary

I was fortunate enough to have a Dad who was a big Star Trek fan. It was one of the few things that I really remember doing with him.  No Dad I haven't forgotten who took me to my first baseball game.  By the way, I like The Great American Ballpark in Cincinnati but I personally miss Riverfront.

And I think that it is amazing that back in the 60's Mr R(sorry, don't want to keep writing his last name too much) saw the possibility of a small communicator that was wireless, that people could talk face to face and not be in the same room and the infinite possible uses for computers.

From my recollection, computers were just in the early stages when I graduated high school in 1984. I don't think that at that time too many of us saw the possibilities of what they could become.

At that time I had no clue that cell phones were coming. I wonder how many people still have land line phones? I like having a phone that I can take with me anywhere; it's a good thing.

I have been debating for awhile whether or not to save up for a Nook Color. Fortunately, things happened and I was able to buy one  this week. And I love it. I wasn't sure I would like not having the smell of a book (to me it was one of the greatest smells ever). And I thought it would be weird not to have actual pages to turn, but they way it works is very similar to turning a page.

I just wish they had this when I was a kid, reading Stephen King and Tom Clancy would have been a whole lot easier. And  I wouldn't have all the books that I have that my best friend complains that I have too many of.

Ain't technology great?

Words, thoughts and stuff.

I have a couple different streams of thoughts in my head. I don't really think they are related but I get the funny feeling they might be.  So I'm just going to write about them and see where  I end up. I hope you don't mind.

I think that words only have the power we give them. I love words, I read a lot more books  than I watch movies. Honestly, in the last few years if there's no baseball, football, wrestling, Big Brother or Criminal Mind(s) shows the TV is manly off unless I just want to mentally vegetate. Most of  what I talk about so far here I see during commercial breaks or whatever game I am watching is boring.

And the fact that I like words is why I don't like political correctness. To me true political correctness is censorship; it means you can't really say what you want to say the way you want to say it. It goes totally against the freedom of speech.

Over the years, I have been called everything in the book. Most of the time I deserved it and never took offense. The one time that I was offended; most people probably would have thought little of it. I absolutely hate being called crippled.  I am lazy, I am slow, I am some times dim witted and I have been a total A-hole at times. I know I am not the best person in the world, I am improving but got a long way to go. I have been called a bastard and deserved it even though Mom was married when she had me. I was only offended when called a cripple but I didn't get mad.

Why? Because I had a friend who was a mentor to me who once asked me, "Would you be offended if someone called you a chair? No, you wouldn't because your not a chair."  And he was right.

Yes, the word cripple bothered me but I know I am not.  But the person who said it to me honestly meant what he said.     See, to me the word cripple makes me think of an old man who is so riddled with arthritis that his legs, never straighten, his hands are so bad that they are always balled up and can't function correctly.
Now that may be where I am heading in my life, but now and the moment that he said it that was/is not who I was.

But if you look at the description of what I think of the word and know how I move and talk I probably do come off to some people

Even though I am offended by the word I understood where it came from I was not angry. And I would rather know that is what someone thinks of me and I can deal with them accordingly.

And I think that this country is getting way to sensitive about things that are being said and overreacting way  too much.

I still haven't been told why Donald Trump has been called racist for wondering where President Obama was born.

I don't get why a wrestler, who is essentially an actor, had to go to sensitivity training for suggesting another wrestler was weak and used a perceived gay stereotype to do so.  If the  wrestler he said it to was offended by it that is one thing but the fact that GLAAD got all snooty about it doesn't make sense.  The perceived perception that being gay is bad isn't going to go away because jokes are not being made.   And before someone gets upset about that I have had  some very close friends who are gay. I have not met a gay person (male or female) that I did not like. There is someone in my life that I suspect is gay but I am not sure  how/if to talk to them about it and let them know it's all right.

I don't understand why a black wrestler made a disparaging remark to a couple of Mexican wrestlers and there are people who are upset about that. If it bother's those wrestlers that is one thing but every one else needs to get over it.

To me political correctness has got to stop; if for no other reason  I would rather know who is thinking those "bad" thoughts rather than not know where a person is coming from.

How does the saying go? Something about the evil you know versus the unknown evil?

I didn't think I would write that much on that one thought stream. More tomorrow, my fingers are tired.

Hearing what you want to hear, or?....

On Thursday night, I saw a good part of an interview of Condoleeza Rice conducted by MSNBC's :Lawrence O'Donnell.

I thoroughly enjoyed the interview and I was impressed that Ms Rice did not allow Mr O'Donnell to bully her as he attempted to do. She did her best to remind him of what the Bush White House was going through at the time.

I was somewhat surprised at the reactions of Mr O'Donnell and Rachel Meadows, the anchor of the show that follows his. They were acting like he won some kind of victory with that interview.

And it makes me wonder about a couple of things. Did their reaction show an example of the disconnect that is going on between the political parties right now and how extremely differently can two or more people perceive what they are watching?

My perception of the interview was that Mr O'Donnell want Ms Rice to admit she knew what the Bush administration was doing in 2002 about Saddam Hussein was wrong then.  What I believe Ms Rice did effectively was to point out how things were then and how the Bush administration relied on what turned out to be faulty intelligence, but they did not know that at the time.

I think this goes right to the heart of why President Bush gets too much criticism for his actions against Hussein/Iraq. It seems to me that liberals somehow think that we can apply what we know now to what happened then. I doubt that it is President Bush's fault that he got bad intelligence, so why does he get all the blame?

Mr O'Donnell asked Ms Rice a couple of times about some pipes that  the Iraqi's had that was thought to be used for nuclear purposes but as it turns out it was not capable of being used that way.  Mr. O'Donnell had to ask about it a couple of times because at one point he interrupted Ms Rice as she was answering he question. At this point, Ms Rice stopped and said, "If we are going to continue this interview you will allow me to answer the question instead of interrupting me like I have noticed you have a tendency to do with your guests." He only paused for a second and continued to ask about the piping,  Her answer was that they did not know at that time that the pipes could not be used for nuclear purposes.

This segment of the interview was enjoyable to me because Ms Rice did what I have been waiting for a guest to do to a host for a long time. There are three hosts who are very bad at allowing a guest to answer questions without interruptions: O'Donnell, Bill O'Reilly and the worst is Chris Matthews. If there was ever a reason for me to go on Chris Matthews show I would make sure to get a written agreement that he would not interrupt while I was answering his question. Without an agreement I would just say no.

But my favorite part of the interview was when Mr O'Donnell flatly stated that there was "no international coalition" against Iraq. Ms Rice pointed out that there were several United Nations resolutions against Iraq and that England, Canada and two other countries (sorry, I can't remember which I am thinking Italy) in the military actions again Iraq. And then she asked, "if that isn't a coalition what is?" to which Mr O'Donnell did not have the integrity to say he was wrong or at least say he misspoke.

At the end of the interview I felt that he did a good job of asking questions that needed to be asked and that she did a really good job of answering  the questions to the best of her ability.

I was almost shocked when Mr O'Donnell and Ms Meadows were practically laughing with glee that Miss Rice didn't answer the questions and verbally danced around things.    ????

I was going to write this post about it that night, but something told me to think about it for a  day  or so first.

I understand that Mr O'Donnell and Ms Meadow pretty much had to react this way, part of their job is to make themselves, their network and by extension, although they would never admit it, the Democrat party look good.  But I wonder how much of their reaction was for show and how much was their own personal true reaction?

I have heard it several times that if you ask a number of people who have seen a car accident happen that you would get as many different observations as you would people asked. And after seeing this interview I wonder if that axiom is any part of the political divide  in this country.

Now that I have a little more understanding (I think) of the mindset of liberals how can that help me?

Food for thought

Bin Laden celebrations

Finally have a working keyboard so I should be writing more regularly.

I haven't written the last couple of days because I have had a personal situation to deal with. And I am not totally sure what to think about this whole Bin Laden celebration "debate".

I totally get and respect that there are people who are offended that there was a celebration after the news of Bin Laden being killed  came out.

I didn't even think there would be a problem with it.

From my perspective, I was thinking that it was more of a victory celebration like would happen after a war was won. And I have no problem with that.

But I have heard and read, thanks to my sister, another perspective. I can understand that it is inappropriate to celebrate another humans death.  But Bin Laden was not just another human; in my opinion he was more evil than he was human.

And I don't just think he was evil because of the many deaths that he helped occur. I think that he was also evil because he perverted a spiritual belief that many good, righteous people have and turned it into an ideology that justified taking lives for no other purpose that to "further"  a cause.

And the major cause he had was the downfall of our American society.

In my mind I equate Bin Laden with Hitler, David Koresh, and Jim Jones. And other than Manson those are the most evil beings that I can think of.

Honestly, one of my first thoughts after hearing of his death was, "if there is a Hell I bet Hitler and Bin Laden are fighting with the Devil over who runs the place."

So to me this was a small victory over evil and that does deserve a celebration.

But I can understand that all some see is a death of a human and feel that all deaths should be treated with respect.  And I can admire that position even though I don't really understand it.  So if any one reading this is upset over the celebrations, I'm sorry that you are feeling that and I hope you find a way to deal with it and can see this as a learning situation.

Finally, on Monday night I hope I was hearing things but I really thought I heard a woman on TV say that she was thankful the war on terrorism is over.

I hope no one really believes that. If anything we should be more prepared than ever for possible terrorist attack against our country.

Someone else will take over leadership of Al Qaeda and they will be out for revenge. I am sure there are other groups that might want revenge also. It would not surprise me if a power struggle for terrorism "leadership" takes place. The scary question is, could there be a worse group than Al Qaeda be out there?

PS Rashard Mendenhall, you tweeted what you tweeted, own up to it and educate yourself on how stupid what you tweeted was.

Unity???

Well, it's good to know that we have not forgotten.

And it is nice to see national unity for a day or two. But I am predicting that by Wednesday (at the latest) even Bin Laden's capture will be politicized and the national divide will be continued.

And that is a shame.

When unified this country can be the most powerful force in the world. We could solve at least a majority of our problems if we were truly unified.

I have heared that before the US got involved in WWII that the majority of citizens were not in favor of entering the war. I wonder how much of a political divide there was back then. And if there was a political divide before the war, what happened to that possible division after we entered the fracas?

I know that after Vietnam most of the country was against that military action. I have never really understood where the dissension about that War really stemmed from. My basic belief is that is came from a younger generation who really and truly believed in making love not war.   My guess is that we got into that war because a majority of citizens or a majority of congress, at least, were in favor of military actions in Vietnam.

My point is that I am really am starting to wonder if there has ever been a long sustained time of national unity.

From my perspective as a person who was a teenager mainly in the eighties an a young adult in  the early nineties it seems like we had national unity from 1976 until 1992.

Is that the longest period of national unity in US history?  I hope not.

I understand that there will always be some difference of opinion between the parties. To me that makes sense, and I think is healthy for us as a nation.  But from what I have seen things have gone beyond a little political dissension.  To me things have gotten personal between the  Democrats and Republicans and its not healthy.