I'd Rather Shower at Penn State?

Let the name calling, blind rage filled rants, degradation of a a whole state and fan base begin!

There is a "fan" (I say fan this way because it actually originated in Louisiana and a copy is being printed for Iowa Hawkeyes) printed Tee shirt floating out and about for The Ohio State Buckeyes and it seems to be causing quite the uproar. its red with white lettering and reads "I'd rather shower at PENN STATE, than cheer for the Wolverines."   It seems to be a love hate relationship.  Some seem to love it others hate it and are attempting to ban it Entirely.

In the name of rational and not emotional sensationalism lets look at this a little more logically.  The first being why is this making national headlines now given it was contrived for LSU fans as far back as June if not sooner?  Is it's perceived attachment to Ohio State that much more offensive simply because it's Ohio State?  Given the uproar the answer would have to be YES.  The LSU shirt and even the Iowa version have received virtually no backlash/attention.  Don't Believe me google it 90% of headlines site OSU with only a mere mention that like shirts have been made for LSU and Iowa. USA Today, among others Attach the shirt primarily and almost Exclusively to Ohio State.

Who suffers the backlash?  The OSU fans get put down, called degrading names and demonized.  The Blatant Bias against OSU and its fans should be as much a reason for taking offense but is it? No its just accepted, but ITS OSU FANS WHO ARE the Intolerant ones?

Now that said is the slogan funny? Offensive? Too Soon?  If you have the ability to think Rationally the answer is yes to all 3. Now before you get hell bent, and on your soap boxes think about this.  To Some this would be and reasonably so Very offensive.  However just because it's offensive to some doesn't nor SHOULD it mean that Everyone is to be offended by it.  You have the right to life liberty and the PURSUIT of happiness you have NO RIGHT TO NEVER HEAR, SEE, or READ something you find offensive.  So on that point Get over your self-righteous.  To some but not all this would be a laugh riot and hilarious as it should be given its FACT that a great deal of people cope w/ tragedy with humor, dark or otherwise.  Could that be misunderstood to be insensitive? Yes. Dose that mean that they don't think something they make a joke about is wrong or a travesty? NO!  Only an irrational, closed minded, intolerant person would demand Everyone think and see every thing as they do.  Is it too soon to make a joke about a travisty as child sexual abuse?  Again its Always going to be too soon to some, Never too soon for others and to yet even more will say they don't know and can see it from both sides, group 3 being the rational adults of the 3. 

All that said... PERSONALLY, I think its funny, wrong as it may be it's still funny.

Acutally Someting Ohio Can Be Proud of.

This Might be slightly out dated but Still Very worth a renewed Shout out. 

Eminent Domain Redefined to Uphold "Original" Intent.

Ohio (be it 5 years in the books now) Redefined its stance on what is and is not "public" use.  In the wake of  the US Supreme Court decision to allow a private developer to exert eminent domain over private property due to lack of how "public use" was defined Ohio be it not exactly expedient did hit the books to define how it saw public use.

The long and short in a nut shell it makes it extremely difficult for a private developer to come in and clam that exercising eminent domain over a group of property's for "urban renewal".  It dose allow for the possibility.  If all requirements are met most any rational person would have to agree that the renewal would favor the overall community as a whole but there's a Lot of hoops to jump through.  so Kudos Ohio ya actually got this one pretty right.

The "original" intent of eminent domain is to allow state or federal government the ability when other compensating means have failed to acquire land needed for the general public's use.  Usually its reserved for the most extreme cases and commonly its for Infrastructure (roads and bridges lol sorry it was too tempting a poke)

Although I am not a huge proponent of eminent domain, I understand both sides.  You spend your life building the memories hopefully legacy and possibly inheritance of you home only to be told by the government sorry about your luck there's a new road that 'needs' to come through your Living-room.  By the same token there are times and unfortunately, urban usually, developments and even whole neighborhoods that have fallen in to shambles and are not only a tremendous eyesore but places that have become unsafe in terms of both structural integrity and crime.  However, the new narrowing of the Eminent Domain law for Ohio does sure up a large measure of safety against Private development company's coming in and forcibly taking indivitualy owned property solely to turn a buck so to speak.

Paul Ryan Not good for women?... Lets dig a little.

Thanks to a Friend who sent me an e-flyer from UltraViolet claiming 5 "Horrifying" things to know about Paul Ryan.  Gotta love it when the left says the right is fear mongering then come off with words like "horrifying".  

Well how bout we take just a little look at the 5 things women should be horrified by shall we?

1. Ryan voted against the Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Act of 2009.

On the surface I myself found that part in me that remembers my mom being discriminated against time and time again for trying to succeed in a "man's" field (construction supply). Going to business school at nights only to be rewarded how? cleaning toilets.  So let me preceed this by saying don't you dare tell me I DONT KNOW, I know ALL to well first hand.

That said there is ONE major issue with the Lilly Leadbetter Act.  (anyone? anyone?)   Oh, sorry many might not have taken the time to read the act and the preceding acts it amends.  In a nut shell .. it wipes out the statute of limitations for filing and accruing of damages for a discrimination law suit essentially allowing for decades to pass before filing.  So just how is that about Fare Pay?  It's not its about litigation and law suits.  So why shouldn't it be voted down?  There isn't a rational reason that it shouldn't the key word being Rational.

2. Ryan Opposes Abortions even in cases of Rape and Incest. 

Presuming they are referring to the Sanctity of Human Life act.  That in short says Human life begins at Fertilization and has all the rights and restraints of  constitutional law.  This means it cannot com in direct conflict with row vs wade. It's parent bill has been active in Missouri for over 20 years and wow lookie there Abortions and Birth Control are still legal ... imagine that.  My best guess to this claim actually comes from a comment Ryan once made when asked

3 He *Really* wants to get rid of Planned Parenthood. 

This one is dead on ... but there's more to it.  Planned Parenthood is currently funded in large part by the federal government to the tune of 1.05 Billion dollars and Obama is pushing to bump that number to 1.2 Billion dollars.  Tax dollars that could be used other places or just not used at all to give abortions and free birth control is becoming a voice of those of who see the difference in Choice and Need.  Its this simple really.  If you choose to have sex it's Your, not governments or taxpayers, RESPONSIBILITY to have safe reproductively responsible sex. If you cant afford the cost of a condom maybe its not a wise idea to risk unprotected sex and a pregnancy you can afford even Less.  Now for all the people who still scream think about this ... Planned Parenthood's Founder Margaret Sanger believed in Eugenics, Sterilzatioin of "feeble minded", segregation of "inferior genetics", as such Planned Parenthood was formed in Harlem to help prevent "irresponsible and unintelligent breeding."  The words of Planned Parenthood's NOT mine.  And were funding this because?

4. He would Criminalize some forms of birth control.

Is Ryan (along with the majority of America) against Obama Care?  Yep not a huge secret there given the tax burden to pay for it, the detriment it will have on small businesses and the fact that never in the History of the United States has the government Ever said you HAVE to purchase Anything!  Well not till now.  As for Criminalizing birth control ... well that's a HUGE assumption and one not exactly factual given this claim is based in concerns about the Sanctity of Human Life act.  This is presuming the slippery slope but the presumption doesn't acknowledge that birth control is protected by law and as such untouchable by the Sanctity of Human Life act.  This one is well Stretching it and that's being gracious.

5. Also, He'd Outlaw In Vitro Fertilization -Seriously

Wow they really must like the Sanctity of Human Life act (that's sarcasm btw).  This is One Hell of a presumption.  Why?  Because when In Vitro Fertilization is done Several eggs are fertilized and someone (presumably a qualified doctor) will choose those embryos "most likely" to survive and become a fetus and thus a child.   What happens to embryos that are fertilized but not deemed fit or unneeded?  Two things happen they are frozen or disposed of.  Outlaw? NO... does the possibility exist that fertilization clinics might have to take on a slightly different stance.  IE instead of fertilizing several eggs its a one at a time process but again the same law has been in effect in Missouri for OVER 20 years and well their In Vitro clinics haven't been run out of business.


Look here's what it all boils down to ... Ryan is very pro life and wants to get funding of abortions and birth control out of the federal governments debt and where it rightly belongs in the hands of the Individuals and states.  Does this mean hes "Anti Woman's Rights" no not by a long shot what it does mean is that Liberals and Pro Choice groups are scared of Ryan and the energy he brings to the campaign.

.

Romney picks Ryan as VP, this ought to be Interesting.

Sat Aug 11 2012 Mit Romney declared Paul Ryan as his VP running mate in the 2012 charge to unseat President Barack Obama.  In less than 24 hours there are over 200 posts blogs news articles already blasting personal attacks on Ryan in an Instant defamation of character campaign.  Already Headlines are accusing Ryan of wanting to "end", "destroy", "abolish" medicare, or if the left is feeling sickly nice then they just say its the "end of medi care as we know it".  There is more but its all lies or at the very LEAST distortion of the truth which by definition is a lie.

While Paul Ryan is relatively semi unknown hes not exactly a new comer have now served 2 terms in Congress and having been the chair of the budget committee.  Moreover, the Rock&Roll Dynamic Duo of Romney & Ryan at this juncture of our country is more, and has been for a while now, needed than ever.  Romney being primarily a business man and Ryan being a economics major would undoubtedly unnerve even the most loyal of moderate Republicans.  To the far left they are naturally the worst of the worst conservatives.  Why?  Because Both understand finance, money and real numbers as opposed to the already disproportionate Democrats who are lawyers already in congress and the white house.

While the attacks are already being waged against Ryan for his budget proposal it bears mentioning, that having read it in full the slant/spin the Democrats are putting on it leave out a great deal, and it is a far cry from "getting rid of the safety net" Democrats want you to think it is.  The suggestion of partially privatizing medicare is not for anyone In or currently near retirement but for those who are 10 years away from it and the Vouchers aren't the ONLY form of medicare its one of the Options for those whose earnings will allow for it.  So ya, its not exactly what the democrats are touting it to be.

Romney's Claim, Obama Guts Welfare Reform

While it could be argued that The proposed Work Requirement wavers are a gutting of welfare reform, its closer to Obama trying to "buy" votes from the lazy.

Why, when the vast majority of middle class workers are appalled and sicked by the thought "free money" to people who just flat out refuse to work, would Obama try to, as quietly as he could, pass waivers that would allow states to choose, and get extra government money to subsidize expenses, to mandate or waive welfare work requirements?  The answer is easy to see.  1. It rekindles the class warfare,  2. It fans the fires under the seats of all those who want something for nothing and think the rich should pay their way.  3.  By leaving it in each states hands to accept or decline the "Offer" of waivers it keeps Obama's hands clean so to speak.

Romney's claim that it "guts" welfare reform could be argued on semantics, however, the Fact is Obama is doing more bribery than gutting w/ this proposal.  Naturally, any oposition to the waivers will surely be met by the Obama campain w/ accusations of not careing for the impoverished.

Priorities USA Action Add.. and then there 's the Truth

Well it's never to early to start slinging the dirt for Priorities USA Action.  Their Latest farce of a comercial all but outright blames Mit Romney for a former GST Steel worker having lost his wife to cancer.  Never mind the real facts like that 2 years prior to the plant closing Romney was no more than a figurehead for Bain Capitol, or the fact that when this worker was laid off his wife was still working and had her OWN insurance from her Employer. (a nifty lil fact they just happened to leave out)  Now even though the wife had lost her coverage due to loosing her job.   The tragic loss of this mans wife begs a few more questions to be asked given she died in 2006 and GST Steel was closed down in 2001.  Didn't the husband look for a new job?  Yes he did and wow had a job as a school custodian... now when was the last time you heard of ANY school employee being not being afforded the opportunity to opt into the school districts insurance plan.  All bets can be placed on that he Opted out of it based on having coverage via his wife thus keeping more of his own money (under Obama care he would have been fined for not going out and getting insurance when his wife lost hers). 

But this is Priorities USA Action were talking about and they are a far left supper PAC, so personal responsibility isn't high on their list of concerns unless you are conservative and make over 70k a year.  I mean the wife died of lung cancer so was it her or her husband who was a smoker?  Cause we all know according to the far left and groups like Priorities USA you can't possibly get Lung Cancer unless exposed to smoke or second hand smoke.  Why was This tidbit left out?  because you can't blame Romney for his or his wife's decision to smoke that's big tobacco's fault remember?

Now for a few facts about this add.
1. By the time Insurance coverage was lost and the tragic and untimely passing of this woman occurred Romney was Governor of Massachusetts.
2. From 1999 - 2001 Romney was on administrative leave from Bain Capitol (in other words he was negotiating his severance)
3. GST Steel was closed in 2001 almost 2 years after Romney took leave from Bain Capitol
4. 5 years passed and the husband didn't Ensure employment that provided health insurance FIVE YEARS.
5. The wife had insurance till an injury forced her to leave her job and coverage. (again the husband had no coverage making 24,000 a year and did not secure employment that provided coverage)


The Truth in this add is Bain Capitol did close a steel plant in Kansas City leaving its sister company in South Carolina open and functioning.  Bain Capitol and more importantly Mit Romney had Nothing to do with the tragic loss of this mans wife and to even presume there is ANY correlation to be made it nothing short of a lie.

Who Needs Freedom of Choice anyway?

Well it's Happening in Ohio, will have to dig some to see how many other states are allowing this blatant infringement on personal liberty's, Apartment complexes, or should I say Apartment corporations who sit in million dollar homes and dictate complexes rules from behind the bar on the 19th green. 

Here's how its breaking down if you are a smoker and you live in a Crawford Hoying owned community at the end of your year lease if you smoke you will be forced to either relocate to an apartment of Crawford Hoying's choice or forced to seek a new apartment/home to live in regardless of your prior tenure at your current apartment, good standing in your community, being an exemplary tenant.  Sorry folks your S.O.L my suggestion is to look for a different sate to live in. Preferably one that doesn't allow trampling of personal liberty's and choices.

Regardless of what side of the second hand smoking line you come from the fact that people are being Forced to vacate premises based solely on if they do or do not smoke is first and foremost discrimination.  Its NO different that saying "you believe 'this''this' and 'this' so you cant have This apartment you have to be corralled over there with "your" kind."  This sort of thinking and behavior in the name of "The Greater Good" has been used time and time again throughout history for one reason.  Control, oppression and ultimately genocide.  This is a Very Very slipper slope to step on and moreover allow to come to fully pass.  First its smokers, next what ever they can spin to be a personal choice and MARK my words religious beliefs, political affiliations and sexual orientation will follow, they Always do.

IF the Crawford Hoying Really had the "greater good" in mind and at heart they should allot for 2 types of adjoined buildings AFTER each and every smoking resident Voluntarily vacates their current residence. 1. Non smoking and 2.No Preference.  The latter buildings being for those who smoke and or don't care if they do or don't have a neighbor who smokes.  Addressing the "risk of fire" issue is a simple solution.  BUILD YOUR APARTMENTS TO CODE.  If the buildings are up to Current fire codes the worst case scenario of a cigarette hitting the carpet and starting a building wide fire is all but impossible, its more likely a home made flaming dr pepper spilled will do more damage than a cigarette.  So if you want to ban/ restrict smoking based on property damage, don't allow candles, grilling, gas stoves or water heaters, No flames of Any sort.