Who is legitimizing Al Sharpton anyway?

     Having moved around for most of my adult life while never allowing myself to establish any long term "roots" in one place certainly has its share of drawbacks from a social perspective. But one certain upside would be the enormously diverse collection of friends I have accumulated over the years. And I can never fully explain in words how much I have benefitted as a person from all of those people having come into my life. 

     I myself was at one point in my teens, a xenophobic, irrational and angry kid that really wasn't all that interested in being around anyone that wasn't exactly like myself.  I wasn't outwardly aggressive nor targeted my ignorance at any one particular group. I was an equal-opportunity jerk.  I didn't like anybody and used diversity as some sort of reasoning. But nothing changes that in a hurry like being thrown into an urban college environment, surrounded by a little bit of everyone out there in your late teens.  One learns in a hurry and I was no exception.  

     Looking back now, I still an unable to pinpoint any logical reasoning for my having been that way. My family, whom I spent most of time around as a kid, didn't have a bigotted soul amongst them.  For whatever it was inside of me, adulthood and cultural diversity successfully exorcised it from me.  And good riddance. I don't like who I was back then and I don't like being reminded of it. Unfortunately however, unless one buries his head in the sand, it is impossible to completely avoid hearing the rhetoric of divisive people on the news; people that never had that awakening moment in their youth; people who have only amplifed their intolerance and hatred toward others as they've grown older. 

Case in point; Al Sharpton. (I won't give him the pleasure of using the title "Reverend")

     It struck me this morning that with all of the people I have known in my life, I can't say I can think of one that looks up to nor admires Al Sharpton in any way; at least not to my knowledge. I suppose I can begin taking a poll among them but I'm not expecting to get much more than "he's an idiot" to various eye-rolling responses. Who in the heck anoints a racist jerk like him as a "Reverend" or worse, a "Civil Rights Leader"?  Dr. Martin Luther King was a "Civil Rights Leader". Giving Sharpton the same title is a vulgar attempt to group them into a common category. I can think of fewer ways to desecrate the memory of a great man like MLK.  Sharpton is a self-absorbed, evil, power-hungry racist with a fetish for destruction and who has directly caused multiple innocent deaths in his lifetime. If the media didn't recklessly lunge at every opportunity to stick a microphone in his face every time he opened his mouth and if certain politicians didn't pounce at every chance to grab a random photo-op with him, the rest of the world might finally turn its collective backs on a person like him, who tries to divide the majority of us who are busy remaining united. But I suppose the media stands to make plenty of ratings-money by legitimizing his relevance. And I can only assume that many politicians feel they improve their electability by palling around with him.  The rest of us want nothing to do with him. Many innocent people have died as a result of his mouth. Feel free to Google "Yankel Rosenbaum" and "Freddy's Fashion Mart" for a start.  And who can forget the Tawana Brawley story? For those of you in your twenties, I'd read up on that one too. It gives you a little background on his ultimate agenda and how he responds when his stories come crashing down. It also shows the extreme danger that comes when mobs of mislead angry people decide to follow him while naively taking every word from his mouth as God speak. 

     As a society, we've come a long distance in the last half century in terms of how we accept the superficial differences in one another.  The sad truth is that much of that progress can be easily rolled back in a relatively short period of time by the irresponsible actions of a few if too many people begin to follow them.  From now on, when I see him on TV, I will immediately change the channel. If his voice is on the radio, I will change the station. If I see him on the internet, I'll close the browser window. I can only hope others do the same. Stop legitimizing people like Al Sharpton. 

I'll judge you by the company you keep

I'll judge you by the friends you keep....

     In response to the recently trending sound-bytes of Leonardo DiCaprio, an average Hollywood talent at best, taking time away from his lucrative career in order to address the United Nations on his view of climate change, scolding the rest of us for being lousy Earth stewards,  I'm feeling a little fired up on a subject that just won't go away.  And rather than jumping to my usual response in calling him a hypocritical jackass, I'll approach it with the following....

    Let me go on the record first in saying I actually DO believe in climate change.  I believe in things I can see and feel directly; things that are tangible and easily documented.  Anyone who has lived for at least 15 years and has the ability to look out of a window would agree. Of course the climate changes, silly.  It changes every day, week, month, year and so on.  And never in the history of our planet has it ever trended in one direction indefinitely without undergoing change. In fact, the changes have often been extreme.  Just when you expect another cold winter, along comes a mild one. 

     "Deniers", as they are called are the boogeyman to environmentalists.  They are the straw-man, the monster under your bed, etc. There is no such thing as a climate change "denier" per se.  However, agreeing with one another as to what is the root cause for climate change is a completely different discussion.  

     Now I am sensible enough to realize this argument is not going to go away for a long time for no other reason than the climate change advocates stand to make literally billions of dollars every year by convincing enough people that there is a problem and then proposing a solution for a nominal fee.  Others anoint themselves "ambassadors" on the subject and receive heftily lined pockets for speaking engagements on the matter.  But the argument technically should die. Why? For two reasons. First, we are powerless to do much if anything about it due to our own meager insignificance in comparison to the size of the Earth, its climate and the primary drivers for its amazingly dynamic ever-changing personality. Secondly, the climate soothsayers are currently batting a perfect .000 in every major prediction they have made over the past 30+ years; everything from the supposed outbreak of acid rain, to all glaciers melting by the early 21st century, ocean levels dropping by over twenty feet to the botched hurricane predictions after Katrina. Why on Earth have we not tagged these people as quacks decades ago and moved on with our lives?  Because their pop-culture spokespeople are provided with a continuously renewable supply of adoring and worshipping fans that elevate them to deity status and will willingly hang from every idiotic word that falls from their lips, period.  And congratulations to them all.  Their blind adoration toward the Hollywood environmentalists has swelled their egos to the point where they truly believe their own emotionally driven opinions, by default, will always trump scientific fact.  And they rarely speak in terms of facts, only opinions. A "fact" to one of these people is an opinion they sincerely wish were true, not one that actually is. 

     A quick review of the facts we know; The Earth has been evolving and undergoing dynamic climate change ever since it first cooled over 4 billion years ago.  Sedimentary rock can do wonders to support this evidence while ice core samples or even the analysis of tree rings can do the same to explain more recent events.  Continents, via Plate Tectonics move in different directions across the Earth's surface at about the same rate your fingernails grow. Over millions of years, this has lead to dramatically different land masses (large continents, inland seas, mountain ranges, etc.) which can greatly affect climate.  Ocean currents and global water temperatures can affect them it well.  Also, there are anomalies such as the Earth's rotational wobble cycle which takes some 26,000 years to compete. That has been theorized as to be a major driver for ice ages. Then throw in your solar activity, volcanism, etc.  All of these take place on a massive scale - a scale far more massive than little ol' us.  The Earth is very large. So are mountains and continents. The Sun is obviously far larger than all of those combined. To think that we are so powerful as a species to have dramatically affected the Earth's climate is a tad on the narcisissitic side. One thing to consider is if you take every human on Earth and stand them all front to back and side by side, they'd all fit within the city limits of Jacksonville, Florida.  We are really very small and insignificant in comparison to the Earth and its dramatic geological history. Even if you discount the the time period prior to when the first life forms appeared on Earth, the global temperatures on average, have been MUCH warmer than they are right now. Ice ages are relatively short. In fact, some theorize that we are still technically coming out of the last ice age. 

    Now I find it perfectly plausible that human energy consumption along with its gaseous byproducts that we have exhausted into the atmosphere for the past 100+ years or so may very well have some measurable affect on the overall climate.  Despite my pride in our advancements as a species, I'm not exactly proud of that side effect.  But remember, the climate is a sum of ALL contributing factors which most certainly includes many of which I just mentioned.  So I have to ask a simple question to those who believe we alone are the sole perpetrators for climate change... "What was causing it before we all got here??" Or at least "What caused it prior to the Industrial Revolution?"

     Now that all being said, I am not an excessive energy consumer.  I do not drive an RV to work nor do I rent limousines.  I go out of my way to recycle whenever possible. I turn off the lights in my house when I leave.  I have been transitioning to energy efficient bulbs, I turn off the water when I brush my teeth, etc. It's the little things that all add up. Some call it being a good steward of the Earth, I call it being "unwasteful".  I don't like to waste things, be it time, water, energy nor money.  

      Do you know who IS an excessive energy consumer? Leonardo DiCaprio, that's who. He has multiple homes, rents a super yacht that gets some 1/4 nautical miles to the gallon, flies in private jets and takes gas guzzling limousines to special events all over the world, burning large amounts of fossil fuels so he can tell you and I that we need to burn less fossil fuels.

      The exact causes for climate change are far from being 100% known and are thus far from being categorized into scientific "law" by definition. A general consensus of privileged elitist pop-culture icons who stand to make millions of dollars championing the cause will not cut it.  And like any other current hypothesis, you will have scientists challenging one another from opposing views.  And since the rest of us are NOT scientists, we can choose to listen to those scientists we have the most faith in their sincerity and accuracy. I know which ones I choose.  

     How do I decide on who to believe? Where do I get MY science? From people that do their research for the common good and knowledge of all, from those that write in text books and magazines in order to educate the next generation, from those whose intent is to share only the facts and the theories they have compiled with his/her own tireless research without attaching a political agenda to it. Not those who stand to receive kickbacks from environmental advocacy groups and the politicians that stand to get elected via their financial support. 

    So my suggestion would be that if you are aiming to gather international support for your cause, avoid hiring the wolf to be a security consultant at the hen house. And in the mean time, shut the lights off when you leave the house today and don't run the A/C with the windows open.  

     So in closing, quell your fears and stop bickering. Just as the law of supply and demand encourages problems to solve themselves, the concern with CO2 emissions will as well.  The natural progression of energy technology will continue to lean in favor of cheaper, or better yet FREE resources. (wind, solar, geothermal,etc.)  Why? Because there is an ever-growing international demand for both greater supplies of energy and increased costs savings, both of which together are known as "free renewable energy".  As a result, there is a race among the the potential developers of these technologies  to tap that gargantuan market.  They are incentivized more than every before to reach it.  Even if they are a hapless selfish bastard that is only in it for the money and could care less about the environment, the better result will still be the outcome.  It just so happens that this is a rare instance where our desire for self servitude (free stuff) also happens to coincide with what is ultimately best for the environment as a whole.  And the best part is aside from cleaning up after yourself and making a concerted effort to not be wasteful, you hardly need to do a thing.  There are plenty of engineers and scientists hard at work getting us closer to this solution every day. So perhaps, the next time you wish to blindly deem someone's life's work as "junk science" simply because their data doesn't make you feel very good about yourself, step back and think again. 

Take your lumps and move on....

     Any one of us at some point in our lives has been guilty of being able to dish out the criticisms of another person while not doing a very good job taking them back once the tides turn on us. Today I am seeing that once again. For those of you on the losing side of the aisle, still not able to accept the fact that a majority of Americans are not happy with the overall policies of the current administration (among other things), and hence the recent mid-term election results, let me put it this way...

     The reason the GOP has taken over the Senate is because of something I anticipated a short time ago; that is the Democratic party has officially gone too far in their collection of idiotic political attacks. You can push the envelope in your ads for so long until even the greatest cynic in the room gets a little tired of the whining. When your campaign baseline is completely devoid of policies, all the while full of accusations of racism, sexism and homophobia, a large enough population of voters becomes so turned-off, they literally don't want to vote for you due to the simple fact that who in the hell wants someone that behaves like that in public office?

     I voted for George W. Bush both in 2000 & 2004 and although I was generally disappointed in his performance for the simple fact that in my opinion, he missed multiple opportunities to get some real initiatives put into place, I don't regret my decision to support him considering my alternate choices were Al Gore and John Kerry. I rest my case.

     Now after making it a point to spend the last several years being constructively critical of the current administration, that being I point out his mistakes while not deviating from the notion that I still believe the President is a decent, well-intentioned human being, I'm going to do something a little out of character and respond to the excessive backlash with more harshness than I usually feel comfortable dishing out. 

      For eight years, many of you (not ALL of you thank God) referred to George W. Bush as a "stupid, jerk, idiot, rube, evil, redneck, moron, asshole that should be impeached, thrown in jail, hung, shot, etc.  Now criticism can be a good thing, especially when it is well prepared and presented. Even if I still disagree with you, I appreciate you forcing me to engage in a healthy debate and to take the time to fully think my own premise through before I speak. But rarely did I hear even the faintest resemblence of a constructive critique other than the usual flailing of arms, face turning flush with anger and running through a cadence four-letter words indicating how passionately you loathed the man, and sometimes even jumping to the conclusion that you seem to loathe all Conservatives.  And of course my immediate thought was "I'm a Conservative. Is that really what you think of me?" 

     Now other than occasionally making my own objective case in defense for the man, (and I did NOT always defend him), I generally bit my tongue and just let some of you have your outbursts. I mean afterall, it is all part of the game. You either like the President, or you don't.

     For those of you that still think the President is doing a fine job, if he is getting the things done that you find more important, that's perfectly fine. Party on with your bad self. But please spare the rest of us this childish banter in trying to insist that "at least he is better than George W. Bush". That's a poor argument considering so many of you have invested a large amount of energy in trying to convince the world that he is a mental munchkin. Arguing your case that "yours is still better" is like saying "I know my child is stupid but at least he's not as dumb as yours".

     This morning I read an article by a Mark Morford (I've never heard of him either) and it really allowed for me to have a breakthrough in trying to understand the mentality of some of the Left. Here is the link if you'd like to skim through it. (http://blog.sfgate.com/morford/2014/07/08/the-best-worst-president-ever/) Note that the substance of his piece, probably 85% or higher is spent either whining about the so called mess that George W. Bush left behind (still blaming the previous guy) and the rest casting aspersions about a group of people of whom he knows nothing about, creating false statements and opinions in order to back his own weak theory. Just to trump some of his points, first, the Dow generally his record highs under every presidential administration, especially those with two terms, even if there is a sell off at some point. The President has little effect, positive nor negative on the Dow. Second, he clearly doesn't do research, which I find alarming for a published writer. The housing crisis started under Carter, was exacerbated by Clinton and ignored by Bush. If anything, it was a cooperative effort. But I've also made the point that sadly, we need events like that to happen this country in order to force us to pay attention to our excessive lending and borrowing at an unsustainable rate. Most of us have been guilty of it. I have as well and have learned my lesson. My current credit card debt is a little higher than normal this month due to some vet expenses; $309.58. 

     Now my own opinion of the current president is different. I don't think he is evil, nor unintellingent, nor do I feel he hates his own country and I certainly do not wish one shred of ill against he or his family. But I do feel he is in way over his head, spends too much time making excuses, blaming the previous administration and the current Congress (and now, the Senate will get their turn) for his own weak policies and failing to take action on major issues in a way that actually solves the problem as opposed to just ensuring more votes for his constituents. His primary cards are Racism and Republicans and sadly there are those who have been making it a point to try and group the two together. Additionally I believe he has become arrogant to the point where he feels he knows more about combat strategy than our highly decorated top military personnel.  This I find alarming as you all should. Poltical leaders have egos, I understand. To a degree they can even be an effective management tool. But they need to be self managed. When you catch yourself thinking you know more about something than an expert, you should pull back on your own reins and listen to what that person may have to say. I don't think Barack Obama does that very well. 

     I've actually made the point before that I honestly thought that Obama wouldn't be THAT bad of a president once he became acclimated to the role. I was wrong on that. Now I have been relatively vocal on my criticisms toward the President via social media but I have been far from vicous.  In fact, "slightly scathing" is about as far as I will take it. My goal is to make a valid point while hopefully not hurting friends and family, all of whose importance to me in my life far exceeds any concern I have toward his/her political views. I really don't care if you are a Socialist Atheist. If you are a part of my life, I love you. Period. But holding myself back on having an opinion all together is not going to happen. To me that is un-American and goes against one of my greatest passions in my life. I've already had to give up one passion recently. I'm not about to fold on another.  

     So in getting to my original point, to those of you that don't like my opinions, you can of course unsubscribe to my newsfeeds, manually ignore them, or even go so far as to unfriend me if you feel so violated by my values.  But please drop this notion that it is perfectly acceptable for you to dish it out for eight years while I am forbidden to occasionally give a little bit back. There is a term for that. It's called "being childish".  So stop being childish, step up to the plate and take your lumps like an adult just like the rest of us did for eight long years. 

You said it, not Ryan.

     Many years ago, I swore to myself that in the unlikely event I ever become an entertainer in the public spotlight, I will keep my political views at a lull and my political attacks completely off of the table.  But since I am an amateur political blogger, all bets are off until further notice.

     There are two reasons for this. The first is clearly selfish. To me, entertainers are meant to be an escape of sorts for the rest of us.  If you are singer, sing to me.  If you are a comedian, tell me some jokes and make me laugh. I may have just spent my entire day surrounded by jerks and I'd like to put a smile back on my face.  The second reason is also selfish but it comes from the philosophy of "be careful of how you treat people on the way up because you will need them on the way back down".  Say for example if 100,000 people are gracious enough to refer to themselves as my "fans", what kind of person would I be to tell half of them to "f**k off" because they don't agree with my political leanings? In other words, why should I tell half of my financial backers to go away and never give me money again? Many artists and entertainers seem to think that their support is a source of entitlement and not something they should have to work to earn and to maintain.  Instead they feel it is perfectly acceptable to insult half of the people that chose to spend their own money on tickets to hear them speak.

     I'm disappointed in comedians like Joel McHale. I enjoy Joel and think he is a talented comedian.  My wife and I frequently catch his show "The Soup" on "E". But I am not sure how to take it when he says at the recent appearance at the Correspondents Association Dinner, (a.k.a. "Nerd Prom") that  "Republicans are always trying to screw Black people."

     I know, I know... "He was kidding, Jeff".

     I'm sorry, but there are certain insults, at least when being used in the public forum, that have been tagged as "Politically incorrect no-no's" and thus stricken from the accepted "just kidding" list. "Rapist" and "Racist" are two examples.  I don't make these rules, I just accept them.  It was even less appropriate this time for having been used to address the President of the United States; a president that visibly laughed on camera at the comment, perhaps with a degree of discomfort.  I'll give him benefit of the doubt on this one.  That may be nothing more than a case of "being polite to one of your guests", which is an attribute that many entertainers seem to lack.

     For a quick review on Black History and the Republicans who apparently like to screw them,  allow me to review some noteworthy mentions...

The Republican Party was formed in the mid 19th century with one of its key platforms being the abolition of slavery.

Our first Republican President, Abe Lincoln passed the 13th Amendment abolishing slavery entirely while the Democrats in the South lobbied for Jim Crow laws and built up the Ku Klux Klan. 

Just a half century later,  FDR had former Klansmen in his administration including his successor, Harry Truman.  

The Republican party supported the Civil Rights Act of 1964 by margins in the eighty percentile range while Democrats were down in the sixties and actually attempted to filibuster. 

Ronald Reagan signed Martin Luther King Day into law and promoted our friend "Eugene Allen", a.k.a. "The Butler" at the same time former Klansman, Robert Byrd was Democratic Senate Minority leader.

And lastly, George W. Bush had more Black Americans on his staff than any prior administration. 

A list of notable Democrats from the past 2 centuries that were either segregationists, pro-slavery advocates or Klansmen available upon request. 

     Now, in regards to one of Joel's numerous incorrect references on which he chose to base his entire speech (I'd recommend a new fact-checker, Joel), please count the number of occurrences of the word "black" in the following quote from the March 12th Paul Ryan interview with Bill Bennett, from which Joel was referencing...

"We have got this tailspin of culture, in our inner cities in particular, of men not working and just generations of men not even thinking about working or learning the value and the culture of work, and so there is a real culture problem here that has to be dealt with…you need to get involved, you need to get involved yourself, whether through a good mentor program or some religious charity, whatever it is to make a difference. And that’s how we resuscitate our culture.”

     Someone with a sense of realism may hear some truth in that statement.  An ignorant person may hear nothing.  However, unless severely delusional or perhaps not taking your medicine today, you did not see the word "black".  The conclusion was pounced on by his political detractors who assumed "You meant black, didn't you?"

     No, he meant "Inner City Culture" just as he said. Contrary to popular opinion, there is a difference. If he meant "black", he would have said "race", not "culture".

     Paul Ryan (and this is why I would never vote for him) found himself backed into a corner and discovered his fight-or-flight mechanism is faulty and would never allow him to be fit for the presidency. This is an example of a Republican watching a softball glide across the middle of the plate while the bat never leaves his shoulder.  A home run would have been if he'd made the correct scathing counterpunch, not an apology.  In politics, an apology is admission of guilt.  His response should have been "I never said "black", although I noticed you certainly did in a hurry."

     Bill Maher, whom I can say I am NOT an avid fan, does on occasion suffer from spontaneous bouts of common sense.  A couple weeks after this interview he cited the following...

"Here’s something else Paul Ryan said, ‘when it comes to getting an education too many of our young people just can’t be bothered, they’re sitting on couches for hours, playing video games, watching TV, instead of dreaming about being a teacher or a lawyer or a business leader, they’re fantasizing about being a baller or a rapper,’” Maher said. “Oh wait, that wasn’t him that was Michelle Obama.”

     To be blunt, if you are one of those people with your head stuck in the sand and think that we don't have higher rates of high school dropouts, teen pregnancies, violent crimes, substance abuses, and unemployment in the inner city, then I invite you to please come visit my ocean-front vista in Nebraska.

     This has nothing to do with race. Inner-city in this country is a highly diverse culture that sees no racial boundary.  And for those that refuse to accept it, you are contributors to the increasing crisis and a hindrance to any solutions. Now please step aside.

The third side of the story....

Ever heard the expression "there are three sides to every story"? 

I'm reminded of this with the current news regarding the bill on governor Jan Brewer's desk in AZ that if passed, would allow restaurants to deny service to the LGBT community based simply on his/her religious beliefs. 

Side B says "Shoot the bill down because is discriminates against a minority". 

Side A says "Pass the bill because it is my business and I can choose to serve whomever I want"

I choose side C (the Truth). This is a loaded and quite nonsensical bill that should never have even been brought to the floor because all it does is point out an inherent contradiction in our Constitution that has been left up for loose interpretation for decades now. You have the right to be a bigot if you choose but you aren't allowed to discriminate. Who penned that legislation? Talk about taking the easy way out!

So to my primary point, which is now moot, I just watched a news clip of Jan Brewer vetoing that same stupid bill in Arizona and I can only say that the leadership in my screwed up party seems to be learning some lessons - finally! 

I say this not only because the fact that she shot it down, but also because of the way she explained her reasoning. 

My argument since I recently learned about this bill was that it is completely loaded. No matter which direction you choose, you are going to have some people crying that their Constitutional rights have been infringed upon. And she correctly chose to slap down the law that would "create more problems than it would solve". 

Her explanation was perfect when she stated in more eloquent terms than my following paraphrase, "With all of the legitimate problems we need to address in our state, this is the best piece of crap you can think of to place upon my desk?"

And here is my favorite part; She scolded both sides with the same logical question I had; Where is this discrimination even taking place and who are these people that need so called "protection" of his/her religious rights?? 

I would bet that if any restaurant had the gaul to go on the record stating that they will never serve the LGBT community, 99% of people would never set foot in that place, myself included. Their doors would close before the weekend. 

I realize that there are still bigoted jackasses out there but last I checked, no restaurant stations its manager nor its owner in the lobby checking people's sexual orientation before allowing them to enter the dining area. And for those that would ever consider such a stupid idea, I wish them well in their inevitable bankruptcy. 

Businesses, especially ones such as restaurants with low profits and stiff competition, will happily take anyone's money. 

It was a hanging curveball that she was able to hold back on and then hit out of the park. 

Welcome to the 21st century, GOP. You're growing up!

Open letter from a "Class B" Buckeyes Fan

First, it is time for the defensive coaching staff to start updating resumes. This is by far and away the most undisciplined and disorganized squad I have ever seen. The regurgitated post game comments of "We need to figure out what is wrong and play better" are falling on deaf ears. (that was paraphrased)
These players are far too talented to be unable to stop so much as a beer belch, let alone a potent offensive attack. The object is to "tackle" the opposition, not sprint past them issuing a glancing blow with the side of your arm in hopes they will surrender.  And the technique of covering a deep receiver involves turning to see the incoming pass and perhaps raising your arms and/or jumping from time to time.  Wrapping your arms and legs around the intended receiver and practically dry humping them while in mid-sprint will likely only draw penalty flags for interference, holding and illegal use of your mid-section.

Second, drop this silly notion that Miller is a "great QB".  A talented athlete and a great ball carrier, absolutely without a doubt. But he still lacks the primary fundamentals of reading defenses and NOT freezing like a deer in the headlights after the D-line breaks through the O-line. And he is not alone out there. This is where I scratch my head and wonder "Why the torrid love affair with bootleg quarterbacks in college?" They have notoriously poor accuracy with game stats that look like the following…

"crappy pass, crappy pass, crappy pass, crappy pass, crappy pass, break away run for a TD, crappy pass, crappy pass, crappy pass, crappy pass, random bomb for a TD", then the cycle begins again.

I see it the same as signing a 6'6" beast to a long term contract who bats only about .150 but clobbers 40 to 50 home runs per year.  Do the benefits really outweigh the costs?  These players can get you into championship games but rarely past them.

I suppose growing up watching Joe Montana, John Elway, Roger Staubach, Doug Williams and Terry Bradshaw skews my opinion in favor of the traditional QB.  But these and others like them could read defenses prior to AND after the snap and react accordingly based on instinct with little hesitation. There is a reason many sports critics agree that the QB position is the single most difficult position to play in all of team sports.

I don't even blame Braxton. He's worked hard and I have seen some improvement in his first three years. But those rare and special quarterbacking tools, if present, are usually realized by this point. I'd love nothing more than to eat these words next year so I am going to cheer for him to prove me wrong. I say these words because I wish for him to succeed, not to fail.

Lastly, this is for the entire program.  Work with NCAA schedulers and begin playing REAL teams in the regular season. Even just one game with a strong SEC or ACC team will build both your skills AND credibility.  Teams get good by playing (and occasionally losing to) other good teams. Not crappy ones. This is why the SEC is a meat grinder of a conference - because they all play one another every week. You will never be properly prepared for a BCS game by playing Akron, Florida A&M and the El Paso Polytech Fighting Banditos in the regular season, just in hopes to protect your precious undefeated record.

There, I feel better now. Although I actually felt fine about 3 minutes after the game ended. I've made this point before; the great thing about being a sports fan (if properly self-managed) is that you really can have it both ways. You can cheer for your team to win, pump your fists in the air and celebrate when they do. But when they lose, you simply go back to your life exactly the way you left it before the game began. Nothing has changed as a result of the game's outcome. There is always tomorrow, next week or next year.

I should disclose that I am a "Class B" Buckeyes fan. "Class A" are actual alum. I'm just a lifelong Ohioan that grew up a Buckeyes fan. That's how so many of us do it here. "Class C" fans are neither alum nor Ohioans. They just spontaneously latched onto the Scarlet and Gray but something tells me that is an endangered species.