You didn't build that, or did you?

It's no secret that I'm in the market for a better job and have been for some time. Anyone who knows me personally knows that it's been a very long and frustrating process, full of what seem like endless job applications, resumes sent out, and little, if any response despite the experience I bring and my education. As this has dragged on, I've thought a lot about how people "make it" and are successful, plus I see a lot of "inspirational" posts from various people I either know or follow on my various social media accounts. And this is dealing with success in some type of occupation or career, not for something like losing weight, working out, forming new habits, etc.

First off, though, what is the definition of "successful"? I think when most people say "successful" they are talking in terms of finances. In other words, a successful person is someone who has a well-paying job or is otherwise well-off financially. At the very least they are financially independent. While I don't disagree with that definition, I am reminded of the quote from LDS President David O. McKay: "No outside success can compensate for failure in the home." In other words, while being financially well-off is certainly a worthwhile goal, if by doing so we sacrifice meaningful relationships (especially our own family) and/or compromise our morals and values to attain it, can we truly be "successful"? That in itself could probably take its own blog post. Suffice it to say, I would have a hard time considering myself successful even with all the money in the world if I didn't have my family. 

Moving on, the most common themes on these "inspirational" posts I see on social media are hard work, diligence, and perseverance, related, of course, to setting goals. While I certainly don't discount the importance of those things, do they in themselves make someone successful? No, they don't. Yeah, you heard me right. I know plenty of people who, like myself, have done everything they are supposed to do yet struggle to gain any type of recognition for their talents and abilities. It has little to do with a lack of hard work, diligence, or perseverance. Now, these inspirational stories or pictures will often make it sound like the person who posted them is successful because of those very things (i.e. their own efforts only), yet when you read their stories, something else comes up: someone else gave them a chance, i.e. simply noticed them. In other words, part of their success was being in the right place at the right time. 

Whoa, whoa, whoa, wait. So you mean their success can be attributed to someone else? Yep, at least partially. Again, the hard work, diligence, and perseverance certainly put them in a position to be successful and to sustain their success, but by themselves did not make that person successful. You can be the best teacher in the world, but if no district ever looks past what they see on your resume or even bothers to read it or give you an interview, guess what? You're still on the outside looking in. Even for entrepreneurs, you can have the best idea ever, but unless other people buy it and tell others, you're no better off than before. You cannot attain success alone, at least in terms of a career. 

I've seen that in my own life, aside from the job search. As many know, I love to sing the National Anthem for sporting events and have been doing so for almost 20 years now. People frequently ask how I get those gigs, especially when I sing for professional sports teams like the Cleveland Indians and Lake Erie Monsters. The answer is simple: for most teams I initially sent them a CD with a recording of me singing. Over the years I've had recordings done of performances at various venues that I put those on YouTube, so now I simply send teams a resume of my performance experience and the web address for my YouTube page. Last year I created a National Anthem page to refer people to, which includes all of those things: my performance experience, audio recordings, and video recordings. 

But you know what? Sending all that out only goes as far as the people who receive it. While I have been fortunate to sing for the Indians and several other minor league teams, it's because the person in charge at each place has liked what they heard and contacted me to song. For reasons I don't know, I have yet to sing for the Cleveland Cavaliers and a host of other major league teams I send stuff to every year. For instance, I recently sent materials to another Major League Baseball team and received a reply that in order to even be considered for the anthem, I have to join one a group that is connected with group ticket sales and then go through that group's contact with the team. For someone like me not based in that area (but frequently there for family and only 5 hours away), it makes it somewhat difficult to commit to something like that. It's certainly not based at all on my talents, abilities, and experience with the anthem.

So yes, I have set myself up to be successful in that regard, but unless someone says "hey, we want you to sing for us", I'm really no further along than I was before I sent it out. I consider what I'm doing as creating opportunities for myself; putting myself in the position to receive them, but in the end, whether I perform or not isn't in my power. I do much the same with Kent State: I noticed they often didn't have a singer for the anthem, so I got in touch with the person in charge, and boom. When a new person comes in (which happens every few years), I have to start all over again. But again, it's a two-way street. It's not JUST because of me, it's because the person in charge considers me someone they like to have sing for them. 

When President Obama made his comments about "you didn't build that", I think this is the idea he was getting at, even though I wasn't all that impressed with how he worded it nor the seeming emphasis he placed on others in our various paths to success. Yes, we do need to do a lot on our own to be successful. Like I said, hard work, setting goals, persevering, all those things, are key steps in helping us be successful and even more so for sustaining success. But yes, at some point, you do need someone else, whether they be an employer, an agent, or even a customer, (or for me and singing the anthem, usually an intern!) to help you go beyond potential to reality and success. I think it's very disingenuous for people who are successful to ignore the roles that others (including, for those of us who are religious, God) have played in their success and just focus on what the individual has done. That's not to underscore what the individual has done or undermine it in any way, but to be realistic. Again, ask any "successful" person how they achieved success, and at some point along the way, there will be an event where someone else took notice and decided to take a chance on them.

Let's keep it real. Who knows, maybe you hold the key to helping others achieve success too?

Why Franklin?

On Thursday, news broke that the Kent City School District plans to close one of its five elementary schools at the end of the current school year because of enrollment declines. While no specific school has been officially announced, the article indicated that some people believe it will be Franklin Elementary School. I also believe Franklin will be the one closed and am not surprised for a number of reasons. An article on Friday, January 31st, however, made it sound as if Franklin (and the former Central Elementary School) closing is a done deal, even while board members insist no formal decision has been made.

Let me start out by saying this blog should not be construed as an endorsement of closing any of the schools or advocating for one school or the other to close. I'm simply looking at the "why"s and answering them to help people understand the situation better and move beyond the simple emotional aspect of the situation. If people really want to potentially stop this closure, saying things like "Franklin is the best!" and "I love Franklin!!" may sound nice, but they aren't going to sway any votes. We all need to understand the facts, so we can argue facts with facts, particularly the economics of the situation. While I did not attend Franklin as a student, I have worked there multiple times as a substitute over 3 years (so am familiar with the students and faculty), plus I know how upsetting it would be to me to have one of my schools close, especially if I were still a student there. That said, from an enrollment standpoint, which seems to be the main driver here, the district is completely justified in closing an elementary school. Kent simply does not have enough elementary-aged students to warrant spending money on five buildings when we have the student body that could fit in four, even three.

My concern as an alumnus of the district and now as a resident is how this has come about. Even in being, what I consider, justified in terms of enrollment (Kent does not need five elementary schools with the current enrollment), I feel the way the news has broken and the seeming disagreement in statements about whether or not it's Franklin, looks really bad and reflects poorly on the Board of Education. Voters in Kent just passed another school levy this past May that is due to generate $4.25 million in additional funds. Yes, that money has not yet come to the district, but it is coming, on top of the local tax money the district already receives. Kent has the highest property tax rates in the county and is among the highest in the area. Levies are hardly ever (if ever) voted down here. The schools are supported very well by residents and have been for pretty much ever. Announcing cuts, no matter how legitimate the reasons, so soon after a levy approval like that just does not look good.  I hope it spurs more residents, whether they have kids in the schools or not, to be more involved and to really analyze how the district does business rather than simply assuming the best and basically writing blank checks all the time. Kent does a lot of things very well, but it could definitely use improvement in other areas.

Enrollment

Why the decline in elementary students? The district speculates the rise in rental housing, which is heavily related to the growth of Kent State University. The population of the city of Kent is higher than it has ever been in its history and is growing (along with Franklin Township), yet the school district has been declining. While I think the conversion of family housing to rentals is part of that, it's not the entire reason. I believe Kent has a lot of empty-nesters who have remained here. Nothing wrong with that (generally means they like it here and see no reason to leave), but it's going to have the obvious effect of lowering the student body. The neighborhood my Ridinger grandparents live in just east of KSU is a prime example. My dad remembers the neighborhood being full of kids, but now, and for the last 10-20 years, it has far more senior citizens and retired couples than it does kids as the kids have grown up and moved on. My grandparents themselves are part of that. Add that to the fact that Kent has had very little construction in the way of family housing (i.e. housing developments), and there you go. The neighborhood I grew up in also had that to a degree, and I've seen that here in the neighborhood I live in now in Kent.

Another valid point that I've seen others raise is the issue of taxes. While there hasn't been a whole lot of new housing available for families in Kent, I know of at least a few who have either decided they can't afford to live here because of the property taxes, or nearly didn't buy their house in Kent because of the high property taxes. In other words, in our desire to fund our schools well, we may be pricing out many of the very people the great programs the schools offer are designed to help the most. Of course, there hasn't been a formal study by the city or district (all anecdotal observations) as to exactly why and there are likely other factors too, but in the end, the result is we have far less elementary-aged students now than we did 10 and 20 years ago and the numbers have been declining for some time. Each elementary school outside Davey (which houses all preschoolers, so has a larger enrollment), has about 200 students. Franklin itself only has 192 this year. I'm not sure the capacities of each elementary school, but my guess is they are optimal around 350 student each (in the early 1990s, Walls had as many as 495 one year), give or take a few. Davey is the exception since it is a former high school and middle school, so it obviously has a larger capacity, probably around 600. As a junior high it had around 800 students, though it was crowded.

Facilities

September 7, 1922 Kent Tribune announcing the opening of Franklin

OK, so why has Franklin been targeted to close? Simple economics. From a facilities standpoint, Franklin is old and the older a building gets, the more expensive it becomes to maintain. The original portion of the building opened September 11, 1922, just 5 days after the original portion of Davey Elementary School opened as Roosevelt High School. Franklin has two additions, one on either side of the original building. As far as I have been able to find, both additions were built at the same time and were built in the 1950s prior to the merger between the Kent City and Franklin Local School Districts in 1959. There have been no major renovations to the building in the last few decades that I am aware of.

While Davey is an older building (at least the original part...it also has an addition that opened in 1967), it was heavily renovated in 1999-2000 as part of its conversion from a middle school to an elementary school, so much of it is newer than any other Kent school building, even Stanton Middle School (opened August 1999). That's on top of the historical and sentimental values attached to that building, which has served as a high school and middle school before being an elementary school. The other three Kent elementary schools are as follows, from oldest to youngest:
1. Longcoy, opened 1957 with additions in 1965 and the mid 1980s
2. Holden, opened in 1965
3. Walls, opened in 1966 with an addition in the early 1970s

This is not to say that Franklin is being targeted simply because it's old or that it's in terrible shape, because it isn't. But compared to the other elementary schools in the district, it is in the worst shape and is likely more expensive to maintain.

Accessibility

Anyone who has even been in Franklin knows its other shortcoming as a facility: accessibility. The entire building, both the original and the additions, was built long before any kind of handicap accessibility standards were in place. While there are three listed floors, in reality there are four levels connected only by staircases, most of which are small and narrow. The building has a somewhat confusing layout too because of the topography of the site. For instance, when you enter to go into the office or the gym, you are on what is considered the second floor even though it is ground level. Just outside the office is a staircase going to the rest of the second floor. The first floor is really the basement (accessible from the "upper" part of the second floor) and then there is a third level. The other four elementary buildings are either one floor (Longcoy has some stairs in the back of the building to a higher part of the same floor, but the rest of the building largely accessible) or have elevators (Davey has an elevator added during its renovation).

So yes, from a facilities and accessibility standpoint, eliminating Franklin makes financial sense since keeping it would result in extensive renovation to bring it up to code or total replacement. In a recent community survey, the district indicated that Franklin needed heavy renovation or replacement, and some in the district suggested simply closing Franklin instead. If enrollment would increase over the years and a new building needed, a new building would have to be built anyway. This will put it off until needed, if ever.

Location

Another thing working against Franklin is its location. Franklin is located on SR 43 just north of Roosevelt High School. It is the only Kent elementary school on a major road and is the only one not in the middle of a residential neighborhood, which is due to its history as the centralized township school. Yes, it's not completely isolated from residential areas (northern Kent, with the Riverbend subdivision adjacent to it), but compared to the other schools, it's far more isolated. Neighborhood elementary schools are best in residential areas on side streets since they have very young children walking to school and crossing streets. On top of that, the territory that Franklin serves is the largest in terms of land size, so it wouldn't surprise me if Franklin has the largest percentage of students who are bused or otherwise driven to school (a lot of parents drive their kids to school I noticed). That's significant because in closing a school, all costs are weighed. If closing one school means busing a whole bunch of kids who weren't previously bused, it may end up not creating the savings the district was hoping for. Since most Franklin kids are already bused, it would result in minimal increases in transportation costs. Even the kids that do currently walk could be picked up on by the existing routes on their way to whichever school they are going to.

Holden Elementary School, located on West School Street

The only other elementary school with a location similar to Franklin is Holden, but Holden is in a much more densely populated area (a smaller territory), so a large number, if not the majority, of the students walk to school. In fact, all of Holden's territory is less than a mile from the school as the crow flies. It is also not directly on a major road, though it is just a few hundred feet from South Water Street (SR 43). If Holden was closed, the entire student body would have to be bused to Walls, Davey, and/or Longcoy, a student body that previously wasn't bused. Bear in mind too that Holden is the closest school to the Kent City Schools' bus garage. And, of course, the building is newer than Franklin and is one floor.

The other thing with Holden is that it's much more embedded as a part of its neighborhood than Franklin is, at least from my experience at both schools and what I know about each school's history. Holden is the school for what is known as the South End (or the South Side), an area that has some of the highest poverty rates in the city, but is also a fairly close-knit, racially diverse, blue collar neighborhood. Holden is the successor of South School, which dates back to a wooden frame building in 1869 and a later building that stood from 1880-1966. It was the first "neighborhood" elementary school in Kent, formed later in the year that Kent's first centralized school (the Union School) opened. While Franklin dates to 1922 as a consolidation of the township's school houses, it did not become a Kent elementary school until 1959, and since at least 1966 has not served the entire township. That's not to say it isn't a community in itself, but of all the schools in Kent, Holden has always been the one that seemed to have the deepest ties to its neighborhood.

End results

If Franklin does end up getting closed, I see the student body getting divided between Walls and Davey most likely, then possibly other adjustments in the boundaries with Longcoy and Holden to balance the buildings out a bit. Walls already has a large section of Franklin Township in its territory (I grew up in the township and went to Walls). If needed, the district could also open up space at Davey by moving some of the preschool classes to other elementary schools instead of having all of them together. In reality, Walls could absorb the entire enrollment of Franklin and still have less students than when I was in school there. During my 5th grade year, Walls had 495 students in grades K-5. We had so many students that some had to be moved to Franklin my 5th grade year, plus we did not have a music or an art room. If Walls and Franklin were combined today, it would create a school of not even 400 students. When I subbed at Walls last in 2012, there were several classrooms that weren't being used at all (yet the school still has a modular unit out back!). Now, I don't think the district will actually do that; it's more to illustrate that having five schools isn't really needed. I can, however, see a scenario where the majority of Franklin students end up at Walls while others end up at Davey. I would hope the district goes the route that provides minimal disruption. If the boundaries are changed for all the remaining schools, that's going to be a lot of disruption for more than just the Franklin kids.

The former Emma Williard School at the corner of Brady Lake and Lake
Rockwell Roads near Brady Lake. It closed in 1978 and has been largely
vacant since then. Several projects have been proposed, but none have
come to fruition. 

I don't see large-scale layoffs. Most of the faculty and staff will likely relocate to the new schools with the kids. It won't simply be a case of adding all the students coming from Franklin to existing classrooms without additional teachers. Those who retire likely won't get replaced, though. I could see the loss of some administrative jobs (like the principal of Franklin), but that will depend on any retirements or departures that may come up at the other schools or in other districts. I do think the district will do what it can to minimize layoffs, if they happen at all, and there is enough time for people to be looking for other work if they think they may get laid off.

From a historical standpoint, I also hope that the Franklin building can find a use beyond a school. It is over 90 years old and is part of the community's history, so I would hate to see it torn down. Even so, finding new purposes for schools can often be difficult for a number of reasons. The former Emma Williard Elementary School in the Brady Lake area, closed in 1978, still stands and has been vacant since its closure. The issue is simply the cost of converting it to other uses. Schools can be converted to other uses, but they need someone who has a lot of money and a love of history. We've seen some former elementary schools find new life, others abandoned, and others torn down. There are so many factors.

Evaluating Information

With the rise of social media the past decade, it is now more possible than ever to share information. Sure, we've been doing long before social media came out or even before email became widespread, but now it's easier than before. I have often said that as much as we live in the "Information Age", we also live in the "Disinformation" and "Misinformation" Age too. Yes, being able to spread information is quick and easy, but it's just as quick and easy to spread false information, whether intentional or not, too.

We all remember back when email was still new for most people who those forwards would work. They usually involved some kind of conspiracy theory or "secret" that someone didn't want you to know. Even today I occasionally get email forwards and almost all of them are false. They're really a form of electronic gossip.

On social media, I frequently notice many of my friends posting articles on topics they are either passionate about or interested in. The places I tend to see the most questionable information is with health and diet, though politics is another popular one, especially near elections. Many very well-intentioned people want to spread what appears to be good information, but are instead passing along information that is either partially or completely false, or is just based on outdated and/or anecdotal evidence.

What's interesting, and somewhat sad, is that when I or someone else brings to the poster's attention that the article likely has blatantly false or otherwise questionable information (with an explanation or link to show why we think that), it's often met with disdain or open hostility from the original poster or others who are following. It's too often a classic case of "don't confuse me with the facts, my mind is already made up."

On sites like Facebook, these false or misleading information sources can be in the form of links to articles, blog posts, or images. Why do these persist? Because the average person assumes they're true without any kind of examination and then passes them along. The solution to this isn't restricting what we can post or send, but rather, educating people to know how to evaluate information so they don't pass along things that aren't true.

There are several websites available that are devoted to fact checking, such as Snopes.com and HoaxSlayer.com, both of which have Facebook pages. But you know what? You don't need either of those sites to spot a garbage article or post, though they are helpful. These are points I look at when evaluating information. Ask yourself these simple questions:

1. Do the claims sound outlandish or too good to be true?

• If yes, it most likely is! It's garbage and not worth your time or anyone else's!
• As old as it is, if it sounds too good to be true, it more than likely is.
• If no, move on to the next question.
• Even if you may not agree with some of the claims, if they seem at least plausible, perhaps they might be true!

2. Does this have any sources?

• If no, then it most likely garbage and isn't worth your time or anyone else's!
• Anything that is worthwhile, especially if it's a health or diet-related article, will take the time to include sources.
• If yes, move on to the next question.

3. What kinds of sources does this have?

• If from personal blogs or from any kind of special interest group, then it's most likely biased and/or garbage and isn't worth your time or anyone else's! 
• Despite their best intentions, when advocacy groups are the only source, they are inherently biased since they clearly have an interest in what your opinion is. They're not presenting the information for you to make a balanced decision, they're presenting it so you choose their position. Always look for more neutral sources of data to draw conclusions from.
• If from established news sources and peer-reviewed journals, move on to the next question. 
• News outlets are hardly free from bias and false information, but there is at least some degree of editorial oversight. Peer-reviewed journals and publications are even better sources, especially for any type of health or diet-related article or statistics.

4. How are the sources used?

• If they are present but don't appear to support any of the claims of the article or graphic, then guess what? It's GARBAGE and not worth your time or anyone else's! 
• Many times an article will have a bunch of sources listed, but the sources don't actually support what is in the article. For instance, an article might state that "many people" had a particular reaction to a food but the actual source gives a specific number, like 15 of 200 in the study group. 
• If they support the claims with legitimate research and documentation, you have a winner! 
• Share it with your friends and family to spread GOOD information and to help them see what GOOD information looks like!

Now, there will always be articles that look genuine and appear to have good sources and even legitimate studies attached to them, but in reality, aren't. Not all studies are conclusive and many simply don't follow any kind of proper procedures (like the sample size, for instance) to get trustworthy results. Just because an article has sources, even many, doesn't mean anything. The sources have to be evaluated as much as the content. If you're ever not sure about an article or graphic, like it appears to be trustworthy and legit, but you can't say for sure, say so in your post or just don't post it.

Anyone who's connected to me on Facebook knows an article I posted a link to recently was one I thought was "garbage". It was entitled "Why the Amish Don't Get Sick" and was making its rounds on my Facebook feed from several well-meaning friends. While the article did have sources, it only had a few and some of the main points (particularly the claim that the Amish don't get vaccinated) didn't have any sources. Why not? Well, it's not true, for one, and is based on a misconception that the Amish simply avoid all modern medicine. They don't. In fact, many (if not the majority) of the Amish do get vaccinated. Just reading the article it was clear that the author was pushing a specific viewpoint, not just providing facts for a reader to make any kind of educated decision about.

Another interesting occurrence on that article was in reading the comments. Now, comments on an article should always be read with caution since anyone can say anything, but there were a significant amount of comments from people who claimed to live in or near Amish communities in Indiana, Ohio, and Pennsylvania that refuted many of the claims of the article, not only on the vaccination issue but the very notion that the Amish "don't get sick" or even use completely natural farming methods (another tenet of the article which is simply not true). But really, the comments simply added to the already shaky "facts" the article was built on. In other words, I didn't need the comments to know that the article had some major problems; the comments merely confirmed my own analysis of the content. About the only truth in the article is that the Amish typically get more physical activity than a typical American just because of the manual labor they have to do on things that most of us have machines for. But stress free? All organic? No autism or cancer? Uh, no.

Another link I saw recently had to do with aspartame, which has been very controversial. The link was to what was purported to be a report from the FDA (US Food and Drug Administration) about the dangers of aspartame. It cites several studies and other sources and appears legitimate, but there's one problem: it's not a report of the FDA. Yes, it can be found on the FDA website, but upon reading the very first lines of the document, it's clearly stated that the text is from an email to the FDA from a person named Mark D. Gold of the Aspartame Toxicity Information Center, sent January 12, 2003. In other words, this isn't beyond the realm of bias as it's from an advocacy group which wishes to have aspartame banned in the United States. It certainly isn't a damning report on aspartame from the FDA itself as many seem to believe it is. No, being a Federal agency, an email to the FDA is public record.

Now, I don't present this to discredit Mr. Gold or his organization or to promote aspartame (I don't typically drink diet sodas simply because of the taste), but rather to caution readers as they evaluate information. This is an exercise in evaluating information and also presenting it correctly. If someone wishes to present this, it needs to be presented as an email from Mark D. Gold of the Aspartame Toxicity Information Center, not a report from the FDA. I haven't been able to sit down and evaluate the content of his email either (how he used the studies, how legit the studies were, whether they actually support his claims, etc.); all I can tell you that aspartame is still legal in the US.

One final point in evaluating information is to watch out for anecdotal evidence. Anecdotal evidence is when we observe a certain behavior or occurrence either with our own eyes or reading about it. While anecdotal evidence can often be correct, it can just as often be totally wrong because we don't have all the facts or are just observing a very small group of people or things.

For instance, I saw a blog post dealing with diets in the early 20th century, 19th, and even 18th centuries. The basic premise was that people lived longer back then because of their diets. Unfortunately, the post failed the very first test about sources because, well, it doesn't have ANY to support scientific and diet claims. The only "evidence" offered is COMPLETELY anecdotal. Examples? To prove that people back then had less stress, the author uses a single journal entry from a relative in the early 20th century. A single journal entry. Really? From that we can determine without a doubt that people back then were under less stress than we are today? Huh? Never mind that people back then had to worry about all sorts of things we don't even think about today and that people deal with stress differently.

Another example of anecdotal evidence was showing some of the lifespans of the author's and her husbands ancestors. She uses two of her ancestors and two of her husbands. TWO! Since they both had relatives who lived into their 70s and 80s back into the early 19th century, well, obviously it was because of their diet AND the lifespans of everyone around them were just as long. Never mind how small a group that sample is coming from, any role genetics played there, or if other family members actually lived that long.

To top it off, there's even a generalization that the reason our life expectancy has increased (and continues to do so) is simply from improvements in infant mortality. Actual health experts have attributed several factors to life expectancy (see the Wikipedia article and the many sources it has!), among them better diet and of course, improved medical care. Yes, infant mortality plays a role in that average, but so does the fact that people, particularly children, aren't dying from things like a ruptured appendix that couldn't be detected in time, or cholera in the water supply, or even a simple bacterial infection that wasn't dealt with properly.  In other words, simply attributing the rise in life expectancy only to improvements in infant mortality is simplistic and inaccurate.

I could go on an entire post about some of these specific instances, but the bottom line is evaluate your information before you decide to pass it on to others. I certainly don't like passing on bad info and misleading others, even if I had all the greatest intentions in the world. Even if an article seems to fit your personal views on something, if it doesn't have decent sources, good heavens, don't pass it on unless you can verify reality. The more we as a general public demand out of our sources of information, the better they will get in terms of quality. If we want others to be persuaded by our opinions and interpretations, we need to make sure what we're spreading is actually substantiated. Spreading nonsense helps no one.

#CharacterCounts

In my last post I alluded to the importance I place on the character of a person, regardless of their level of talent, and I want to elaborate more on that.

We live in a society that generally places a high value on certain talents. At this point in time, talents that deal largely in entertainment are valued quite heavily, such as acting, singing, and athletics. While I obviously have no problem recognizing the talents and abilities of others and taking the time to enjoy their work, I have noticed that many people out there will excuse poor character on the part of someone just because they're talented in a specific area. The most common place I have seen this is in sports, though it's prevalent in other areas too.

For instance, an article runs about the negative action or comments from a famous athlete, and you will inevitably see many comments that reference the talent of the person and/or his or her salary as reasons they can't really be criticized. Huh? So talent and money excuse decency or just being a nice person? I get that people are people and make mistakes. I don't expect perfection from anyone. But I do expect people to be good regardless of their circumstances, though I realize that is certainly not the case. All the fame, fortune, power, and talent in the world does not release or excuse someone from simple human decency.

When I speak of character, it's on the lines of how we treat each other. For celebrities or anyone who has some level of fame or recognition, it's usually how they treat those who don't have their status, whether it be fans, employees, or just the general public. Do they distinguish between the "common folk" and those with fame and fortune? Are they nice to those that "matter" but no one else? How do they interact with fans? Is their demeanor on TV real or a facade? Those are all things I look at and are part of why I don't get into a lot of "hero worship". In the end, no matter how talented or rich someone is, they are a human being just like me. There are things things that I'm probably more talented in than them and vice versa. It's simply a matter of circumstance. And yes, it may be "old fashioned", but I am a firm believer in the Golden Rule.

It is no secret that I am a religious person who believes in God. That said, I believe that we are held accountable for the gifts we have been blessed with and how we use them. God blesses people with many things, and how we use those are something that I believe he's going to ask us about. Did we use our blessings to help and uplift others, to make the world a better place? Or, did we use them to put other people down, to persecute, and for mainly selfish reasons? The other thing, from a religious perspective, that comes to mind is Matthew 25:40 where the Savior teaches us "Inasmuch as ye have done it unto one of the least of these my brethren, ye have done it unto me." How we treat "the least of these" really reflects our true character.

But even from a completely non-religious perspective, following the Golden Rule simply makes the world a better place. Most people like to be treated well by others, so it makes sense to dish out what you'd like to receive. The old adage "what goes around comes around" is so true in many aspects of life, including how we treat people and how we use our talents.

So yeah, you won't find me obsessing about some celebrity or trying to track their every move, though I do follow some on Twitter and Instagram. Like I said, they're a human being, I'm a human being. I respect their talent and recognize the greatness, but that doesn't mean I elevate that person to something above everyone else. I follow a few on Facebook, Twitter, and Instagram, but only those that seem like good people. I mentioned in my last post how many replies I saw from Phillip Phillips to his fans on Twitter. Even if he doesn't necessarily do those himself (like he has a social media specialist...I honestly don't know...I assume he responds himself), it's still an effort that will totally make someone's day. That says a lot to me about his character. There have been instances where someone I was following started posting largely negative or judgmental stuff, so I stopped following them.

I was reminded of Omar Vizquel, one of the best shortstops ever, when he came to our local Walmart to sign autographs during the Indians' heyday in the mid 1990s. We had stood in line to see another player a few months earlier and I guess we caught him at the end of the day because he looked ready to go. When we met Omar (and we didn't have to wait nearly as long), who was my sister's favorite player, he was really nice. What stuck out to me was my sister brought a copy of this birthday card she had sent to him a little while before and asked if he had gotten it. He said yes (of course I don't really believe that, but I thought it was still cool for him to say that) and then asked if she wanted him to sign it. This was one of those autograph signings where you had to pay to "raise money for charity", so him offering to do that for her was a very nice gesture. It certainly made a great impression on me and is something that totally made my sister's day at the very least.

I have started using the hashtag #CharacterCounts on posts in Twitter, Instagram, and Facebook when I see something that I think is a good example of character or for someone I'm following that I feel has positive character traits, at least as far as I can see. That doesn't mean I think that person is perfect, it just means I appreciate the fact that they're a good person (or at least appear to be) and don't use their talents and abilities to bring other people down and don't scoff at all the "fans" that admire them for whatever reasons. I've used it on inspirational-type posts, family-oriented posts, gratitude posts, or just fun posts. I have no idea if anyone else has used that hashtag before, but I hope others follow. In the end, if we want the world to be a better place, it starts with each of us and what we are willing to support and sharing that with others. Sounds hokey, but it's true. And yes, I realize that someone's Twitter or Instagram persona could be a total facade, but it's all most of us have to go on. We can at least support the positive.

Oh, and if you have no idea what a "hashtag" is, that's social media lingo for a word or phrase after the "#" symbol. When you put that in a comment or post, if someone clicks on the hashtag, everything that has that tag (and is publicly visible) will show up. So, when I put #charactercounts on something, if you click on that on Twitter, Instagram, or Facebook, you'll be able to see anything public that also has that tag on it.

Some of the "celebrities" or otherwise somewhat known people I follow that I have found to be courteous, responsive, and generally good people include Jason Kipnis, Mile Aviles, Yan Gomes, and Nick Swisher of the Cleveland Indians, Rob Gronkowski and Julien Edelmen (Edelmen went to Kent State) of the New England Patriots, Joey Bosa and Jeff Heuerman of the Ohio State football team, Coach Rob Senderoff, Chris Ortiz, and Blake Vedder of the Kent State men's basketball team, Coach Danielle O'Banion of the KSU women's basketball team, Mike Rowe of the show Dirty Jobs, Fashion designer and KSU alum Suede, Navy SEAL Chris Heben, and fitness/bodybuilding figures Ryan Smith, Greg Clausen, Brandan Fokken, Linda Durbesson, Joey Swoll, Josh Halladay, Gary Strydom, Con Demetriou, and Larry Morrison. There are several others I could list here too, but in all of these, I enjoy reading their various posts (whether they be uplifting, interesting, or just hilarious) on the different social media, and in the cases of those I have interacted with, it's been very positive.

#ChatacterCounts!

Roosevelt to the Suburban

Most of you who know me know that I take an interest in high school sports. I wouldn't call it an obsession, but I do attend high school sporting events fairly regularly and keep tabs on the happenings in the high school sports world. Playing along with my history interests, I'm also interested in the history of high school sports, and was recently referenced in an article in the local Record-Courier about the long-standing rivalry between Theodore Roosevelt High School in Kent and Ravenna High School.

The biggest news recently, outside the Kent-Ravenna game this past weekend, was the announcement that Roosevelt will be leaving the Portage Trail Conference (PTC) and joining the Suburban League in all sports. The initial announcement said it would be in 2016, but seeing as every other school has indicated 2015, I won't be surprised to see that change for Roosevelt either. As the announcement has come about, I've noticed a lot of the same questions in comments, the biggest, of course, is why? Also, people are wondering about the rivalry with Ravenna.

First, in addressing why, the answer mainly lies in the issue of competitive balance. Money is somewhat of an issue, but not in terms of making more money, but rather spending less. Athletic conferences in Ohio are designed to make sure schools have regular scheduling partners who are of similar size and relatively close distance. The move from the PTC to the Suburban doesn't really represent much of a change in travel costs--in reality it will probably increase travel costs slightly--but it does represent a change in competitive balance.

The Suburban League, in its new configuration, will be set up the same way the PTC is: two divisions that are determined by a school's enrollment. As enrollment numbers change, a school's position can also change. In theory this works, but in reality, what I've seen so far is the break between the "big school" and "small school" divisions isn't usually that big, so the schools at the bottom of the "big school" division are often better suited for the "small school" division or vice versa. In the PTC, though, you have Roosevelt well ahead of any other school in enrollment. Typically, Roosevelt is around 1,300 students while the next largest school is around 900 (that can be Ravenna, Norton, Springfield, or Coventry, all of which are roughly the same size). Roosevelt is nearly twice the size of Crestwood and Field, which have about 700-750 students each. In the new Suburban League, the enrollments will be much closer. All of the schools in the "small school" division, of which Roosevelt will be a member, are between 900 and 1,300. Copley, Cloverleaf, Barberton, Highland, and Revere are all schools with over 1,000 students while Aurora and Tallmadge are both around 900.

Why does that matter? While having more students is no guarantee a school will always have better sports teams, mathematically, it means that in most years, they likely will. More students means a larger pool of talent. Sure, you'll always have smaller schools that buck the trend or that have a particularly talented group of athletes come through every so often. But in the long run, there is a much better chance that the large school will be more competitive more often. That is why the state divides sports into divisions based on enrollment, so more schools have the opportunity to play for state championships against similar schools.

In football, where there are 7 divisions now (the number of divisions depends on the sport), with the largest schools being Division I and the smallest in Division VII. Ohio uses a computer system to determine who makes the playoffs. Within each division are 4 regions and within those regions, the teams are given computer points. While winning always gets a team those valuable computer points, beating a team from a smaller division means you get less because the computer expects the larger school to beat the smaller school. This was most evident in 2010, when Roosevelt and Ravenna were both in Division II for football (which is not the case this year). Despite Ravenna beating Roosevelt head-to-head and winning the PTC Metro that year, Ravenna missed the playoffs, finishing 9th (top 8 qualify) just behind Roosevelt. Roosevelt's early-season wins over Division I Stow and Division II Kenston off-set Ravenna's wins over smaller schools by just the slightest, but enough to send one to the playoffs and not the other.

Those football points, right now, largely work against Roosevelt since it is the largest school in the PTC. This year and next, it will be the only Division II football school while the rest are all Division III. It's not an issue if the team goes 9-1 or 10-0 or even 8-2 (this year they are 4-1 thus far). But 7-3 and 6-4 records will look a lot better to the computers coming against fellow Division II schools like Copley and Barberton than they will against Division III schools like Crestwood and Field.

Another aspect of the size differential is the additional sports that don't have a home in the PTC. Roosevelt has almost 30 varsity teams. Boys volleyball, boys and girls lacrosse, boys and girls swimming & diving, girls golf, ice hockey, and girls field hockey all play in other leagues because not enough (or any) schools in the PTC have teams. Playing in other leagues increases transportation costs for most of the sports because the teams generally have to go outside the area of the PTC to find leagues to participate in. A move to the Suburban will find homes for most of the above listed sports, with the exception of ice hockey. Of the sports listed above, the only other PTC schools to have them are Crestwood with boys and girls swimming & diving and Southeast with a girls golf team.  For all the others, Roosevelt is the only PTC school to offer that sport.

So, what happens after this? The first question most people have is in regards to the rivalry with Ravenna. In the new Suburban League, Roosevelt will have 7 league games and 3 open spots for non-league games. I have to believe that Stow will remain one of those 3 (Stow is also joining the Suburban League, but will be in the large school division, so the game won't count as a league game) just because of the money aspect. Stow coming to Kent and especially Kent going to Stow is a huge money-maker for both schools' athletic departments, so I don't see it ending anytime soon as long as it remains competitive.

The same is largely true with the Ravenna game. It is still competitive and will likely remain a revenue-producer for both schools for some time. While the magnitude of the game may lessen by the schools not being in the same conference (meaning you won't have a game like 2011 that decided the PTC Metro title), there will always be the long-standing rivalry between the two communities regardless of whether or not it's a conference game.  The only way I could see the Kent-Ravenna rivalry ending is if it becomes non-competitive. Even if that would happen, it would likely take a very long period of domination by one school to bring an end to the football rivalry. In other sports, I think Roosevelt will continue to schedule Ravenna as non-league, again, because of the overall rivalry and the interest it generates. About the only change might be just one meeting in basketball each season instead of two, but anything is possible.

This move will affect other rivalries too. I would say a rivalry was definitely developing between Roosevelt and Field in several sports and also with Streetsboro, at least in boys basketball. I anticipate both of those rivalries will come to an end, though Streetsboro may remain a boys basketball non-league game (which it has been for a number of years and likely will be again this year since Streetsboro is back in the PTC County). I don't see Roosevelt scheduling Field in sports beyond Cross Country and Track if at all, which is how it used to be before the formation of the PTC.

Conversely, I definitely foresee a rivalry developing with Tallmadge. Right now, Tallmadge's big rival is Green, but Green is leaving the Suburban (which is what largely caused this all in the first place), plus Green isn't adjacent to Tallmadge like Kent is. While I don't see a rivalry with Tallmadge ever eclipsing Ravenna, I easily see it becoming a strong one, especially from the perspective of Tallmadge since they will have no true rival and if both remain competitive in football. Tallmadge and Roosevelt were longtime members of the old Metro League until 1990 and periodically play each other in boys basketball and a few other sports.

Barberton is another old rival that Roosevelt knows well. Barberton was a member of the old Metro League and then the WRC South, so it's only been 8 years since the two were league rivals. While there has never been a fierce rivalry with Barberton on the level of Ravenna or even Stow, there was clearly a rivalry between the two in their old Metro and WRC days, though seeing as the old Metro only had 5 teams at the time it finally merged to form the WRC, every team had a rivalry of sorts with the other. Barberton also has some of the most intense fans in the area (especially for basketball) and travels well. When the PTC was looking to expand about a year ago to replace Windham and East Canton, I was hoping Barberton would join, but the PTC ended up not expanding at all.

That leads to the next topic: what's next for the PTC? As I said, the PTC avoided expansion two years ago when Windham and East Canton announced they were leaving, mostly because there weren't a lot of viable alternatives. It's clear the PTC doesn't want any larger schools, but instead, seems to want to add smaller schools so that Southeast, Streetsboro, and Woodridge can all be bumped into the Metro Division. Right now, in addition to the gap between Roosevelt and the rest of the Metro, there is a noticeable gap between Southeast, Streetsboro, and Woodridge and the rest of the County Division. In other words, Roosevelt leaving may be a blessing in terms of organization and achieving the balance the PTC wants.

Two smaller schools in Geauga County, Cardinal and Berhshire, have already been mentioned as possibilities since those two are leaving the Chagrin Valley Conference soon and have expressed interest. Even if that happens, it still leaves one more opening. When the PTC debated replacing Windham and East Canton, 4 schools applied: Northwest in southern Summit County, St. Thomas Aquinas in Louisville, Lake Center Christian School, and Barberton. Barberton is off to the Suburban again, so they're obviously not in the picture, and Northwest would likely be in the Metro Division. Lake Center Christian would be the smallest school in the PTC, but they don't have a football team, which makes them rather unattractive. The problem St. Thomas Aquinas presents is that they're a private school, so my guess is that other PTC County Division schools would feel (and likely be) at a disadvantage against St. Thomas since St. Thomas can draw from a much wider pool of talent even if they have a similar-sized enrollment as other PTC County schools.

Although the PTC area is almost surrounded by smaller school districts, most of them are in conferences that are stable, so there is no pressing need to change affiliations. With that in mind, it may be difficult for the PTC to get back to 16 teams. They could still function at 15 and have the County with 7 and the Metro with 8. While less than ideal for scheduling, it is hardly impossible, and it would largely solve the enrollment disparity that currently exists in both divisions.

Overall, I hope it's obvious that I think this move is a good move for Roosevelt, the PTC, and the Suburban League. The Suburban League was having some enrollment disparities of its own, so this allows them to address that on both ends. For Roosevelt, it allows them to compete and associate with schools that are more similar than those in the PTC, not only in terms of enrollment, but also facilities, and gives more sports a home league. For the PTC, it allows them to also address the enrollment disparity in both divisions. People forget that Roosevelt wasn't in the initial wave of invitations that brought about the PTC from the old Portage County League. It was only after Roosevelt was faced with the option of staying in the old WRC and having to deal with increased travel costs and being the smallest school in the league that they pursued membership in the PTC. Had Barberton not left the WRC when it did, I don't think Roosevelt would've either.

30 Things Ohioans Love?

Many of you have read the Buzzfeed "article" going around Facebook called "30 Things Ohioans Love", written by a New Yorker (I'm assuming New York City as opposed to someone from elsewhere in New York state) who went to college in Ohio and is dating an Ohioan. I thought I'd evaluate his/her various "discoveries" based on my own experience living in Ohio for pretty much my entire life :). Overall, there weren't that many I found that were uniquely Ohio or they were regional to part of the state but not the entire state. It would be interesting to find out where this person went to college in Ohio and where the person he/she is dating is from. Probably the biggest mistake is assuming that Ohio is rather homogeneous when it really isn't. Each section of the state has its own local customs, sayings, dialect, and preferences that can vary greatly.

1. Ohio State football

Ohio State vs. Toledo in Cleveland, 2009

I'd say that's a pretty accurate assessment, though it's not universal. Places that you'll find some animosity towards Ohio State football include Athens (home of Ohio University), Cincinnati (home of the University of Cincinnati), and Toledo (just south of the Michigan border and not far from the campus of the University of Michigan), though even in those places you still have many OSU fans. It's similar in many other states that have a large flagship public university or with Mormons and BYU (though not THIS Mormon!), or Catholics and Notre Dame.  But yelling "O-H!"and getting "I-O!" back is pretty common. I had that happen to me in Salt Lake City when I was walking in the airport with my Ohio State sweatshirt on. Someone passed me and yelled "O-H!" and it took me a second to realize what they did and then I yelled back "I-O!"

2. Being a Swing State
I definitely enjoy the fact that Ohio is a swing state. Sure, it means we get TONS of political ads running for months on end and a seemingly endless stream of visits from candidates, but still, it's nice to feel like your vote really matters. Part of that is because Ohio doesn't have a dominant metro area like New York (NYC) or Illinois (Chicago), so you have a balance of rural vs. urban and a pretty even balance of conservative vs. liberal. I'm sure a lot of Ohioans, though, would rather not be in a swing state so that they don't get robocalls every 5 minutes for months before an election.

3. Ranch dressing
I fail to see how this is unique to Ohio or that Ohio has some kind of unusual affinity to Ranch dressing. I've lived in 3 other states and visited every one of them except California, Alaska, Hawaii, and Delaware, and have never noticed anything different. I mean, I like Ranch dressing, but hardly exclusively, and I've seen it in peoples' homes all over. According to this article, Ranch dressing is the top-selling salad dressing in the US, and has been since 1992, so while many of us Buckeyes do love Ranch, so does most of the rest of the country.

4. Hating LeBron
I am certainly not a fan of LeBron, but I wouldn't call that "hating". It's more because he plays for a different team than anything else. That said, I'm not really a fan of any specific player to the point I follow them if they change teams. For the most part, I think most Ohioans are indifferent to it all, particularly in his hometown of Akron where he has a fair amount of support because of charitable causes he participates in there. There is still a fair amount of animosity over how he left, but mainly with sports fans and not everyone here is a sports fan by any stretch.

5. Mountain Dew
I've seen people drinking Mountain Dew all over the country. Hardly anyone I know drinks it (LDS or not), and I certainly don't. I have never noticed any unusual love affair with Mountain Dew in Ohio. If anything, I've noticed more teenagers and college students drinking it.

6. Referring to random parts of random towns and cities as "downtown"

Downtown Kent...it's not Manhattan, but it's still
a downtown!

For the most part, Ohioans follow the national norm of calling the central business district of a town "downtown", though sometimes it is misapplied, particularly in typical suburbs that never developed around a central business district (local examples of that are Stow and Streetsboro, though I have only rarely heard people refer to the centers of those places as a "downtown"). Many of the older smaller towns, Kent included, do have central business districts that have higher density and mixed use zoning, and are often referred to as downtown. But that's not unique to Ohio by any means and is fairly standard across the US and Canada. See Wikipedia: Downtown.

7. Sperrys
I have never owned nor wish to own Sperrys, and to be honest, didn't really know what they were called until I read this. I guess I have seen a lot here, but haven't noticed anything unusual or higher than any other place. I seem to associate them with certain types of people (very laid back, easy-going) rather than places. Maybe they had a lot where the author went to school or are popular with college-aged people?

8. Donatos
This is a regional thing, not a state thing. I am familiar with Donatos, but rarely ever have pizza from them because they don't have a location near where I live. I can list several other national and local pizza chains that are probably more popular than Donatos, at least in my experience, so I'm guessing this was another item more specific to where this person went to school or he/she was just around big fans of Donatos.

9. American-made cars
Maybe because I have a Honda, but I seem to notice quite a bit of foreign-made cars here, though it should be noted even many of the "imports" are manufactured either in the US or in North America (my Honda was manufactured in Canada). It would be interesting if there were a survey done of what kinds of cars people drive and if Ohio actually does have a higher percentage of American cars. We do have assembly plants for Ford, Chrysler, and GM in northern Ohio, but we also have a Honda assembly plant in central Ohio. Again, not something I've really noticed a major difference. In my own family, only my grandparents on both sides have American-made cars (Ford and GM) and my dad has a GM. The rest of us have Hondas, a Hyundai, and a Kia.

10. Defending the Cleveland Browns

I don't know if I'd call it "defending" the Cleveland Browns as much as it is just being a fan. We definitely have lots of loyal fans here for the Browns. Hope springs eternal every fall. But that is certainly not true in southern Ohio, which is Cincinnati Bengals territory. Parts of Ohio closer to Pittsburgh obviously have more Steelers fans, and NW Ohio has its share of Lions fans too. I would never say the Browns are "Ohio's Team" by any stretch.

11. Chinese buffets
I'm not really a fan of Chinese, so I don't go to buffets all that often. Again, this is something I can't say I've seen anything abnormal here, but who knows?

12. Dating their high school sweetheart far into college… or, eventually, just marrying them
The author must've known several people who did this. I know of some, but they're not all from Ohio. I know just a few from my own class who dated in high school and continued and got married eventually, but I also know people from other states who have done the same thing.

13. Cedar Point

Cedar Point, 2010

Yes, Ohioans love Cedar Point, but so do lots of people from around the country as Cedar Point is one of the most visited amusement parks in the US. Ohioans also love Kings Island near Cincinnati.

14. Referring to soda strictly as "pop"
I am one of those who generally use the term "pop", but my mom says "soda" and I know many people here that also use soda or they interchange "soda" and "pop" regularly (I do that sometimes). As this map shows, it's hardly unique to Ohio to use "pop" by any means...in fact, it's fairly common across the northern US.

15. Most restaurant chains (namely: Panera, Olive Garden, Chipotle, and Outback. I could go on.)
I'm guessing that since the author is from New York, he/she generally has a local place or places they frequent. In most of Ohio, and most other places outside large cities like New York, you generally don't have lots of local choices. But that's not unique to Ohio by any means (New York is hardly void of restaurant chains) and varies from place to place. Even here in Kent, we have several local places or regional chains. In all my travels around the country, mostly by car, I haven't noticed anything unusual about restaurant chains in Ohio or Ohioans preferences.

16. Their high school

If you ever see this picture out on the web, I took it in 2009!
Rah rah for Roosevelt!

I think, for the most part, this is pretty valid, though, again, it's not that unique to Ohio. I have found that many Ohioans do keep tabs on their high school and feel like it was a good place, but isn't that what we want? Even so, I would say most of the people from my own class are completely detached from high school. Some communities are more into their respective high schools than others (usually smaller communities are more into them, but that's typical across the country). I certainly fall into that, but a lot of that is because I live in the town I grew up in, so it's easy to do (same with my college). I would say Ohioans are more into high school sports collectively than most other states.

17. Wearing athletic clothing while having no intention of working out
I'll have to watch for this. I wear what, I guess, could be considered "workout clothing" when I do yardwork, but mostly in the summer because it is lighter. Workout clothing for me, though, is typically gym shorts and a t-shirt. I've seen people in the stores here in what could be considered "workout clothing", but I just assume they're coming from or headed to some kind of workout or other use for it. Since I don't follow people around, I can't comment if they actually work out or not.

18. Chicken bacon ranch pizza and sandwiches
I have never had chicken bacon ranch pizza (I like bacon, but don't really get it on my pizza very often) and have only had the chicken bacon ranch sandwich from Subway once several years ago when it first came out. I'd say buffalo chicken is more popular, but that's my observation and preference. Come to think of it, I can't even think of even seeing chicken bacon ranch pizza until I read the article, and I live in a college town!

19. Drive-thrus in general
That's typical for just about any suburban area, so I guess it would be accurate that Ohioans love drive-thrus, but so does pretty much the entire US.

20. Saying “you’re fine” instead of “no problem” or “no worries”
This is true, though, I say "no problem" and "no worries" quite frequently. I do hear "you're fine" quite often, but haven't noticed it only in Ohio.

21. Skyline Chili
Skyline Chili is mainly in central and southern Ohio. I had never even heard of it until recently when I met some friends in the Cincinnati area at a Skyline Chili there and had a nice lunch (I actually got a wrap...I'm not a chili person). There are a few Skyline Chili locations in northern Ohio now (4 in the Cleveland area including Stow and one in NW Ohio in Lima), but it's still mainly found in the Columbus area and south and is based in Cincinnati. According to the Wikipedia article, Skyline also has locations in Indiana, Kentucky, and Florida.

22. Cornhole
It does seem popular here, so I guess it's accurate. I'm not really a fan of it, but will play it. It seems more popular with college-age and high school-aged people, though.

23. Claiming to live in a city but really living in a suburb

Yep, it's a city, like it or not!

I'm not totally sure what this means, whether it's a case of people saying they live, for instance, in Cleveland but they really live in Westlake, or a case of calling Westlake a city. Both aren't unique to Ohio. I frequently hear people say they are from a larger city, but if you ask "which part?" then they mention the more specific suburb. As for "city" vs. "suburb", a suburb often is a city, not a big city, but a city nonetheless, at least in Ohio and in the broader sense of the word. Since the author is from New York I'm not all that surprised that they make the difference, but in Ohio, any municipality over 5,000 residents is considered a "city" even if it doesn't have a central business district or is anything beyond a bedroom community. In some states, places with even just a few hundred people can be classified as a "city" since it often carries different legal definitions. "City" itself is a very ambiguous term that varies across the world and even in the US.

24. "The range"
I have never gone to and don't know anyone who goes to the range (based on the picture the author uses, I'm assuming they meant shooting range). I know people who regularly go to a driving range for golf, but not a shooting range. I'm guessing it's more of a rural thing. I can't even tell you where the nearest shooting range is off the top of my head.

25. Referring to sneakers strictly as “tennis shoes” or “tennys”
My experience has been that athletic shoes are often referred to as "tennis shoes". I hear "sneakers" a lot for shoes in general, though it's not a word I use very often since my shoes are running shoes. If I had sneakers, I'd probably just call them my shoes and then differentiate from my "running shoes". I usually call my black dress shoes "church shoes". I have never heard the term "tennys" used.

26. Graeter's Ice Cream
I had to look this one up because I've never even heard of it. Turns out, like Skyline Chili, it's based in Cincinnati, which would explain why I haven't run into it here in northern Ohio. It does have some Cleveland area locations, but none of them are anywhere close. My favorite local chain is Katie's Korner, which has a few locations in the areas around Youngstown, Ohio, including Kent.

27. Going to the beach aka Lake Erie

Lake Erie beach in Euclid, Ohio, 2013

In my experience, most people who go to the beaches along Lake Erie live fairly close to the lake (like within an hour). Many of the beaches, though, aren't bad, which is true for many of the Great Lakes, though some are rather rocky. I visited the Indiana Dunes a few weeks ago on the shore of Lake Michigan, and it was just like any ocean beach except the waves were a bit smaller (though that largely depends on the wind).

28. Referring to vacuums as “sweepers”
My grandma does this (she also calls gas stations "filling stations"), but it isn't a term that my mom adopted or that I use. Most people I know, myself included, call it a vacuum, though I do hear "sweeper" somewhat regularly. I've always considered it kind of an archaic term. If you want a unique Ohio term, try "devil strip" for the strip of grass between the sidewalk and the road. That's pretty localized to Akron and the general vicinity. Many here also call it the "tree lawn".

29. Wendy's
I enjoy going to Wendy's, but can't say I go there any more frequently than other places when I get fast food. Yes, it's based in Ohio, but it's everywhere in the US. I can't say I've noticed any greater affinity for Wendy's here than anywhere else. Maybe in Columbus where it's based... (it's actually in suburban Dublin, Ohio).

30. Being "the birthplace of aviation"

My idea for a plate

I'm actually not a fan of that slogan, though I don't think it's out of place or wrong or even questionable. The Wright Brothers were from Ohio and did a lot of their preparations for the first flight in Dayton. They chose Kitty Hawk, North Carolina because of the favorable winds and other factors, and likely slightly warmer weather since it was done in mid December. Even so, I think most Ohioans are tired of that slogan and never really identified with it. For whatever reasons, whoever's in charge of that at the BMV really likes the slogan.  I've found a lot more love for the previous slogan "the heart of it all!" I made my own license plate that draws on the many aviation and space pioneers that have come from Ohio, particularly the first person on the moon Neil Armstrong.

There you have it. I guess I was disappointed that many of the things the author attributed to Ohioans weren't unique to Ohio at all or were localized to parts of the state (in these cases, central and southern Ohio), at least in my experience, but it did stop and make me think about the many wonderful and crazy things we do in this state and why.

Profile pictures

In case you haven't noticed, I never change my Facebook profile picture to the latest movement, which most recently was the pink equal sign on a red background. Now, before you jump to conclusions (and really, if you know me, it shouldn't be of any surprise), I long ago decided that my profile picture would always be me and just me. That's right, you won't see a profile picture on my page of any movement, team, cartoon, or even a group shot. Why? Well, I want people to know it's me they're looking for when they find my profile, not have to guess who I am based on a symbol or which person I am in a given group picture. So yes, you can always count on my Facebook profile picture (or any profile I have) to be of me and no one else. To each his or her own, but that's how I do it.

I definitely have considered it, so I was very happy Facebook introduced the "cover photo" option. That way I can put a group shot up or use a picture from an interest while still having my profile picture of me. I have put cover photos of my family, the Titanic, Kent, my sports teams, patriotism, etc. I typically stay away from movements or causes, though, because first, I see personal opinion things like that as very private, and second, they tend to just be lightning rods for debate, often between my "friends" who don't necessarily know each other. I'm happy to discuss my opinions one-on-one or here on the blog where I can really explain what I feel and why. Facebook tends to not be a place where we can go into greater detail. I mean, honestly, how many of us see a long post and skip over it? How many of you have done that on some of my long posts? Bottom line is, the people that really want to know will come read the blog or message me. Most of my Facebook friends are people I know in real life and many of them know me pretty well. I want Facebook to be something I enjoy checking once in awhile, not something I dread because I have to sit down and respond to a bunch of comments about this or that (especially negative comments).

I used to be very expressive on Facebook about anything, but over time I have moved away from posting or even commenting on most things political or otherwise controversial. In the end, I found I didn't enjoy getting on Facebook to find out if anyone responded and half the time, the responses were from people I didn't know or care about in any way, or people just took what I said completely out of context or applied a tone of voice in their heads that was never there. I was also disappointed when I noticed some "friends" would drop me because of a disagreement. I always try to disagree civilly and respectfully. Apparently, though, I have had Facebook friends that would rather not associate with me simply because we see a certain issue (or issues) differently. Whatever. That's their choice. I still use Facebook to express opinions here and there or just to vent, and recognize when others are using it for similar purposes. Hey, in the end, if you don't like what someone posts regularly, either end the "relationship" or just filter out their posts. I just find it somewhat ironic when people complain about others using Facebook to...well...complain. I tend to just filter out posts if I find I don't enjoy reading them (like overly political, constantly negative, inappropriate or tasteless, or endless random pictures), rather than deleting the connection.

Tragedy in Connecticut

Like just about everyone, I am definitely aware of what happened Friday morning at Sandy Hook Elementary School in Newtown, Connecticut.  I was actually subbing at one of the area high schools when I found out online.  It has been weighing on my mind as I've read the still-developing reports from the various news agencies and reading the many MANY Facebook status updates and comments that have been rolling in all day.  I'm writing this more to put my thoughts in some kind of order and hope that maybe they can help anyone reading this to find a little sense to this.

Of course first, all I can feel is absolute grief, especially for the families of the students killed.  While I am not a parent, I am a teacher, plus I have two young nephews and a new niece, so I certainly know the love and concern I have for their individual well-beings.  I also empathize with the feeling of realizing that a loved one, especially a child, isn't coming home, and the absolute despair that would bring to me.  For all those affected, but especially the parents of these kids and the families of those who lost loved ones, I can offer my thoughts and prayers of comfort.  I wish there was more I could do to ease grief like that, but there isn't.  Anyone who's been through the loss of a loved one knows this; there's always that part of you missing even after you get used to their absence.  Plus, that feeling of grief lingers long after the funerals and most of the expressions of sympathy dwindle, which makes it even more difficult.  While it may be a ways off, I pray that these families and those that remain do eventually find some comfort and peace even though I know things will never be "the same".

I've also thought a lot about the gunman.  From what I've gathered so far, it was a 20 year-old who first killed his mother and then went to the school and murdered kids in 2 classrooms and several other staff members before killing himself or somehow being killed.  What possessed him to do that is beyond me.  I do not know how anyone could look at a child of any age and hurt them in anyway, let alone shoot a gun at one to kill them.  Clearly something was wrong mentally, but what, exactly, remains to be seen.  I've read some expressions from people that they feel he "got off easy" since he is already dead.  From my Latter-day Saint perspective, I can tell you he certainly did not get off easy.  I suppose to people who don't believe in any kind of afterlife it may seem so; I can understand their feelings.  But for me, my understanding of what comes after death--and that death is simply a step in our much larger existence--tells me that not only will he face consequences, but he will (or already has) had to face each and every person he has taken the life of.  He will experience the grief he has caused so many people who remain.  So no, just because we do not get to witness the consequences he will face doesn't mean he won't get them or that they're somehow more enjoyable than being in prison and getting a lethal injection at some point.  If you believe in God and believe in an afterlife, then you know that God will take care of it and in a perfectly just and fair way (a concept which we as imperfect human beings really don't understand).

The scripture that has come to my mind several times has been Mark 9:42 (which can be cross-referenced to Matthew 18:6 and Luke  17:2): "And whosoever shall offend one of these little ones that believe in me, it is better for him that a millstone were hanged about his neck, and he were cast into the sea."  Killing in cold blood is bad enough.  Killing an innocent child, to me, is pretty much the absolute worst act a person can commit.

I've definitely been thinking a lot of the families directly involved in this and the whole concept of help.  Those of you who follow me on Facebook have most likely seen my posts about sending cards and even a few about some other charitable endeavors that have come up around the country.  I've come to the conclusion that the vast majority of the people who are spearheading these various things and promoting them to others haven't been through any kind of traumatic event themselves to know how best to help.  I'm sure that's not 100% true, but I've definitely wondered about it and that's what it seems to me.  I certainly don't fault their charitable desire to want to help.  I question, however, the best use of our own resources and abilities to help and, more importantly, if what many people are doing is actually helping at all.  It's perfectly normal in a situation like this that we feel helpless and frustrated to want to do something.  That's why we see these candlelight vigils, ribbons, memes, and other public displays of sympathy and solidarity across the country and world.  People want to show they do care and that's perfectly normal.  Really, though, the vast majority of those kinds of things are far more to comfort ourselves than anything else.  They make the participants feel better about the world and humanity when they see people come together in such a way.  I'm not someone who gets into very public displays of sympathy (this blog post is about my max) because of my own experiences in traumatic events, but even so, I certainly am not opposed to those kinds of things, even if I don't really think they're the best ways to help.  The best things that helped me were when someone asked me what I needed rather than assuming what they thought I needed or just said things like "best wishes", "call me if you need anything", or something to that effect.  That's what I'm seeing a lot here. People have wonderful and kind intentions of wanting to help, but they're thinking more along the lines of what they think these people need as opposed to anything they may have asked for or from their own personal experience in a traumatic situation.

What's my best solution for help?  Besides thoughts and prayers, money.  Yes, money.  I know people want to give something "more personal" than money, but when you are dealing with the mental stress from trauma, having to sort through more "stuff" from people is the last thing you want to do.  Having money gives the person in need some flexibility and allows them to make the choices on how to use it to best meet their needs.  Depending on the situation, more money may be needed to replace lost items or pay for unexpected bills.  And while it could be argued that simply giving them money also creates more work for them (they have to go out and buy what they need), I'd say that argument is weak since first, you can buy just about anything online these days, and second, being able to go out and pick out stuff that person actually wants can be a nice distraction.  In some cases it may be as simple as allowing them to go out for a nice dinner or two with family; in other cases, it may be as much as replacing an entire house full of things.  Either way, you can never really go wrong with money.  In this case, funds have already been set up to help the families deal with the costs associated with medical care and funerals, as well as other needs that may arise.  The United Way of Western Connecticut set up a fund with the Newtown Savings Bank that people can donate to online or by sending a check.  I know of at least one fund set up for the family of one of the victims and I would assume there are other similar funds set up by friends and relatives of other victims' families.  Be cautious in any kind of donation process that the cause and organization is legit.  It is not a crime to ask some questions before making a decision to donate money or other resources.  Make sure it's not only legit, but also what you would consider worthwhile.  For those of you who have gone through traumatic experiences, what helped you the most?  What didn't help at all?

And don't forget the family of the shooter.  They've lost a mother and a brother in the most horrific way possible, through no fault of their own.  On top of that, they now must not only live with the loss of their own loved ones, but also with the knowledge that the actions of a loved one has led to so much grief and sorrow for others.

I have additional thoughts about the whole debate regarding guns, gun control, mental health, and the 2nd amendment, but that will take an entire blog post of its own.  Suffice it to say, I don't think additional gun control measures will really do anything to prevent something like this and when I hear people say "we need more gun control", it's empty rhetoric to me.  What exactly does that mean?  What additional measures could be added that would have any kind of positive effect?  Are you aware of the laws and regulations already in place?  "More gun control" to me is ambiguous, akin to "fair share" that we've been hearing so much in the media.  

Respect

I'm going to start this off with a disclaimer: this isn't directed at any one specific person.  As is the case for just about anything I blog about, there have been several instances with a variety of people in these regards; recent occurrences were simply the most recent events, so I decided to blog about the general theme behind them, but not a specific incident.  I guess they could be considered the "straws that broke the camel's back" or just the most recent "incidents".

Facebook and social networking in general have been remarkable inventions in the last few years that have really revolutionized how we interact with each other and even how we express ourselves.  With very simple acts, we can share opinions, news, memories, etc. with all sorts of connections in our lives, some very close connections and some not-so-close.  But with that ease of communication comes the ease of passing less-than-accurate and sometimes mean-spirited information along too.  I've often said that this could easily be called the "Mis-information Age" as much as it can be called the "Information Age".  But it could be called the "Disrespect Age" too.

Everyone has their personal beliefs and preferences.  I get that and respect it.  I have tons of friends who do not share my political, ideological, and/or religious beliefs.  Even with that I'm still friends because we share the same basic values even if we don't have the same beliefs anywhere else.  Growing up in Kent, I was very much the ideological minority as a conservative and as a Latter-day Saint, so it's natural I made friends with many people who see the world in very different ways than I do.  That is not a problem.  I don't mind at all when we have disagreements or even spirited discussions, but I'm always somewhat surprised and disappointed when I see friends via Facebook expressing their views in such a way that it insults someone else's views.  I'm glad I know lots of people with different viewpoints and experiences because it helps me understand them better and not be so quick to lump those that disagree with me on various issues into the "us and them" categories.  I can put actual faces with the various viewpoints and I've found it's much easier to be respectful and patient that way in disagreements.  It also helps me know when to break off an argument and "agree to disagree". 

Now, I'll be the first to say that as a collective society we are offended way too easily.  Brigham Young, likely quoting Confucius, said "He who takes offense when no offense is intended is a fool, and he who takes offense when offense is intended is a greater fool."  So to clarify, when I see something that comes across as deliberately insulting or demeaning, it's not so much that I no longer wish to be associated with the person (unless it's directed solely at me) or that I'm offended so much as I'm disappointed.  Usually it's in the form of sharing an article or a status that has some type of commentary about a group, movement, idea, or belief system that is done in a way to not only show disagreement, but outright disdain.  I always wonder if they realize that they have friends who actually believe that way and with good reason or if they really care.  Sometimes we get that way in actual conversation; you know how you think those around you share the same beliefs so you let your guard down and say things (usually generalizations) about something and then realize that person is part of that. Most of us are horrified and want to apologize for making that person uncomfortable or offended in some way.  Does being sorry for doing that mean you now agree with that person's views?  Hardly.  It just means you realize that disagreeing doesn't have to be so negative and that some things (like a relationship) are more important than expressing our opinion.

One of the biggest downsides of electronic communication versus live communication is that it's much easier to say things online behind our computer screens that would we'd think twice about in person.  Would we be so quick to bash Democrats, Republicans, Tea Party members, Liberals, Progressives, Conservatives, Mormons, Catholics, or whoever in person if we knew someone was in the room (especially if we were speaking to a friend who was one) the way so many do online?  I doubt it.  I'm not really sure why we feel that sensitivity, good manners, and simple politeness don't apply online, but far too many people clearly believe that.  It's to the point with some of my friends that I just filter out their updates.  I still want to be connected to them and touch base when I can, but not see their angry, demeaning, or otherwise insulting commentary on a regular basis.  And no, it's not simply a case of seeing stuff I disagree with; it's a matter of it being presented in a condescending or otherwise insulting way.

I try very hard to present my views without insulting or belittling those who disagree or share the opposing viewpoint, by making it sound like those who disagree with me are merely stubborn or less educated.  I also always include logical reasons for why I believe as I do, not just spouting baseless opinions.  I'm obviously not perfect and have definitely been guilty of getting caught up in the emotion, but I am usually very careful about that. Those of you who know me know that I take it seriously. It IS possible to do all of that.  You CAN even show that you disagree or don't like something without having it come across as insulting to someone who holds the opposite view.  And no, I don't mean we need to "play nice" and pretend we like something we don't or never have an opinion, even a strong opinion.  It's a matter of HOW we express our opinions not that we have them.  That's why I have generally stayed away from saying much of anything political lately on Facebook either as a status update or post or even commenting on others' posts (I will occasionally).   It just surprises me that people would say some of the things they do on Facebook or any type of social media and not care how it may be perceived.  I highly doubt any of them would ever say that in person to anyone, especially someone they consider a friend. And really, how effective is it when you are told you're "less educated" or "narrow minded", etc?  Does it really make you want to listen to that person?  How "educated" or "tolerant" are they if they cannot even express their views without insulting and belittling those that disagree?

It disappoints me the most when I see members of the church using the same mentality on other groups they disagree with or have a bad opinion of that anti-Mormons use in that they speak badly about the church and its doctrine without ever bothering to attend a meeting, discuss it with an actual member, or make any real attempt to understand it.  They go on "what they've read" or "what they've heard." Again, doing any of those things doesn't necessarily mean that you'll agree with whatever group you have a negative impression, but it does mean you'll have a far more realistic and fuller view of them, what they believe, and why.  It just seems like many people behave in such a manner that they believe if you aren't completely hostile to the opposing viewpoint, you will be considered sympathetic to that view.  Yes, it IS possible to be respectful without agreeing in any way with the opposition.  Why is respectful and civil discourse so seemingly difficult?