Adam J. Choit

Here’s the statement Joe Paterno’s family released, in response to the NCAA’s sanctions against Penn State University and their football program.

http://espn.go.com/blog/bigten/post/_/id/53734/paterno-family-statement-on-ncaa-ruling

In anticipation of reading something that would 100% only anger me, I was almost pleasantly surprised after reading this statement that Paterno’s family released.  Almost.   Their statement was well thought out, and does make what appears to be an honest attempt to be sensitive to the victims of Jerry Sandusky’s heinous crimes.

Now having said all that, I love how Paterno’s family complains about a lack of due process, and although perhaps it’d be all daisies and roses had Paterno’s lawyers and surviving family members had more involvement with the NCAA investigation, we must remember that this isn’t a government criminal court case.  It’s the NCAA, the National Collegiate Athletic Association.

What I find most revealing about this statement released is that the Paterno family is outraged about “the process,” but in no way, shape, or form do they outright defend Joe, and proclaim him to be innocent of any wrongdoing.  And do you know why? — Because there’s no way in hell that Paterno didn’t cover up for Sandusky. And Paterno’s family knows this.  Otherwise why wouldn’t they come right out and say “Joe is an innocent man!  And we never even had the chance for a fair shake to clear Joe’s good name!”  Why isn’t this what the family is saying?  Because even they know how ridiculous they’d sound if they said this.

Penn State should live with the sanctions (Click here to read them).  And I’ll give them credit for willingly accepting them (It’s more Paterno’s family who’s expressing the outrage about these sanctions).

Let us remember, it’s only football.  The entire University is not being shut down. Current Penn State students are NOT being deprived of their education.  And while the students and student-athletes currently attending PSU have definitely had unwanted issues to deal with, it’s nothing compared to the victims of Sandusky, the innocent children Joe Paterno (and others within the Penn St community) opted not to protect.  And the football players are free to transfer to other schools.  Correct me if I’m wrong, but it’s the football program that’s taking the hit.  And well, the university will lose some profit as well perhaps.  Boo hoo.

As far as the loss of wins is concerned, I suppose that’s kind of a pointless punishment.  Merely seeing Paterno’s name in the record books doesn’t endorse his actions or lack there of, and if anything, seeing the name serves as a reminder and a warning for future generations.

So yeah, the football players are rightfully free agents. And while current PSU students won’t be enjoying a very good football team/bowl games for a while, in the grand scheme that stuff is just not that big a deal because even if you think the NCAA’s sanctions were too harsh, you can’t deny that they serve as a strong warning to every other institution in this country.

It’s been a while since I posted my last rhyme, and as promised, my latest piece is about the N.D.A.A. (the National Defense Authorization Act). Specifically, I wanted to address really only a couple of sentences (provisions) within this bill, that was signed into law by President Obama right around New Years Eve, 2011.

In a nutshell, in the name of protecting this country from terrorists and terrorism, the President now has the right to order the military to arrest ANYONE, including American citizens, merely on the suspicion of a connection to terrorism. The language in the bill is vague, and potentially dangerous to the future of this country. And not only can the military now arrest any American citizen without just cause, you can be detained without seeing a judge, lawyer, or trial. Detained indefinitely that is.

This is all being done “to protect us” says the President and our politicians who support this heinous legislation (that violates our Constitution). Let me remind you that pretty much all fascist governments throughout history practiced similar policies as this provision in the N.D.A.A. In fact, Adolf Hitler passed similar legislation, legally. This all sets a very dangerous precedent for the future of the country….and the scary part is this legislation overwhelmingly has the support of BOTH the Democratic and Republican parties in this country.

Obviously, I understand why calling Native Americans “Indians” completely makes no sense, and is offensive.  After all, Indians are from India, and you’d think maybe 500 years and a few genocides or so later that the white man would’ve realized this error.  But nope, Columbus thought you were Indians, so to too many people, that’s what you still are –  the few of you still remaining that is.

Now, I don’t mind calling black people African-American, or black, or whatever overwhelmingly is desired by this group of people.  It’s just that in this hyper-politically correct world in which we live, I feel like we sometimes get the absurd notion that just by changing the name of a group of people, it improves their overall situation, so to speak.

Comedian Wanda Sykes actually mentions this in one her of acts, that once the term African-American came along into popularity, the quality of her life was not improved at all…not even in the least bit.  In fact, according to Wikipedia, surveys show “…the majority of Black Americans have no preference for “African American” or “black,” although they have a slight preference for “black” in personal settings and “African American” in more formal settings..”

But the definition of what constitutes a personal setting, and a formal setting can be a bit unclear at times, in my opinion.  If anything, I think what this could mean is that, if you’re not African-American, you’re probably better off playing it safe by just using the term African-American.  But once again, what does this prove exactly?  I mean, in a country where most African Americans don’t care if you call them black, what’s wrong with just using black most of the time, if not all the time?

I think the funniest thing to me about all this, is watching white people get all baffled, not always knowing which term to use.  I love that occasional hesitation in the voice, when a white person has to make it known for whatever reason someone is black.  “Yes, I saw Bob in line.  He was standing right behind that bla–, err I mean African-American man.”  As if you’re going to offend people by saying black, even though it’s a term overwhelmingly no one takes any issue with.

I’m pretty sure that in order to be considered cool, you have to “discover” stuff before other people do.  I’m usually the last to know about something — or just don’t care about whatever it is in the first place.  So being, or becoming cool probably isn’t on the horizon for me anytime soon.

But in general, a lot of humans love to become all dramatic on each other, when one of us hasn’t heard a particular song, or started watching some new tv show yet.  We (the discoverers) take so much pride in this.  We sometimes talk and act like we are the ones actually in the band or something.  I do think it’s admirable to be a fan from the beginning, but I think we can all probably take it down a notch.

Its like, we’ll see someone post a meme on Facebook, and react all— “Will you look at what this fool has posted..I have seen this already.  Like five months ago.  And no one posts those anymore. You loser..How dare you post something I’ve already seen..You are the most unhip person, ever…You should kill yourself.”

Idk, I assume we’ve all encouraged a suicide at one point or another while scrolling through our newsfeed on Facebook. Or maybe it’s just me.  Who knows.

I don’t know if you’ve seen it — that commercial for LegalZoom.com featuring an endorsement from former O.J. Simpson defense attorney and LegalZoom co-founder, Robert Shapiro.  At first I was a bit taken aback.  All my brain heard and saw, were the words “LegalZoom” and “Robert Shapiro.”  After a couple of seconds went by, the name Robert Shapiro rang a bell.  “Hey, isn’t he that guy who helped O.J. get off in the murder trial?  Not Johnnie Cochran.  The other guy.”

Sure, most people probably know Robert Shapiro immediately upon hearing the man’s name, but let me remind you that while it was dubbed “The Trial of the Century,” as a kid, I more or less just saw coverage of the O.J. Simpson murder trial as something that day-after-day just annoyingly interfered with Sports Center’s showing of game highlights.

So anyway, when Shapiro popped up on my TV, I thought to myself, why would I want to work with LegalZoom, a company associated with a man who helped another man essentially get away with murder.  I mean, just because someone is famous, this doesn’t automatically mean he or she is a good fit for selling products and services to the general public.  But after all, this is for LegalZoom and legal services.  So who better to represent an online-lawyering service company than a man who helped a former client literally get away with murder.  So just imagine what they can do for you…

And it’s not that I’m trying to judge Shapiro for his actions (at least not intentionally).  After all, we’re supposed to be entitled to due process and a fair trial.  I say “supposed to be,” given our Federal government’s recent passing of the NDAA (National Defense Authorization Act).  But that’s a topic for another blog, for now just Google “NDAA indefinite detention.”  Because with the NDAA now, even Robert Shapiro might not be able to help you.

After “Where’s My Crosswalk?” has made the rounds on the Internet this week, Fox 11 followed up with a story about this area of Sunset Blvd in Hollywood, CA — between Gardner and Poinsettia by Guitar Center, Sam Ash, & Aroma Cafe.

No mention of me or my video, but hey, at least they’re covering this and helping the cause.

Because there needs to be a crosswalk on Sunset Blvd in Hollywood, CA — between N. Gardner St. & N. Poinsettia Pl. How dare they inconvenience me by making me horseshoe around at the closest, but rather distant traffic light.

It’s not exactly the safest place out there, either.

As some of you may already know, a while back I contacted the L.A. D.O.T. suggesting we need a crosswalk, right near Guitar Center on Sunset Blvd in Hollywood, CA.  Since the city dismissed my suggestion, I made this short documentary which shows very much why a crosswalk is necessary for pedestrian safety.  A crosswalk in this location would actually benefit local economy as well, by making it more convenient for pedestrians to get from business to business.

Please watch & share, help force the city to take action. #wheresmycrosswalk

Believe me, as a full grown human male at 5’7 1/2″ (gotta throw that half in there), I’ve dealt with my fair share of insecurity when it has come to my height.  I’ve pretty much come to terms with the fact that I never was/is/will be a tall person, or even a person of average height for my gender.

This post isn’t specifically intended to attack MaxTall, but it was their commercial I caught the other day, so it is them who has inspired my wrath.  I understand why people want to alter their physical appearances.  Like MaxTall’s site says, being taller (or improving whatever it is about your physical appearance) can boost one’s confidence, garner more attention, or even lead to more success in one’s life.  We all want to look our best, and feel our best, but at what point does this all become a joke and a lie?

At least with plastic surgery, there’s a certain level of visible permanence to it, that lets the eye judge the quality of the work.  With shoe lifts, you’re just living a lie.  The commercial for MaxTall is also so over the top.  Basically they show “Mike,” some short dude, standing next to some hot chick, Cindy.  The voice over goes, “Cindy isn’t paying attention to him at all..but watch what happens after Mike adds a couple of inches to his height.”  Then all of a sudden Cindy is interested in his shiz.

BUT WHAT HAPPENS WHEN CINDY FINDS OUT MIKE IS NOT ACTUALLY AS TALL AS HE ORIGINALLY APPEARED TO BE?  She will probably think Mike is an insecure, lame, lying, superficial dude.  Moreover, she’ll be disappointed when she finds out he’s not as tall as she thought he was.  Mike will then reply, “But what about my awesome personality that you liked?  That’s still the same.”  Cindy will then go, “I don’t know.  I just see you in a different light now.” Then Mike will probably say, “Well I guess if you’re hung up on height, then you’re just superficial,” prompting Cindy to reply, “Me superficial?  You’re the one wearing shoe lifts in the first place.”

In order to avoid all this, don’t wear shoe lifts.  And don’t date people like Mike or Cindy.

To follow up on yesterday, here’s another example of an “I’d-sure-think-about-doing-that, but-never-act-upon-it” type of thought.

One of the more popular kind of photos that you see posted on Facebook is a photograph that features a group of 5+ girls in a row, in their outfits — and either out, or ready to go out for the evening.  Because I leave in reality, let me articulate what every heterosexual male thinks when they come across this type of photo with a group of girls in it.  Guys go from left to right, look at each girl, and say to themselves, “Yes.  No. Yes. Maybe. No. No. Yes.”

Now just if only one guy out there (someone probably has I assume) would actually post that as a comment — the whole “Yes. No. Yes. Maybe. No. No. Yes.”  Admittedly, I would never do so, in fear of being labeled an inappropriate judgmental sexist pig.  But if it’s true that we guys already have these thoughts in our head, umm, what does that make all of us?  I guess it’s ok to be an innapropriate sexist pig, as long as you’re only that in your head.

In many cases, I bet girls do the same exact thing.  Surely many wimmens must look at our bro-ish dude pics with us and our friends in them, and think to themselves, “I’d do him, not him, him, not him, him maybe, him for sure.” And the same goes for the gays too, and everyone really when they’re looking at these types of group photos.

Anyway, if I ever see someone post a comment like this on Facebook, I wouldn’t outwardly endorse it (in fact I might condemn it), but at the same time I’d probably laugh and say “wow” in my head.  And if you weren’t a “no” in the photo itself, you might just chuckle in your head as well — and doing so probably wouldn’t make you the worst person in the world.

It’s not always the worst thing in the world to have thoughts/ideas that could be deemed as inappropriate.   In other words, it’s one thing to have devious thoughts, but it’s another thing to share, or even act upon them.  Fortunately, this blog is perhaps the ideal forum in which I can express my “I’d-sure-think-about-doing-that, but-never-act-upon-it” type of thoughts.

I would bet that the average Facebook user has at least a few hundred friends.  This means he or she probably frequently gets invites to events via Facebook.  (I like to often point out somewhat jokingly that without Facebook, I’d never get invited to anything).  Anyway, once in while you’ll see a status like “What’s good tonight?” or “What’s everyone up to tonight?” or “What’s everyone up to for July 4th?”

Once in a while I’m kinda tempted to post something like those statuses mentioned above.  Then I’ll find myself reconsidering, because I usually realize I’ve already been invited to an event by a Facebook friend.  I mean, if that person should read my status, surely they’d think, “Wtf.  Why is this person acting like they have no options, and is looking for something to do?  Is my party not good enough for him?”

Overwhelmingly, most people skip out on events not because it’s a personal thing with the person who invited them.  Even if I were get a Facebook-invite to a circle jerk event that’s taking place two hours from where I live, I still wouldn’t publically announce in a status that I’m looking for something else to do that night.  What can I say.  I guess I’m just too nice, even to the hypothetical circle jerk organizers.

Another “You probably shouldn’t post this on Facebook” post coming soon.