Green Plastic Grass

Happy Easter to everyone who celebrates the occasion!

Easter morning is a time of tradition in most families, including ours. When the day arrives your thoughts naturally turn to the Easters of your childhood when–only after church, naturally–it was time for the Easter basket hunt, when hyped-up kids went tearing around the house in their best Sunday clothes searching for their particular flimsy, brightly colored Easter basket, enticed by the prospect of gorging themselves on Easter candy.

Of course, the hunting wasn’t over when you found your basket. That’s because the basket inevitably was filled with fluorescent green plastic grass that served as a convenient hiding place for a little foil-wrapped chocolate egg or a random jelly bean. If you wanted to be sure that you had found every last bit of Easter candy in the basket–and you surely did–the preferred approach was to remove the main hunk and orphaned strands of fake grass, shake the grass a few times to be sure that you had removed every candy item, and put it on the floor. At our house, this left the floor of the family room coated with a layer of green plastic strands.

The green plastic strands, like the tinsel used to decorate Christmas trees, were not easy to clean up after the frantic chocolate consumption was over. The strands nestled deep in shag carpeting and hid behind chair and sofa legs. At least the strands weren’t charged with static electricity, as tinsel was, but like tinsel the fake plastic grass was not vacuum cleaner-friendly. It typically would get wound around the rolling brush at the vacuum’s intake vent, causing the vacuum to stop picking up debris and overheat and requiring you to carefully extricate each green plastic strand.

Why green plastic grass, and not real grass–or no grass at all? Who knows? The ’60s and ’70s were the height of the plastic era. If future generations ever excavate American landfills, looking for evidence of what life was like in the days gone by, they’ll no doubt find lots of that green plastic grass, and wonder what in the world it was.

Cupboard Campers

Have you ever noticed that some items in your cupboard, once purchased for some long ago, now-unknown reason, never get used? To be sure, they will be moved from time to time, as you search for other things that you know are somewhere in the cupboard, but you’ll never fully haul them out and access the contents. Instead, in the shifting of items, they will inevitably migrate to the rear of the cupboard, where they will camp out and remain forever.

Other items in the cupboard–jars of peanut butter, cans of tomato paste, boxes of pasta, canisters of seasonings, a bag of almonds–are temporary occupants of cupboard space that get consumed and depart, creating a healthy cupboard rotation. There are always a few items that become long-term constants, however, that will be with you until the end of time. And they are misleading, too. They’ll make your cupboard look like it is full, but then when you start sifting through the items you realize there’s really nothing to eat.

For us, the two primary long-term tenants are two bottles of vinegar. The only thing that, to my limited knowledge, vinegar is used for is making pickles–which I hate. The white wine vinegar has never been opened, and the apple cider vinegar looks like it was used once. Most recipes involving vinegar–like this collection–involve using only tiny amounts of it. And that raises another question: why is vinegar sold in such big bottles? It’s as if Heinz wants its vinegar to hang out in your cupboard forever. If you matched container size to actual recipe needs, vinegar would be sold in portions no larger than the tiny liquor bottles you get on airplanes when you order a drink.

All of this raises a question of why we haven’t thrown out that big honker bottle of vinegar. That’s because I’m a big proponent of “waste not, want not” and can’t bring myself to throw out something that could conceivably be useful. Because it’s remotely possible that we could make use of the vinegar at some point, it will remain in the cupboard, stolidly occupying its space in the rear corner, until that improbable day comes.

David’s Dignity

Michelangelo’s David is generally regarded as one of the supreme artistic creations in the history of the world. Housed in the Galleria dell’Accademia in Florence, the colossal statue is breath-taking, magnificent, and inspiring. A visit to see David should be a bucket list item for any art lover.

David was completed in 1504, and in the 700 years since it has become an iconic image. Like any iconic image in the modern world, David has been commoditized. You can buy fluorescent plastic reproductions of the statue, t-shirts of David blowing a bubble or David hoisting a wine glass, or other goods featuring various parts of his body or face. But . . . is that proper? Or, should Italy be able to protect the dignity of this monumental artwork, and prevent it from becoming the subject of the kind of trashy junk sold in souvenir shops?

That’s an important question, because the director of the Galleria dell’Accademia has been using an Italian law to stop commercial exploitation of images of David that she considers to be “debasing.” She has encouraged the state’s attorney office to bring lawsuits under Italy’s cultural heritage code, which protects artistic works from disparaging and unauthorized commercial use. In most countries, artwork falls into the public domain within a set period after the death of the creator–and once a piece falls into the public domain, people are free to make use of its image. Interestingly, Italy is one of many countries that has signed a convention recognizing that approach.

The world obviously doesn’t need more cheap plastic knock-offs of David any more than it needs more t-shirts of the Mona Lisa wearing sunglasses–but there are obvious issues of free expression and free speech that also come into play. Who is to decide what is to be considered “debasing” or disparaging, or what should be authorized? Should Monty Python, for example, have been permitted to use the image of Botticelli’s Birth of Venus in a hilarious and arguably disrespectful way in one of its shows?

I come down on the side of free speech on this issue, and I think the notion of allowing artwork to pass into the public domain within a reasonable period after the artist’s death makes sense. And, at bottom, I really don’t think that the commercial uses of David are “debasing” of the artwork itself. I think that David, the Mona Lisa, Van Gogh’s self-portrait, and other supreme artistic accomplishments can withstand some crass commercial profiteering. If anything, that cheap neon plastic statue of David might just cause someone to want to go see the awe-inspiring original, in all its glory.

Mr. Microphone Messages

The ’70s were a curious time that left a mark on everyone who lived through them. People who were around at that time inevitably sported bad ’70s hair, wore bad ’70s outfits, and know that somewhere out there multiple bad photos provide evidence of those embarrassing facts. Deep down, ’70s survivors carry a lingering fear that some day those photos might be unearthed and shared with their current co-workers and friends–and no one wants that.

But the ’70s impact runs even deeper than just photographic proof of the worst hairstyles and fashion in the last 100 years. Our personalities and psyches have been shaped and scarred by the messages that the ’70s inflicted on people during that strange time.

Consider, for example, the commercial for the Ronco “Mr. Microphone” product, which you can watch here. Once you get past the hair and clothing–which is admittedly difficult–think of how that commercial might have distorted the sensibilities of an innocent yet credulous viewer. Was it considered appropriate, even welcome, to bring a Mr. Microphone to a party and start handing it around to loudmouth partygoers? Would frazzled parents really want you to give a Mr. Microphone to an already loud roomful of raucous kids? Did “professional entertainers” really use Mr. Microphone during rehearsals? And, perhaps most importantly, how would a young woman–who is never seen on camera, incidentally–react if some guy with a bad haircut passed by in a slow-moving convertiblel and said, in a voice amplified by the car radio: “Hey, good lookin’! Be back to pick you up later!”? Was that the kind of smooth banter that was expected of a participant in the ’70s dating scene?

To this day, if you say “hey good lookin’! Be back to pick you up later!” to people of a certain age, you’re likely to get a rueful chuckle and a shake of the head. The messages we received then are still there, buried deep, and no one can really say with confidence whether or not they continue to exercise influence on our conduct and behavior. In view of that, is it any wonder that younger generations think we’re weird and might have difficulty understanding our perspective on life and work?

Spreading The California Wildfire Risk

California seems to have devastating wildfires every year. And lurking underneath the human drama of the residents worrying about their homes and the heroic efforts of the firefighters is a very basic question: if your home is located in one of those fire-prone areas, how do you insure against the risk that your home will be destroyed in a raging inferno?

The answer may soon be: good luck in trying to do that. State Farm, which was California’s largest residential property insurer, announced last year that it would stop issuing new insurance policies on properties in the state, and last week it said it would not renew 72,000 existing policies on houses and apartments in the state. State Farm cited inflation, soaring costs, the risk of extraordinary losses from wildfires, the inability to secure reinsurance, and burdensome, outdated insurance regulations that don’t reflect the reality of the current California market as the basis for its decision.

The uncertainty about the ability to obtain coverage from commercial carriers has caused more and more homeowners to turn for the California FAIR Plan for their fire insurance. The FAIR Plan was developed to allow homeowners in areas that present high fire risks to obtain insurance and is supposed to be the insurer of last resort–but the exodus of carriers like State Farm may make it the insurer of only resort. That has raised serious questions about the financial stability of the FAIR Plan and its ability to survive a bad wildfire season that causes a spike in claims and claims payments.

If the FAIR Plan can’t make its claims payments, the balance must be made up by insurance companies operating in the state, who will pass those costs along to other California policyholders–including those whose residences aren’t in high-risk areas–as a surcharge. Some insurance brokers are concerned that if that happens, other insurers will follow State Farm’s lead and simply stop writing policies for properties in the Golden State. State regulators are trying to avoid that scenario by changing regulations to allow insurance companies to charge more for policies in high-risk areas.

It’s hard to imagine that California has gotten to the point where major carriers are leaving its commercial property insurance market–and where homeowners in low-risk areas might have to bear part of the risk of fire loss for homeowners in high-risk areas. If I were a homeowner in one of those low-risk areas, I sure wouldn’t be happy about that.

Bowl Game

Yesterday we went to a barbecue place called Pecan Penny’s for lunch. The menu offers traditional sandwiches, ribs, and platters, and also “BBQ bowls.” The BBQ bowls allow you to build your own dish by putting everything that would have come separately into a bowl. You start with your choice of a “base,” add a protein, “load it up” and then add toppings. I went for cheddar grits for the base, pulled pork, and cheddar cheese and smoked pecans for toppings. Our server later delivered a bowl containing all of those ingredients. I added some Carolina mustard sauce, mixed it all up so that each forkful would have its share of grits, pork, sauce, pecans, and cheese, and happily shoveled it down. It was very good.

I’m probably behind the curve on this, but lately I’ve noticed that more and more restaurants are offering bowl food. I suspect that Chipotle was the first to really focus on this, with its deconstructed burrito in a bowl, but now bowl options seem to be everywhere–at KFC, at taco joints, and pretty much wherever going with the traditional handheld consumption approach would be messy. Taco bowls avoid the hard taco shell disintegration problem, and the KFC bowls no doubt take the “finger-lickin'” out of “finger-lickin’ good” chicken. As for the BBQ bowls at Pecan Penny’s, yesterday is the first time I can remember finishing a meal at a bar-b-q place where I didn’t have to immediately head to the facilities to soap up and wash the sticky veneer of barbecue sauce off my hands.

The bowls also allow you to easily mix up your food. They’d be anathema to fussy people who like to consume their main dish and sides separately, but if, like me, you like to mix things up, the bowls are a very handy method of doing so. I figure it’s all going to end up in the same place, anyway, and I like the flavors in combination.

There are times when only a standalone handheld will really hit the spot–like when you’re wearing sunglasses, a ball cap, a t-shirt, and shorts while on vacation, eating outside on a bright sunny day when a chance to lick barbecue sauce off your fingers and chase it with a cold beer is really the only way to go–but if you’re wearing a suit and tie on a work day the bowl option is a nice one to have.

The President’s New Shoes

Presidents receive unrelenting scrutiny. It’s just part of the job. But even by accepted presidential scrutiny standards, the recent hoo-ha about President Biden’s new shoes seems a bit . . . over the top.

The President has been seen wearing new shoes called Hoka Transports. They have a wide sole and are designed for maximum support and comfort while walking or hiking. Some people have made fun of the shoes, saying the President is wearing them in an effort to avoid falling. Of course, the White House denies that.

The President has taken a few spills during his term in office, and his opponents have made a spectacle of them. In my view, if he’s wearing new shoes to try to avoid future tumbles, more power to him. The President is 81 years old—there’s no secret about that—and falls can have serious health consequences at that age. If the shoes help the President avoid a broken hip, wearing them seems like a wise decision to me.

My grandmother used to say you could judge a man by his shoes—but she meant whether they were shined and otherwise showed they had been properly cared for. Make your decision on who to vote for on the basis of their political views, the judgment, and their capabilities, not their footwear.

The Cinderella Effect

I’ve been really enjoying the NCAA Tournament this year. I didn’t fill out a bracket, but our annual Buck Back pool is in full, trash-talking swing, and the tournament is just great TV to watch, period. It’s got all the elements: compelling story lines, enormous pressure and ultra-high stakes because in every game a loss means one team’s season is ended, joy, fear, devastation, and other emotions being displayed by the players and their fans . . . and irresistible Cinderella stories.

What is it that draws us, every year, to the Cinderella teams–like the Oakland Golden Grizzlies, which on Thursday improbably toppled mighty Kentucky? Is it just that Americans traditionally root for the underdog? I suspect that there is a bit more to it than that. During the regular season, the sports media tends to focus on the big-name teams from the power conferences, ignoring the smaller schools and the more obscure conferences. You hear so much about the power teams you almost get sick of it. But the smaller schools that aren’t featured on ESPN Sportscenter have good players who might have decided to go to a smaller school rather than one of the big boys for many different reasons. When the tournament rolls around, those players finally get a chance to shine on the big stage, and they’ve got nothing to lose–whereas the big boys might be feeling the increasing pressure of a high seed. It’s nice to see those fresh faces that have been hidden from view until now.

There’s another element at play, too. Those smaller schools often are key parts of their communities. Many Americans live in places where these small schools are found. Oakland University, for example, is located in a suburb of Detroit. During the regular season Michiganders will root for That Team Up North and the Michigan State Spartans, but when the tournament arrives I’d guess those fans will also gladly yield a bit of their rooting interests to a school like Oakland in the Big Dance. At least, that’s what I do: I always root for the Ohio teams that have made the field of 64.

Alas, the Golden Grizzlies were knocked out yesterday, losing a heartbreaking overtime game to North Carolina State–which is a bit of a Cinderella story in its own right. But there are still a few of the Cinderella teams left, like Grand Canyon, James Madison, and Yale, each of which is hoping that they will be fitted with the glass slipper. We’ll be watching today and hoping their improbable journeys continue.

The Lego Line-up

In 2021, in the name of criminal justice reform, California enacted a new law to prohibit police departments from posting “mug shot” photos on social media platforms of suspects apprehended for non-violent crimes. In 2023, California expanded the law by requiring police departments to remove any mug shots of suspects from social media accounts after 14 days. Both requirements took effect this year.

The police department in Murrieta, California–located about halfway between Los Angeles and San Diego–has taken a novel approach to compliance with the new law. It’s posting “mug shot” photos of suspects, but obscuring their actual heads with “Lego” heads. Examples of the results–which are curious, to say the least–are shown above.

Why post Lego head photos of suspects apprehended for non-violent crimes? As quoted in the Los Angeles Times article linked above, a Murrieta police department spokesman explained: “The Murrieta Police Department prides itself in its transparency with the community, but also honors everyone’s rights & protections as afforded by law; even suspects. In order to share what is happening in Murrieta, we chose to cover the faces of suspects to protect their identity while still aligning with the new law.”

The Times article quotes a professor of sociology and criminology at Cal Poly Pomona, who argues that publishing Lego head mug shots really doesn’t serve the need for transparency, and seems to be an effort to mock and dehumanize arrested suspects and damage their reputations. That concern seems overblown to me, however. Since the faces are totally obscured, the general public won’t be able to identify the suspects, and therefore their reputations aren’t really at risk. And publishing photos of captured suspects, even with Lego heads, does serve a transparency purpose–it shows the Murrieta residents, and would-be non-violent criminals, that the Murrieta police department is doing its job. A picture of two captured suspects, handcuffed and deposited in the back of a patrol car, has an impact that the dry textual reporting of an apprehension just can’t match.

I understand the impetus of the California law, because it helps to fully implement the notion that people are innocent until proven guilty, but it seems to me that the Murrieta police department has found a clever way to comply with the law yet still provide meaningful information about public safety issues to residents. And if the creative use of Lego heads makes more people pay attention to the social media postings of the Murrieta police about what they’re doing to deal with crime in their community, is that really a bad thing?

Taking Away The Keys

When should older people stop driving? It’s a question the elderly and their kids can struggle with, because there is often disagreement between the older person and the younger members of the family about whether continued driving poses a risk for the driver, their passengers, and others who might happen to be out on the roads at the time. The last thing anyone should want in their golden years is a driving accident where they, or others, are seriously injured, or worse, because they really shouldn’t have been behind the wheel.

The AARP says the average age for people to give up driving is 75. I’m skeptical of that statistic, because I’ve seen members of my own family drive for years after their 75th birthday. In fact, my grandfather drove well into his 90s, and even got his driver’s license renewed after his 90th birthday. He had a big grin on his face in that driver’s license photo because, like many seniors, he associated continued driving with independence.

So, what do you do when you’ve noticed a decline in the driving skills of an elderly relative? It can be a source of controversy and discord in families, as the senior insists that their driving capabilities are just fine, whereas their kids have noticed dings on the car, declining eyesight, close calls, and other indications that the driving days should end. Part of the problem in my view is not only that the older driver might not want to admit that they are declining, but that due to hearing and eyesight issues they may not have actually noticed that they just ran a stop sign or heard the horn honking when they did so.

This article suggests ways to address the decision to take the keys away from the elderly family member. One of them is an “advance directive for driving,” where the senior agrees that a younger family member can make the call on their driving capability. That sounds good in concept, but I’ve heard of instances where the senior has given that directive–and then resisted giving up the car when the younger person says its time to do so. Other options listed in the article include calling a family meeting, asking the senior’s doctor to give her or his opinion, or even ratting grandma out to the DMV. None of those options seem particularly good to me.

I enjoy driving, and I’m looking forward to retirement road trips in the future–but I sure hope that if my skills decline to the point where I’m a danger on the road, I’ll be willing to hand over the keys and acknowledge that my driving days are over.

Unchanging Places

Recently some friends from high school were in town–for a memorial service for one of our classmates, regrettably–and we decided to get together for lunch. They’ve long since moved away from Columbus, so I was trying to think of a place we could go that they would remember from our high school days.

This was easier said than done, because our high school days ended in the ’70s and pretty much everything in Columbus has changed dramatically since then. Most of the places we knew from that time went out of business, or were torn down entirely, decades ago. I could only think of one place that has survived: Tommy’s Pizza. It was a big hangout in high school, especially for pizzas before and after home football games, and it still occupies its traditional spot with the familiar towering “Tommy’s” sign shown above–so Tommy’s it was.

Our visit was the first time I’ve been to Tommy’s in many years, and it was like going back in time. So far as we could tell, the interior was identical to what it was 50 years ago, with the same entrance, the same pick-up counter just inside the front door with the stacks of “Tommy’s Pizza” boxes and hand-lettered signage written on the round cardboard inserts that Tommy’s puts under pizzas before boxing them up for a carry-out order. The tables, chairs, and configuration of the seating areas all seemed to be unchanged, too, and so far as we knew the same waitresses were still taking orders and delivering hot pizzas fresh from the oven. And the pizzas we got were the same great, crispy, thin crust pies that Tommy’s has been serving since those high school days.

The sense of sameness and memory evoked by our lunchtime visit to Tommy’s was very striking, especially in view of the sad event that brought us all together in the first place. It was oddly comforting, and cool, to think that one place from our youth was still there, pretty much unchanged by the passage of time. Columbus has changed a lot, but I’m happy to report that Tommy’s Pizza is still there, just as it always has been.

The Random Restaurant Tour–LXI

Some restaurant spots seem destined to change hands repeatedly, housing one restaurant after another without much of an opportunity to get to know any of them. That’s been true of the restaurant location at 201 S. High St., under the old-fashioned “Restaurant” sign. It was once de Novo, then it was a taco place, then it was Lola’s, then it was a place called the Downtown Tavern–and I’m probably forgetting a few of the places that existed in between.

Yesterday our lunch bunch went to the newest venture to occupy the spot. Called Hydeout Kitchen & Bar, it offers a nice lunch menu. The layout of the place looks pretty much the same as it always has, with a long bar and booths against the opposing wall. We sat at a booth, perused the menu, and were immediately tantalized by the fact that it offered potato pancakes as a side dish.

Potato pancakes, for the uninitiated, are a high-risk option. When poorly made, you are presented with what tastes like lukewarm leftover instant mashed potatoes covered in sawdust. When well made, the coating is crispy and crackling, the potatoes inside are hot and have some texture, and you add dollops or sour cream and applesauce for a true taste treat. Alas, we learned that the potato pancakes weren’t available yesterday, so we’ll have to go back to learn where the Hydeout version places on the potato pancake spectrum.

That was okay, however, because I was able to apply the cheeseburger test–which I’m happy to report was passed with flying colors. Hydeout’s burger, shown above, is very tasty indeed, and combined the essential qualities of good meat, fine patty formation, proper cooking, tangy cheese, and onions, and they add a dab of mustard to give it a special zing. The fries were excellent, too–crunchy on the outside, hot on the inside, and presented in a reasonable, and not excessive, portion size. They make their own hot sauce, too, which was an excellent complement to the fries and the burger.

So we’ll be going back to Hydeout–assuming it sticks around for a while–and I’ll gladly try another of their sandwiches in hopes of sampling an elusive potato pancake. Now that I’ve been tempted, I’ll have to see it through to completion.

Giving In To Car Thieves

Toronto, Canada, like many large cities, has been confronted by a rash of car thefts. A Toronto police officer recently offered a novel and controversial bit of advice about how to deal with the issue: leave your car keys in a pouch near the front door of your home, so they can be quickly found by the criminals looking to steal your car.

The police officer, who was speaking at a local safety meeting last month, said that leaving the car keys in a convenient place to be found by thieves would help avoid potentially violent confrontations with criminals. The officer explained: “To prevent the possibility of being attacked in your home, leave your fobs at the front door because they are breaking into your home to steal your car; they don’t want anything else.” The officer added that many of the car thieves being arrested are carrying “real guns,” and “not toy guns.”

The officer no doubt was well meaning and concerned for the safety of local residents. Car theft in the Toronto area increased 25 percent in 2023 versus 2022, and home break-ins associated with auto theft increased by an astonishing 400 percent. Obviously, that’s a problem. But advising residents to make it easier for thieves to steal a car doesn’t exactly instill confidence in the police. Instead, it seems like throwing in the towel and giving in to the bad guys. And you wonder: is that kind of advice just going to embolden the criminals, and would-be criminals, and encourage even more house break-ins and car thefts?

Not surprisingly, Toronto area residents didn’t exactly welcome the police officer’s advice–and to be fair to the Toronto police force, they’ve offered other advice on how to avoid car thefts, too. But the underlying premise of the police officer’s advice seems totally wrong. The onus shouldn’t be on residents to make it easier for criminals to steal, in hopes of avoiding the commission of more serious crimes, it should be on safety forces to thwart the car thefts and apprehend the car thieves in the first place. That logically means more police officers patrolling the streets and more police officers dedicated to apprehending the criminals. There’s work to be done in that regard: so far in 2024, almost 1,600 vehicles have been stolen in the Toronto area, and only 41 of the cases have been solved.

It would be interesting to see statistics on how many of the members of the Toronto police force are actually out patrolling the streets or trying to track down thieves, and how many have desk jobs or administrative duties that don’t really involve the basic mission of any police force: to protect the citizenry, prevent crime, and get bad guys off the streets. The Toronto police department may want to revisit its priorities.

Our “New” Basketball Coach

Ohio State made Jake Diebler its new head basketball coach over the weekend. Diebler was also the old head basketball coach, having served in that role in an interim capacity for the last few games of the regular season and then in the Big Ten tournament.

It’s been a disappointing few years for Buckeye basketball, which is why the former head coach, Chris Holtmann, was given his walking papers. This year in particular was difficult to watch, as the Buckeyes blew big leads in several games, endured an embarrassingly long road losing streak, and didn’t seem to play up to the capabilities of a roster with some talent. But when Jake Diebler took over, it was like a light switch was turned on. The team immediately started playing better on both offense and defense, upset highly ranked Purdue, went 6-2 with some other big wins, and looked like a totally different team.

Diebler is an Ohio guy who comes across as humble, knowledgeable, likeable, and genuine. He changed up the rotation, went deep into his bench and got some nice production from players who hadn’t seen much action, and clearly connected with the team during his stint as interim head coach. That personal connection may be an important consideration for the players, who will now be considering whether to enter the transfer portal. Ohio State’s roster often seemed like a bit of a revolving door under Holtmann; perhaps Diebler can stop that trend and establish some stability.

Will Diebler be a good head coach and get the program back to where it was under Thad Matta, when the Buckeyes were perennial NCAA Tournament contenders? Eight games is a slim record on which to base a forecast. We’ve got no insight into his ability to recruit top-notch players, which is a huge part of college basketball success. But if I’m right about the strong connections he seemingly established with his players, that would suggest he will have some success on the recruiting trail.

Ohio State was mentioned as a potential landing spot for one of this year’s crop of hot coaches who are looking to move up from mid-major schools to a big-time school like Ohio State. Only time will tell if Diebler will be seen as a good hire, or a bust–but I’m glad the Buckeyes didn’t go with the flavor of the month as their new head coach, because their track record after moving up to the major college level hasn’t exactly been stellar. Let’s see what this Ohio guy can do.

An Appeal To Headline Writers

You may have seen this regrettable headline recently: “Ohio women put dead man in car’s passenger seat, try to withdraw money at bank drive-thru, police say.”

The accompanying article is about an 80-year-old man who owned a house in Ashtabula and allowed two women to live there. When the old-timer unfortunately died at home, according to one of the women who described what happened in a phone call from jail that was recorded by authorities, the women put him in the passenger seat of their car where he could be seen and then went through the drive-thru line at his bank where they withdrew $900 from his bank account. The women then drove to the hospital where they dropped off his body, allegedly without identifying the dead man or themselves. They’ve since been identified, arrested, and charged with theft and gross abuse of a corpse.

I want to make this appeal to headline writers everywhere: when one of these weird stories about appalling misconduct arises, can we please stop identifying the actor’s state of residence in the headline? It’s not as if, in this case, living in Ohio had anything to do with the women’s decision to take advantage of a dead man. Having lived in Ohio for most of my life, I can assure you that the Buckeye State does not condone or encourage that kind of activity. And in that time I’ve gotten to know many “Ohio women,” and I feel confident that none of them would have done what the two women did in this case. Headlines like the one quoted above improperly smear the reputation of both Ohio and the women who live here.

We’ve all seen countless “Florida man” news stories about random guys in Florida doing something strange. I’d hate to see “Ohio women” stories become a similar staple of the clickbait news websites. Can’t we just agree to leave the states where people happen to misbehave out of it?