1.4 million Android devices sold each week

1.4 million Android devices sold each week: "

Well it looks like things are definitely on the up-and-up for Android. Eric Schmidt, Google-CEO said on Wednesday that Google believes there are some 200,000 Android devices being activated every day. Not to shabby eh? He said that “People are finally beginning to figure out how successful Andorid is.” Well duh, is all I have to say about that. With Android shipments up 866% and the CEO of Motorola saying Android is the future, it’s pretty obvious are getting the message that Android is clearly the optimum smartphone platform.

[via cnet]

For more information on Android and the current Android mobile phones, check out our Android Guides

1.4 million Android devices sold each week

"

Every Apple Fan Boy's Mentality

Mildly Funny Differences

There's a lot of differences between the United States and Mexico - average tan levels of it's citizens, the overwhelming need of Mexican salesman to give tourists "the best prices, almost free" - and offer these blessings repeatedly - regardless of the product or the prospective consumer's level of interest, and the labeling on their products. The US is much more politically correct in their verbiage of warnings. Take for example a warning label on your average pack of cigarettes in the US - it reads "Warning: The Surgeon General Has Determined that Cigarette Smoking is Dangerous to Your Health". Now look at the Mexican variant - it's much more, umm, to the point :)

The Fastest and Funniest LEGO Star Wars story ever told

An Infamous Picture!

So, here is a picture from the day that my whole license situation evolved... Notice the "silver" cans. Those were Busch cans inked out by Paula so my mom wouldn't know they were beers - hilarious!

BTW - I was damn good lookin', no?

Macquarium!

Luckily for all of you fish lovers out there, you don't have to use an old Mac to make your own Macquarium!

For as comparatively useless as newer models of the Mac are you can feel free to use them to house the fishies as well :D

Some of the statements released in the Roethlisberger case

The Post-Gazette released some of the statements from the accuser in this article. I'll make this short and only have two things to say:

1. If what was quoted was verbatim from the statements then it looks like she was either a) still drunk when she wrote/spoke them, or b) definitely on the verge of dropping out of college.

2. She was too drunk to remember what happened. Her statement was written based on what she thought happened. I, personally, would never accuse someone of anything, let alone rape, if I couldn't remember what happened to a good degree. In my mind, if I don't remember it then it's mea culpa.

No wonder she asked to have the charges dropped - she wasn't sure if she was raped or not. Garland and team would have absolutely pulverized and humiliated her - and it would have been all her own doing for alleging something she herself doesn't even know happened.

Hey Ms. Biancofiore - how about you tell your friend to stay off the sauce and not try to party like a rock star if she can't handle it. Better yet, why don't you and your sorority sisters try not to put yourselves in those situations? Hmm, I've heard that somewhere before...

Where there's smoke, there's fire? Grrr

I'm getting very tired of hearing people say that phrase "Where there's smoke, there's fire" in regards to the Roethlisberger case. To be honest, I'm tired of hearing about the non-case period...

Let's be clear. "Where there's smoke, there's fire" is a very valid phrase, at least in a couple contexts. The first is a natural - where you literally see smoke (or what you presume to be smoke - could be steam, too). If you investigate it you should know in short order whether there was actual fire or not. The second is when it comes to multiple allegations against a normal everyday Joe that has nothing extraordinary to offer his accusers.

It is not and can not be applicable in the case of multi-million dollar athletes / movie stars / politicians. These people have so much to offer an accuser just so the story goes away that it's worth making a false allegation against them.

And what better time to make an allegation against said multi-millionaire than shortly after someone else accuses them of the same thing??? Firstly, it makes your average everyday retard say "Where there's smoke, there's fire". Secondly, it softens a jury populated with the aforementioned retards and makes it easy for them to think "Where there's smoke, there's fire".

Hell, at this point, and since there are so many "Where there's smoke, there's fire" phrase loving folks out there, I'm thinking about driving to Pittsburgh, dressing up in drag, finding Ben, and then filing an accusation about him myself... You'll never even know I did thanks to rape shield laws - until you see my driving around in my pimped out Caddy...

"Where there's smoke, there's fire" right? I mean, three people who have all filed the same allegation - it has to be true now, right? Shit, I should be able to walk away with a cool million in hush money...

Uggh

To trade or not to trade?

Everyone in SteelerNation has to answer this question regarding Ben Roethlisberger: Do you want to see him traded or not?

If you've answered yes to that question, then hear this: Pittsburgh has had a bevy of very good teams since the end of the 80's and not a single one ended in a championship until Ben.

The excellent teams of 1992, 1994, and 1995 with O'Donnell under center excelled during the regular season and into the playoffs. But without a franchise caliber quarterback they failed to win the Lombardi. Those teams had some of the best defenses you'll ever see. Great running games. A host of versatile receivers. Still, it comes down to the QB not being able to make the big plays when called upon.

The great teams of the late 90's and early 2000's, including 1997 and 2001 with Kordell Stewart, also failed to win "One for the Thumb". Why? Stellar defenses, crushing ground games, and threats at wide receiver. What happened? The quarterback couldn't stand up to the pressure when needed.

The best record in Steeler history was recorded in 2004 at 15-1 with a young Ben on the field. However, that was mainly because of a dominant defense and unstoppable running game. When it came time for the then young quarterback to pull out a big win, he floundered.

Starting with 2005, and a now fairly seasoned Roethlisberger slinging the ball, Pittsburgh began to achieve greatness not seen since the 1970's. Same high-caliber defense and great ground game - but the difference was Ben.

Each year since the team has relied more and more on the throwing arm of Roethlisberger and less on the ground game. The defense is still dominant, but when it flounders Pittsburgh has a QB in Roethlisberger that can win the game on offense.

Pittsburgh searched every nook and cranny for an above average quarterback since 1983, throwing on the field the likes of Cliff Stoudt, Mark Malone, David Woodley, Bubby Brister, Neil O'Donnell, Mike Tomczak, Kordell Stewart, and Kent Graham. Most made it to the playoffs (thanks to their supporting cast members) - none got over the hump.

So ask yourself this - do you truly, truly want to go back to being "a game away" for the next 20 years or are you willing to put up with the unproven allegations and give the man a chance to make up for his bad judgment?

The 2010 season could very easily bring Pittsburgh a 7th Lombardi with Ben, or it could be another "one game away"

Can't prove wrongdoing? Burn 'em anyway!

I've read nothing today about the Roethlisberger case except how his despicable actions should lead to sanctions by at least the Steelers if not the league. Going as far as comparing him to Michael Vick and his inhumane acts and Pacman Jones littany of issues - and I'm growing tired of it.

This isn't about Ben - it's about being the accused, acquitted by the legal system, but being found guilty by the public.

Look, the detectives, lawyers, and DA involved in the case know very little for certain outside of the fact that she was in the bar at the same time as Ben. We, the public, know even less.

How can you possibly pass judgement on someone that a) you don't know personally and b) don't have any of the facts of the case.

To date, this is what we know:

1. A 20 year old girl was bar hopping with her college sorority sisters and drinking illegally.
2. Said girl was in the same bar as Roethlisberger approaching closing time.
3. Said girl had public interaction with Ben at some point throughout the night.
4. Said girl, highly and illegally intoxicated is escorted to a policemen by her sorority sisters and commences to tell him that she was not raped.
5. Said girl goes to the hospital for a rape kit
6. The evidence shows genital bruising and a surface laceration - but did not suggest rape.

That's it. Period. Nothing else is fact. Nothing else can be proven. So what is everybody basing the assertion of despicable acts?

Because Ben was in a college bar with girls and buying them drinks? Firstly, last time I checked there isn't a whole lot to do around that place, but I could be wrong. Still doesn't seem that terrible to me. Secondly, like I've said before, it's not his job to ID. Furthermore, you know how easy it is for girls to look much older than they actually are. I can give him a pass on this because she probably looked closer to 25 (at least 21 because she was allowed in to drink, right?).

Because Ben went into the bathroom with her? Firstly, no video evidence. It wasn't even exposed as to how many eye witnesses there were that saw them in there together.

Because it looked like she had sex? A) Ben said there was no intercourse (he could be lying, so could she). More importantly there was no evidence that Ben had any sort of sexual relations with her. She was out with her sorority sisters all night drinking illegally (and likely not spending much of their own money - ok, that was a cheap shot). She could have very easily had sex with anyone before meeting up with Ben. Hell, she could've tripped and fallen in her inebriation and hurt herself (not far fetched, I've seen it).

Do I know that any of those things happened? Nope, and I'm happy to admit it. So what's my view on the whole thing? Status quo, like before the allegation. I know nothing more now about the situation than I did before it occurred. I have no choice but to with the facts as we know them and those facts point to no wrongdoing and absolutely no need for this witch hunt...

Don't see it that way? Well, if you have a son, put him in Roethlisberger's predicament and see if you change your mind. Maybe if we all hopped of our high horses sometimes and let go of our unfounded outrage we could be more sound in our judgement.

UPDATE: Quote from DA Bright regarding Ben's buying of alcohol for an underage person:

He said of Roethlisberger: "The only way that we could prove the case (providing alcohol to a person under 21) against him, and I've looked at this myself, quite candidly is just through her testimony."

Apparently we now know even less...

One more thing

The 20 year old girl was described as "highly-intoxicated" and that Ben could have been charged with a misdemeanor for supplying alcohol to someone under the age of 21. Couple things:

1. It's not the job of a patron of an establishment to ID - that's the job of the owner. The bar should be cited.
2. Why isn't this girl being cited for underage drinking? My underage drinking citation that I've talked about occurred when I was over 20, but not quite 21 - and yes, I'm still paying for it.

Maybe when the cop gave me my ticket in 1993 I should have said that I was sexually assaulted by Phil Collins in a port-o-john at Three Rivers Stadium, later drop the charges because I couldn't prove any of it, and could have gotten out of it.

If only I had a vagina and the will to work the system. But alas, I have neither...

He said, she said - no charges filed

As it turns out - and probably as it should be - Roethlisberger will not be charged with any misconduct in regards to the allegations made by the 20 year old in Georgia. This article from the Post Gazette goes into a little more detail about the findings.

Oddly enough - we still don't know what the girl truly alleged, outside of "they had sex" and not that she was "raped". Shouldn't that be made public domain in the same way that Ben got dragged through the mud? She later changed her mind that she was in fact raped and it wasn't consensual? I'm sorry, you can't say no after the fact - at least not yet...

Another oddity is that the did find "male" DNA but not enough to make a DNA profile. Ok, so if they did have sex - which Ben says they didn't - where did the rest of the "male" DNA go? A typical male ejaculates around a tablespoon of semen of which just a fraction would have been enough for a DNA profile (considering sperm carries millions of copies of the owner's DNA). It would've been trivial to match the DNA to Roethlisberger.

Add to that that the woman later sent a letter to the DA asking them not to file charges and it tells me this: The girl had sex, but it wasn't with Ben. And when it came time for the defense to really start probing into the accuser's actions that night she didn't want the truth to come to light. Remember, Garland (of Ben's defense) did his own investigation and provided that to the DA as well. What was in it we may never know, but I would imagine it had something to do with the accuser not wanting charges filed.

Rape is a despicable act. One that is so terrible that it affects the life of the victim forever. Rape, at least in regards to an adult, should be clear cut. Either you were raped or you weren't. Was it consensual or was it not. Yes, she was inebriated the night in question, but she was lucid enough to speak with the police and to go to the hospital - during which time she said that she had not been raped. Not until she had time to think it over did she determine that she had been raped. I don't really see how it can work that way, but that's just me.

In the end it appears to be another case of hindsight money-grubbing... We'll see if she tries the civil suit route next...

Regardless - Ben, get your head on straight and pay a prostitute. We get it. You're rich. You're a jock. You're popular. You're horny. No biggie. Give your money to the oldest profession and stay out of trouble. This may be your last chance.

Have you had yours today?

Lol - sorry, one of my favorite photos... When I worked at Nationwide years ago I thought this was so comical that I brought this into work one day... It turned into a trophy for whoever screwed up the most that day. As immature as it is, it gave us all a good chuckle. It's still floating around Nationwide - too funny

Civil suits = get rich quick schemes

What the hell is it with all of the civil suits lately?

It's ridiculous to me that a person can't bear the burden of proof in a criminal court but still wants monetary damages awarded from a civil court.

Take, for instance, Santonio Holmes current situation. Supposedly he throws a glass at a woman that wouldn't get out of his seat at a nightclub. Sounds like a pretty cut and dry criminal case to me - physical damage is present, tons of witnesses, cops on the scene. But the woman alleging this declined to press charges. Instead she chose to file a civil suit the very next day.

This article on ESPN goes into detail on the ordeal. The most telling piece of this is in these paragraphs:

Holmes denied touching Mills and said another woman threw the glass that hit Mills in the face. After both Mills and Holmes were escorted out of the nightclub, Mills asked the police officer if she could speak to Holmes alone, the police report said.
Holmes agreed to speak with her and they walked several feet away. The police officer saw Mills smiling and rubbing Holmes' face, according to the police report.

What does this say to me? It shows that this woman more than likely wasn't hit by Holmes - at least she didn't feel comfortable in possibly making a false criminal allegation and possibly being in legal trouble herself if it came to light. Then, after a night to think it over and untold messages and calls to her girlfriends, she decides to file a civil suit.

Why? Because you can allege whatever you want in civil court with almost no ramifications. It's a win-win situation for her. You don't need nearly as much supporting evidence for a judgement, and more importantly if it is found out that she's making false allegations she will not be criminally liable. In essence, either she wins a boatload of money or comes out of it with what she had going into it.

What does Holmes get out of it? Either way it goes he's in trouble with the Rooney's, the media and public are tearing down his image, and he's been publicly embarrassed.

It's a messed up world in which we live when the allegation alone is enough to irreparably tarnish a person even when proven to be false...

And it keeps getting better!

I've already blogged about my seemingly ludicrous licensing / titling woes - but just when you think it can't get any worse it does!

This weekend was my visitation with the kids. Unfortunately, at this point, I have no choice but to drive my illegal truck with my expired license 90 miles north to the meeting spot their mother and I have agreed upon. This act alone is foolish enough to make me nervous, although it was done out of necessity.

So, we're humming along on 71 and I'm being very mindful of my speed, cops, etc. Everything is going smoothly until I hit mile marker 133, just south of Mt. Gilead. All of a sudden the truck starts to shake and BOOM. The truck starts making a terrible noise - I'm positive my axle or something equally as horrifying has just happened. I get to the shoulder and get out to see what exactly is the problem.

A ha! Seemingly I've gotten a "lucky" break. The tire just blew. Well, not just blown, but shredded. Anyway, there didn't seem to be any structural damage so I figured I'd go ahead and take advantage of my AAA Premier membership and get this taken care of ASAP.

I call them up, answer a few questions and figure this will get done quickly - until his last question - "Does the vehicle have current tags?". I honestly answer that no, they are not current and he informs me that I am not covered since the vehicle is being driven illegally. At this point, I have no choice but to laugh out of frustration... I'm screwed. Sitting on the side of the road with a blown tire in a truck that has expired tags and me with an expired license. All I need right now is a cop to drive by and see this - tickets aplenty...

Luckily, the guy offers to set me up with a tow truck - at my expense of course. The AAA guy was actually pretty helpful... Luckily, the tow truck got there before a cop did. The kids, at this point, are just looking forward to the ride in the tow truck again (yes, a similar incident happened before - uggh) - they're fine. Not nearly as upset as I am.

One last problem, of course, that needs solved. It's a Sunday and there are no tire or auto service stations open to put a new tire on until Monday. Why not, right? I just have him drop me off at a random garage in Marengo, OH and figure I'll leave the truck until the next day to have it fixed.

Surprisingly, all of that actually worked out. Senen came to pick up me and the kids. We met their mother halfway and headed back to Columbus. Monday we go to Steve's Used Tires to pick up a tire, head back to Marengo, and have the folks at the station put it on for me - luckily the drive back was uneventful...

All in all I suppose it could have been worse. But had it not been me I'm positive none of this would be happening...

$130 for the tow truck
$32 for a used tire
$10 for installation
Not being thrown in jail for the week - priceless

By the way - if you ever need to get work done on your car stop in at:

Gene's Auto Service

Extremely nice folks :)

Ben's Accuser to be re-interviewed by police

This short article talks about Roethlisberger's accuser being re-interviewed by the police. Here attorney states:

"Our client is cooperating fully with law enforcement in this matter," said the woman's attorneys, emphasizing that their cooperation is to correct recent "misstatements" from the media."

Also, and I hadn't seen an article stating this, but the Trib alleges that the accuser's BAC was over .20 at the time. I'm sure the hospital she went to ran a BAT, so this should easily be verified or not...

On another note - it looks like all video from the bar that night has been accidentally overwritten. That smells of incompetence. However, the investigators had already watched the tapes and deemed there was no useful evidence to gather from them anyway...

So, a drunk girl who had been with Ben most of the night and had no problem being in the bathroom with him, no video showing any improprieties, no semen or other bodily fluids, and no witnesses: Sounds to me like she might be making this up - or at least she won't be able to prove whatever it is she's alleging.

test

test post

Back To My License Issue

At this point I'm speechless - here's my predicament:

• My license is expired and can't be renewed because PA wants me to server a 90 day suspension related to an underage drinking citation from 1993 (see the previous posting)
• My truck's tags are expired and the title is still in my ex-wife's name (which is odd, because she never made a single payment - why did I get married again?)

Ok, so I finally get my ex-wife to transfer the title to the truck. I go and stand in line for eons at a couple titling agencies that were apparently not the right ones and finally reach the correct destination. The lady tells me that she can't accept my license as ID because it's 6 days expired. Not happy at this point.

Go next door to the BMV and wait half an hour there to be told my license was blocked and can't be renewed (again, see previous post). Really not happy now.

So I figure to get around this I'll just get a state ID - but aha! In order to get a state ID they have to cancel your driver's license - meaning you have to retake all the tests again. At this point I'm pissed.

Now I think to myself - "Self, why don't you just transfer the title to your loving girlfriend and she can get the tags?". Sounds good - except I've already filled out all of my info on the back. In order to do this I'll need to get another duplicate title - by asking my ex to do it again, which I definitely didn't want to do.

I call the ex, who sounds thrilled to hear from me (she's not happy with her $1,400 a month?), and she says she can't get to the BMV to do it because her work schedule is now 8-4. I suppose it's a valid argument, but East Palestine isn't a metropolis - she could make it there if she wanted to. At this point I'm running out of options and I'm very unhappy.

My last recourse is applying for the tags online. But alas! Surprisingly enough there's yet another issue... The car is titled to the address of the now foreclosed upon family dwelling and I'm almost positive that is where the tags will be sent. I suppose I'll give it a shot and see what happens...

Now tell me - have you or anyone you even know of EVER had this kind of thing happen? I'm betting not - but this kind of stuff happens to me constantly. I love me some me ;)

Request For Roethlisberger's DNA Withdrawn

Ok, so this one is quite puzzling... Why would the GBI withdraw their request for a sample of DNA? Is it because they don't have anything from the accuser to match it with or another reason? Do they have strong enough evidence he did it that they don't need it?

I find it hard to believe that if they have something to match it against that they'd not want a sample. Hair, semen, skin from under her nails - all or any of these things could be matched with Ben's DNA and at the very least make a strong case for the accuser. On the other end, I would find it hard to believe that they wouldn't want additional evidence even if the GBI truly thinks they have a strong enough case that they didn't need it. Hell, if nothing else just to perform their due diligence and wrap up loose ends.

I'm leaning towards the following - that her accusation doesn't have anything to do with the exchange of fluids (i.e. intercourse, fellatio, ejaculation, etc). The umbrella of "sexual assault" is so large and ambiguous it covers everything from rape to improper touching.

My personal opinion? If he did anything at all it was on the end of improper touching and that they won't find enough supporting evidence to bring a criminal suit. That doesn't rule out a civil suit in which you don't need airtight evidence but only a decent probability that the act occurred.

Am I right or wrong? Did he or did he not do it? I don't think anyone will ever truly know as this case is very much looking like it's going down the path of a he-said, she-said...

UPDATE: According to this story I was right with first assumption - there's no evidence with which to compare it. I would bet there are no criminal charges forthcoming

New NFL Playoff OT Format Approved

Finally, after years of deliberation, the NFL has approved a new OT system - at least for the playoffs (for the time being)...

So what's the change? In an effort to give both teams the opportunity to not only score but defend against the score, they have given the team that lost the toss the chance to have an offensive possession IF (and this is what differentiates it from college) they are able to hold the toss winner to a field goal or less.

Why was it finally done this year and not years past? There are a few reasons actually. The first of which is that the percentage of victories by the team receiving the coin toss jumped to a little over 56% (which doesn't sound like a lot - but every win counts in the NFL) and also the fact that field goal kicker accuracy has skyrocketed to an average of over 80% - and 50 yard plus field goals, long considered a small percentage of success, has risen to over about 50%. Another underlying reason is that in an attempt to up scoring in games the NFL has twice moved the kickoff mark back to give the offense better starting field position - in effect making an offense only go about 30 yards for a viable scoring opportunity.

So my feelings on the change? It's better then what we had - at least a fluke 20 yard play against your normally staunch defense won't necessarily spell doom anymore. My only semi-issue with it is why are they keeping field goals at all? Make the team score a touchdown. If they do then give the opposing offense a chance to score as well. If they do then you go to another over time - at least that's my thinking...

Are you kidding me?

So... I go to renew my driver's license yesterday... Guy tells me it's been blocked by PA. I'm thinking this has got to be a mistake - I've never had any dui's, speeding tickets - anything in PA. I call the number they give me and the guy on the other end puts me on hold. Apparently, after an UNDERAGE DRINKING citation was given to me in 1993 at Three Rivers Stadium, you're license is automatically suspended for 3 months - but the term doesn't start until you send back your license. I never received notice of this so didn't follow that procedure. Unbelievably - 17 years later - they still want me to serve the suspension.

I'm absolutely out of my mind livid... 17 years - really?

I'm 37 years old with 3 kids. I have a full-time job and drive 180 miles every other weekend to see my kids...

I'm going to lose my fucking mind...

Still no details of the accusation???

Ok, so I admit that I'm a Roethlisberger fan - I'm a Steeler fan. Regardless of my fandom - I'd feel the same way if it was just one of my buddies - it still bothers me tremendously that he has been accused of sexual assault and absolutely ripped by everyone and the accuser not only hasn't been identified (I understand why, but it still isn't exactly fair) but it's not even been revealed as to what he's being accused. How is that possibly even right? You can accuse someone of sexual assault, immediately putting the spotlight on them and opening them to weeks of scrutiny while the accuser gets to be veiled behind a wall of privacy?

Doesn't anyone else see how wrong that is? If the accuser feels that she was sexually assaulted and that she in no way had any part in agreeing with whatever the mystery accusation is then show your face, state your charges, and let the courts determine the fates of the involved parties. She knew how detrimental it would be to Roethlisberger by just making the accusation. She knew that every minor detail of her past and her sexual history would be probed (no pun intended) and exposed. If you have nothing to hide, then don't.

I understand the rape shield laws - and that's all fine and good and may truly help bring forward those who otherwise wouldn't. But it also provides a shield for those with not so honest intentions. How is that fair to the accused? They are after all not considered guilty at this point - or are they? Either shield them both or don't shield either. The onus of proof should be on the accuser and not the accused - regardless of how embarrassing it may be. These are serious charges - own up to them.

Rant on Roethlisberger the Sexual Deviant (from facebook)

I wouldn't go as far as saying sexually deviant - especially since he has
yet to be convicted of anything in any case... I hate to say this - and I'm
sure that I'm going to get destroyed by folks for going here - but women can
be the most plotting, devious, and vengeful creatures on the planet - hence
the phrase "Hell hath no fury like a woman scorned". And us men - well, we
don't always think with the right head - and women know that, too.

Rape / sexual assault is a terrible act that to me, should be punishable by castration. Having said that, false allegations of rape is just as terrible of an act. And what's worse is there is no punishment for it. Rape also happens to be one of the few crimes where the defendant is seen as guilty from the moment the allegation is made. Moreover, it's also one of the few crimes that require the defendant to prove his innocence rather than the accuser having to prove his guilt.

The problem with both sets of allegations is this - there wasn't anyone around to witness in either case. It's not the most uncommon thing for consensual sexual contact to later be declared sexual assault by the female participant for any number of reasons - he promised to call and didn't, he didn't take her home, her boyfriend found out, etc. Did it happen in this case? Nobody knows at this point, but it's a salient argument. Add to that that Ben has a $100 million dollar target on his chest and you have to think about things a little differently. I'm pretty sure my argument here wouldn't make sense with a normal joe, but when you start talking about the potential gain a nefarious woman could garner from plotting this and it makes more
sense than not.

If neither allegation proves to be true, the damage is already done to him. People will just liken it to "where there's smoke there's fire" and assume that he had to do something. His image won't ever be restored. However, if he's found guilty then he should be strung up like anyone else, banned from the NFL, and forced to pay reparations...