The Ghosts of Kings Island

Kings Island is an amusement park north of Cincinnati.  It opened in 1972 and I think I've been going there at least once a year, as my father's company picnics were usually held there, ever since.  The years I didn't go at all are made up for in spades by the years I had season passes.

On the most recent trip, we went up the Eiffel Tower (a 1/3 scale replica of the real thing).  The elevators are glass and I watched as we rose.  The counterweight and cables caught my eye and got me to thinking about Tower Johnny.  But he's not the only reported ghost in the park or even the only death related to the park.  

I'm a skeptical believer.  I've had experiences of my own (refer to my earlier blog Do You Believe In Ghosts for more on that) but I try to find a natural explanation first.  Usually it really is just the wind or a trick of the light.  "Ghostyboo" is my go-to comment when something odd happens, but I'm just playing.  It's also a reminder to myself not to jump to conclusions.    

Anyway, for those of you who aren't familiar with Tower Johnny, here's the story.  For many years I thought it happened in 1984 (my senior year) but it was actually the year before.  Friday, May 13, 1983.  A young man enjoying Grad Night, for some reason, crossed into the restricted areas of the tower and into the elevator shaft.  

I looked all this up. (Imagine that!) His name really was John.  I found many different versions of what actually happened that night, most of them making his death even more gruesome than it was.  The official investigation found that he was probably struck by the counterweight, became entangled in the cables, and then fell 200 feet.   I don't think any more description is needed. 

Anyway, since then, people have reported sightings.  It's rumored that park employees call things like anomalous sensor readings "Johnny".  Some claim he's been seen in the area of The Beast because the cables in question are somewhere in the woods around that coaster, which I find ridiculous.  If they disposed of the cables, why did they toss them into the woods? 

The other ghosts associated with the park are Tram Girl and Woody, who may be one and the same.  Tram Girl is the one I remember hearing about even as a child.  Bordering the north parking entrance, there is a small cemetery from the 1800s.  One of the graves belongs to a little girl named Missouri Jane.  Most investigators agree that Missouri Jane is probably Tram Girl.  Tram Girl is generally reported in the parking lot (thus the name - she was often seen by tram operators) and wears an old-fashioned blue dress.   It is believed (why, I was unable to discover) that she drowned in a lake at the rear of the park.

This is where Woody comes in.  In 1985, a river-rafting ride opened at the lake.  At places along the White Water Canyon, there are small shelters used by employees to monitor the ride.  They are quite deep in the woods.  Employees report hearing the laughter of a child, even after the last riders are gone, and rocks being thrown at the shelters.  

There's also Racer Boy.  He's a little boy, dressed all in white, who is seen climbing on the Racer roller coaster.  Sometimes he's seen in an empty seat of the train.  The trains on the Racer are said to have been used previously on another coaster, one a little boy fell from and was killed.  The Racer was there when the park opened - in 1972 - but there were no reports of this ghost until the 1990s.  There's no record of the accident in question.  

There have been surprisingly few deaths at the park, considering its long history and the sheer number of people there even on a slow day.  Most of them were due to people disregarding safety regulations.

The deadliest day in the park's history was Black Sunday.  In 1991, three people were killed in the space of an hour.  At the lake in the Oktoberfest section of the park (not the one mentioned before) a fellow decided to cool off a little by splashing water on himself, or maybe to splash his friend, and fell in.  Presumably, he was convulsing, because he was being electrocuted - there was an previously unknown short in the underwater lights.  His friend and a park employee jumped in after him.  His friend and the park employee died. He lived, but was permanently disabled.  While that rescue was ongoing, a woman riding The Flight Commander fell 60 feet from the ride. (Flight Commander was a "flight simulator".  It could turn upside down at the rider's control.)  It's thought that she was trying to see the air ambulance at the lake or that she passed out from drinking.  There have been no reports of any Black Sunday ghosts, at least not to my knowledge.  

Why Don't Schools Teach....

Used to be, Home Ec or Shop was a required course.  People complained that the skills were out-dated and they're now offered as an elective if at all.  Yet I hear it all the time - why don't schools teach gardening, woodworking, sewing, or cooking?

I have a variation on that question: Why don't you teach those things? Why are we not instilling in the young a love of these creative and cost-effective habits?  Why should they learn skills they never see the adults around them use?   

I know a young man, a freshman in high school.  He knows the basics of gardening, cooking, sewing, carpentry, mechanics and engineering.  Because his adults did/do and enjoy those things.  Even if the work itself isn't enjoyable, he's seen the pride taken in a job well done and benefited from the money saved.  If your teenager or child isn't learning these skills, it's on you.  

Kids of a creative bent are constantly told to pursue something else as a career because there's "no money in that".  These skills are manual labor, and therefore nothing to brag about as a profession.  Unless, of course, you manage to own the company or become famous.  

As for the math people keep saying schools should teach?  How to play the stock market, for example?  Guess what... they often have elective classes that teach those things.  Guess what else... most people are not going to use those skills in an economy that leaves most of us floundering from payday to payday and running a Go Fund Me for medical expenses.  

All math is based on what we learn in elementary school - addition, subtraction, multiplication, and division.  Balancing a checkbook is rarely anything more than adding and subtracting. Compound interest is more complex, but still boils down to those basics.  

Even more galling is the fact that thse are the same people claiming that teaching reproductive biology is "not the school's job".  And don't even get me started on "indoctrination" because that's a blog in and of itself. 

Amendment Number Two

A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

As with most political issues, I'm very middle-of-the-road on gun control.  I have friends on both sides of this debate and can understand both points of view.  I think the first thing we need to do is look at the language and historical context of the amendment itself. 

A well regulated Militia: Regulated means "Controlled or Supervised by means of rules and regulations" and Militia has several meanings that might be applied here.  It can be a civilian military force, a rebel force that opposes a regular army, or all able bodied citizens eligible for military service.  

Being necessary to the security of a free state:  We need it to keep our hard won freedom.  

The right of the people to keep and bear Arms: "The People" is the crux of this section.  The People means all Americans, collectively.  Keep and bear arms means have and use guns. 

Shall not be infringed: Infringing on something is limiting or undermining it.

Paraphrased into more modern terminology, it says "Since we need a sort of civil army in case our government becomes oppressive, we shouldn't limit the collective American right to own and have guns."  Simple enough.  

But... and you know there is at least one... Is telling individuals they can't have an Uzi infringing upon The People's rights?    Is any given civilian a well regulated militia?  This is where the debate rages.  (Not that an actual debate would rage, but I digress.) 

Any comments on this blog or on links to this blog that fail to retain a civilized tone 

WILL BE DELETED. 

1. "No one needs an assault rifle."  Of course not, in normal day-to-day life.  No one needs Barbies, but I have the right to keep and bear them!  Yes, Barbie is not known for killing dozens of people in minutes, but bear with me.  I'll address that.

Remember the historical context, too.  The Founding Fathers want us to be able to stand against the government if it becomes oppressive.  To do that, we need similar weaponry and skills. To fulfill the desires of the Founding Fathers, We The People do indeed need an assault rifle.

2. "Barbies can't kill people like these guns can."  Of course not.  The analogy can be made with things that have that capability.  Cars driven into a crowd, for example.  Shall we advocate the banning of motor vehicles?  

3. "You don't care about the murdered" and "You wanna take my hunting rifle".  All of my gun-guys care about those who were killed and most of my non-gun-guys volunteer to take any leftover venison you might have.  All these statements are is parroting of propaganda.  The NRA in particular is really good at convincing people that any gun control at all is only the first step in a dastardly plot to disarm us all totally.  That's called Slippery Slope Logic and I was warned against it in high school. 

The Crux Of The Matter  

I try not to have opinions on matters I know little about.  Before forming an opinion, I become Research Whore (cue superhero music) and use sources from as many sides of the issue as I can find. My self-educated, but considered, opinion follows:

1. Any given individual is not a "well regulated militia". Chuck Norris, maybe, but I digress again.... Any given individual is not The People. 

2. Freedom of Speech doesn't allow me to incite riots.  Freedom of Religion doesn't let me commit human sacrifice.  Even "the pursuit of happiness" is limited... no matter how happy it might make me, there are things the law says I can't do without punishment. No reasonable human being believes any of those things are infringements, as they are needed for public safety.  

3. Allowing only screened and trained adults of sound mind to own weaponry is in keeping with what the Founding Fathers had in mind. Well-regulated means rules are applied.  Militia means trained and organized in a group. 

4. Most of the mass shootings that spur this debate happen in "gun free" zones.  Would the inevitable scofflaw be so willing to open fire in a public place if, for all they knew, most of the intended victims were packing heat themselves?  

5. In summary, the well regulated militia called for by the Founding Fathers can simply be a group of everyday citizens that have proven themselves capable of defending The People. Those citizens, and only those citizens, should be permitted to bear arms anywhere they go.