I have avoided using any celebrity gossip stories for my blog this semester but I saw a headline today that was the last straw for me. It said that Tiger Woods is taking a leave of absence from playing golf to sort out his marital problems. I'm so tired of hearing about this!
The article, found at Time.com, is very short and just talks about how Tiger is going to attempt to repair the damage his "infidelity" has caused to his family. There's not much to summarize really. That's about it.
There is a reason I picked this one though. I'm so tired of hearing about this whole story. It's sickening that the media and those of us who read these stories just latch on to another person's failures and absolutely beat them into the ground and still keep going.
I think that this story is being so widely publicized because Tiger was one of those rare celebrities who we thought had it all- talent, an amazing career, money, a beautiful family. He was living what we saw as a dream, the ultimate kind of life. And it's human nature to want to see those perfect people crack and fail.
I think so many of us get satisfaction out of watching a perfect person crumble. It makes him more real to us, more like one of us. And when that person is a celebrity, with everything he does closely scrutinized, it's even more selfishly satisfying.
I feel nothing but sympathy for Tiger and his family. I can't imagine what kind of state I would be in if allegations like this came out about my husband. I don't think I could function in my day to day routine. I feel the most sympathy for his wife and children. Tiger made some mistakes, but I hope that this time away from the limelight will help them come to some sort of understanding, whatever the outcome may be.
I heard on the news this morning that Tiger's wife bought a house on some secluded island to escape the media attention. I say good for her. I hope that, with efforts like this one, that they are able the get away from all of the attention and work on their marriage.
Maybe if they get away for awhile, another celebrity will do something stupid and take the attention away from Tiger and his family. That seems to be the way it usually happens anyway. After all, we are all just human.
Friday, December 11, 2009
Friday, November 27, 2009
Woman loses benefits over Facebook pics
I found yet another article about someone who used poor judgment when posting pictures on Facebook and is now upset over the consequences.
Natalie Blanchard was on sick leave from work for depression. She was receiving insurance benefits while on leave. She now plans to fight her insurance company's decision to cut those benefits after viewing pictures Natalie posted on Facebook.
Natalie had been diagnosed with major depression and was receiving monthly sick leave benefits until they stopped coming last fall. When she tried to find out why, she was told that Facebook photos showed she was able to work.
The pictures in question show Natalie having a good time at a Chippendales bar show, at her birthday party and on a holiday. Manulife, her insurance company, says these photos are evidence that she is no longer depressed.
Natalie's lawyer says that she was wrongfully dismissed from her benefits and that she had the right to take a sunny vacation. He says that the real issue is that her benefits were stopped without proper medical recommendation and that her doctor had suggested she take a vacation.
Blanchard took three four-day trip when she was feeling especially down, on the advice of her psychiatrist.
Manulife didn't offer comment on the case but says that the company would not terminate benefits solely based on information published on websites like Facebook.
I am getting a little tired of all of these people who post pictures and info on sites like Facebook- for all the world to see, it's the internet- and then get upset when there are repercussions.
I don't think it was wise for Natalie to post those pictures. She's on sick leave and receiving monetary benefits for it. Probably not the best idea to post vacation pictures that show her having the time of her life.
The pictures described would make me question how sick she truly is too. Yes, her doctor recommended a vacation but something tells me he might not have had a strip club in mind. I'll bet he was thinking more along the lines of a spa weekend.
I'm not saying she can't fight her depression in whatever way works for her. If it's male dancers, then so be it. Just don't be so surprised when someone sees the pictures and questions your judgment.
I will say that I think the insurance company was a little hasty in terminating benefits, although there could be extenuating circumstances since they declined to comment.
I think the better course of action would have been to contact Natalie and require an updated evaluation from her doctor to determine if she was ready for work yet. Then, if she refused for some reason, they would have better grounds for stopping payment of benefits.
That being said, I still think that this woman used extremely bad judgment in posting these pictures. If you want everyone to know what a good time you're having call them. Don't post photo evidence on the internet for anyone to see.
Natalie Blanchard was on sick leave from work for depression. She was receiving insurance benefits while on leave. She now plans to fight her insurance company's decision to cut those benefits after viewing pictures Natalie posted on Facebook.
Natalie had been diagnosed with major depression and was receiving monthly sick leave benefits until they stopped coming last fall. When she tried to find out why, she was told that Facebook photos showed she was able to work.
The pictures in question show Natalie having a good time at a Chippendales bar show, at her birthday party and on a holiday. Manulife, her insurance company, says these photos are evidence that she is no longer depressed.
Natalie's lawyer says that she was wrongfully dismissed from her benefits and that she had the right to take a sunny vacation. He says that the real issue is that her benefits were stopped without proper medical recommendation and that her doctor had suggested she take a vacation.
Blanchard took three four-day trip when she was feeling especially down, on the advice of her psychiatrist.
Manulife didn't offer comment on the case but says that the company would not terminate benefits solely based on information published on websites like Facebook.
I am getting a little tired of all of these people who post pictures and info on sites like Facebook- for all the world to see, it's the internet- and then get upset when there are repercussions.
I don't think it was wise for Natalie to post those pictures. She's on sick leave and receiving monetary benefits for it. Probably not the best idea to post vacation pictures that show her having the time of her life.
The pictures described would make me question how sick she truly is too. Yes, her doctor recommended a vacation but something tells me he might not have had a strip club in mind. I'll bet he was thinking more along the lines of a spa weekend.
I'm not saying she can't fight her depression in whatever way works for her. If it's male dancers, then so be it. Just don't be so surprised when someone sees the pictures and questions your judgment.
I will say that I think the insurance company was a little hasty in terminating benefits, although there could be extenuating circumstances since they declined to comment.
I think the better course of action would have been to contact Natalie and require an updated evaluation from her doctor to determine if she was ready for work yet. Then, if she refused for some reason, they would have better grounds for stopping payment of benefits.
That being said, I still think that this woman used extremely bad judgment in posting these pictures. If you want everyone to know what a good time you're having call them. Don't post photo evidence on the internet for anyone to see.
Friday, November 20, 2009
Fat Fees and Smoker Surcharges
This article, found at Time.com, starts out describing the deal Psychology Professor Anita Blanchard has with her employer for insurance. She works for the University of North Carolina at Charlotte. They guarantee her premium-free health insurance that will cover 80% of her health care costs for life. Sounds great, but there's a catch.
She can't gain too much weight or start smoking, or she could be resposible for an extra 10% of the cost.
Insurance companies have been promoting healthier living for a long time now. Many offer incentives for having a gym membership or not smoking.
Many now are increasing costs for customers who are overwieght or smoke. On the other hand some are keeping costs low when customers enroll in weight loss programs or smiking cessation programs.
Alabama was the first state to pass what critics are calling a "fat fee," in 2008 and several state insurance plans have started charging a $25 monthly fee for smokers.
There are many critics of these plans. Some are taking aim at North Carolina in particualr. Starting in July, state employees who smoke will be moved from a plan that covers 80% of health care costs to a plan that only covers 70%. This amounts to an out-of-pocket difference of about $480.00 per year, unless they agree to enroll in a smiking-cessation program.
In 2011 NC will address the issue of obese state workers. Someone with a body mass index (BMI) below 4o (basically someone who is 5'6" and weighs 250 pounds) can remain on the 80% plan for the first year. After that, they have to have either a BMI of 35 (5'6" and 217 pounds) or enroll in a weight loss program to qualify for the less expensive insurance plan.
Other states, such as Alabama, are offering discounts rather than imposing penalties. Alabama state workers willl get a $30 discount on their monthly premium for not using tobacco products. They have to sign a sworn statement under penalty of perjury. Since the plan was implemented in 2005, there has been a 4% decline in the number of smokers.
There are many other programs like these being offered by various states and insurance companies in an effort to lessen the amount being paid out for claims.
There are also a lot of differing opinions about whether these restrictions are fair to customers.
I know this might not be the popular opinion, but I actually agree with what these states and companies are doing. It makes sense to me that health care costs should be based on what it costs to take care of your health problems. I don't think it's entirely fair for someone who is very fit, in shape, eats healthy and doesn't smoke to have to pay as much as someone who is obese and smokes like a chimney.
People make certain choices about the lifestyle they choose to live and should deal with everything that comes with those choices, good and bad.
I don't want to sound totally heartless about this. I don't think that any of these programs should apply to people with other heath problems or if their weight is caused by a legitimate medical problem. I just think it should apply to those whose problems are caused soley by food choices or the choice to smoke.
I think some of these programs are just the incentive for some people to finally make the choice to live a healthier lifestyle. If nothing else will do the trick, maybe taking their money will.
She can't gain too much weight or start smoking, or she could be resposible for an extra 10% of the cost.
Insurance companies have been promoting healthier living for a long time now. Many offer incentives for having a gym membership or not smoking.
Many now are increasing costs for customers who are overwieght or smoke. On the other hand some are keeping costs low when customers enroll in weight loss programs or smiking cessation programs.
Alabama was the first state to pass what critics are calling a "fat fee," in 2008 and several state insurance plans have started charging a $25 monthly fee for smokers.
There are many critics of these plans. Some are taking aim at North Carolina in particualr. Starting in July, state employees who smoke will be moved from a plan that covers 80% of health care costs to a plan that only covers 70%. This amounts to an out-of-pocket difference of about $480.00 per year, unless they agree to enroll in a smiking-cessation program.
In 2011 NC will address the issue of obese state workers. Someone with a body mass index (BMI) below 4o (basically someone who is 5'6" and weighs 250 pounds) can remain on the 80% plan for the first year. After that, they have to have either a BMI of 35 (5'6" and 217 pounds) or enroll in a weight loss program to qualify for the less expensive insurance plan.
Other states, such as Alabama, are offering discounts rather than imposing penalties. Alabama state workers willl get a $30 discount on their monthly premium for not using tobacco products. They have to sign a sworn statement under penalty of perjury. Since the plan was implemented in 2005, there has been a 4% decline in the number of smokers.
There are many other programs like these being offered by various states and insurance companies in an effort to lessen the amount being paid out for claims.
There are also a lot of differing opinions about whether these restrictions are fair to customers.
I know this might not be the popular opinion, but I actually agree with what these states and companies are doing. It makes sense to me that health care costs should be based on what it costs to take care of your health problems. I don't think it's entirely fair for someone who is very fit, in shape, eats healthy and doesn't smoke to have to pay as much as someone who is obese and smokes like a chimney.
People make certain choices about the lifestyle they choose to live and should deal with everything that comes with those choices, good and bad.
I don't want to sound totally heartless about this. I don't think that any of these programs should apply to people with other heath problems or if their weight is caused by a legitimate medical problem. I just think it should apply to those whose problems are caused soley by food choices or the choice to smoke.
I think some of these programs are just the incentive for some people to finally make the choice to live a healthier lifestyle. If nothing else will do the trick, maybe taking their money will.
Friday, November 13, 2009
Evangelist sentenced to 175 years for sex crimes
Evangelist Tony Alamo was just sentenced to 175 years in prison for taking little girls as young as 9 across state lines for sex. He took these girls as "brides" in his ministry, Tony Alamo Christian Ministries.
Alamo, 75, claimed the charges were fabricated by a Vatican-led conspiracy against Alamo's church.
Alamo was sentenced by U.S. District Judge Harry F. Barnes. Barnes said that Alamo used his status as a father figure and pastor and threatened the girls with the loss of their salvation if they refused. Just before being sentenced, Alamo was allowed to give a statement to the court. He praised God and said, "I'm glad I'm me and not the deceived people in the world."
Alamo's lawyers plan to appeal the ruling, citing the opinion of a doctor who said that Alamo suffers from hardening arteries, diabetes, glaucoma and other health problems.
While being cross-examined, this doctor admitted that he only saw Alamo once in 2004. The purpose of that visit was an eye lift to make Alamo appear younger.
Alamo will stay in prison in Texarkana (where he was sentenced) until a hearing on January 13 that will determine if his victims get restitution from him. From Texarkana, he will be moved to a federal prison with hospital facilities.
I have to say I'm pretty happy with the verdict in this case. I remember hearing a little about this when the trial was going on and it was sickening. It's repulsive to me that someone would use their authority and position to do things like this.
I hate when people use religion to justify acts like the ones committed by Alamo. There is absolutely nothing biblical to say that he had any right to take these children as his brides. NOTHING.
It is appalling to me when people use religion like this. It's frustrating because the crazies, like Alamo, are always the ones in the media. They make for a great story and no one gets to hear stories of real Christians who actually live the life they should.
I feel awful for the victims of his crimes. How horrible would it be to lose your innocence in that way? I can't even imagine what they would have been thinking. They trusted this man, looked up to him. Their parents trusted him. They were told that these things were right. That monster told them they'd lose their salvation if they didn't follow along!
I'm normally pretty good about empathizing with people and trying to see everyone's side. I try to look at situations from every point of view and can usually understand the reasons people do things, even if I don't agree with the action.
In this case it makes me sick to even try. I don't want to know his reasons. I just want him to stay locked up and miserable for the rest of his pathetic life. That's not the right way to feel about him I know, but crimes against children always make me so angry.
I pray that the victims are able to heal and get past all of this. It will never go away but I hope that they have a good support system and people that truly do care for them and that they will be able to deal with everything.
Alamo, 75, claimed the charges were fabricated by a Vatican-led conspiracy against Alamo's church.
Alamo was sentenced by U.S. District Judge Harry F. Barnes. Barnes said that Alamo used his status as a father figure and pastor and threatened the girls with the loss of their salvation if they refused. Just before being sentenced, Alamo was allowed to give a statement to the court. He praised God and said, "I'm glad I'm me and not the deceived people in the world."
Alamo's lawyers plan to appeal the ruling, citing the opinion of a doctor who said that Alamo suffers from hardening arteries, diabetes, glaucoma and other health problems.
While being cross-examined, this doctor admitted that he only saw Alamo once in 2004. The purpose of that visit was an eye lift to make Alamo appear younger.
Alamo will stay in prison in Texarkana (where he was sentenced) until a hearing on January 13 that will determine if his victims get restitution from him. From Texarkana, he will be moved to a federal prison with hospital facilities.
I have to say I'm pretty happy with the verdict in this case. I remember hearing a little about this when the trial was going on and it was sickening. It's repulsive to me that someone would use their authority and position to do things like this.
I hate when people use religion to justify acts like the ones committed by Alamo. There is absolutely nothing biblical to say that he had any right to take these children as his brides. NOTHING.
It is appalling to me when people use religion like this. It's frustrating because the crazies, like Alamo, are always the ones in the media. They make for a great story and no one gets to hear stories of real Christians who actually live the life they should.
I feel awful for the victims of his crimes. How horrible would it be to lose your innocence in that way? I can't even imagine what they would have been thinking. They trusted this man, looked up to him. Their parents trusted him. They were told that these things were right. That monster told them they'd lose their salvation if they didn't follow along!
I'm normally pretty good about empathizing with people and trying to see everyone's side. I try to look at situations from every point of view and can usually understand the reasons people do things, even if I don't agree with the action.
In this case it makes me sick to even try. I don't want to know his reasons. I just want him to stay locked up and miserable for the rest of his pathetic life. That's not the right way to feel about him I know, but crimes against children always make me so angry.
I pray that the victims are able to heal and get past all of this. It will never go away but I hope that they have a good support system and people that truly do care for them and that they will be able to deal with everything.
How a Bank Robber Became an Anti-Hero in France
A couple of weeks ago, 39 year old Tony Musulin was a nobody. He drove an armored bank security van in Lyon, France.
According to an article from Time.com, all of that changed on November 5. Two coworkers briefly left Musulin alone to run an arrand and he allegedly vanished with over $17.2 million in unmarked bills. On Monday, police recovered about $14 million that was stashed in a storage unit in Lyon, but Musulin is still on the run with the rest of the money.
All of this sudden noteriety has obviously placed Musulin at the top of French law enforcement's most wanted list. What's a little different about this story is that Musulin is also quickly becoming one of France's most popular anti-heros.
Within hours of news of the heist, many envious French citizens were Twittering about Musulin and praising the theft on internet blogs. More than 100 Facebook groups have been created with names like "Run Tony Musulin Run" and "Tony Musulin for President." The web domain name www.tonymusulin.fr was quickly bought by a web designer who is selling bumper stickers and t-shirts, some that feature Musulin's mugshot under palm trees or catchphrases like "I'm your girl, Tony."
Many say that the reason behind the unlikely support for Musulin is the economic and financial crisis in France. Many citizens are angry at the banking system for being partly to blame. Some are calling Musulin a modern-day Robin Hood, stealing from the rich (the banks) and giving to the poor (everyone else).
I just had to laugh when I read this story. I could totally see the same scenario playing out in the United States, given the current condition of the economy. Who doesn't love the story of an underdog who fought authority and (so far) won? It sounds like a great plot for a movie. I'm pretty sure if I saw the movie, I'd be rooting for Musulin's character along with most of the audience.
The thing is, this is the real world. Not a movie where everyone has a happy ending and Musulin gets to live the rest of his life out on a sandy beach somewhere.
I absolutely understand why he has so many supporters. I get the idealistic, "Robin Hood" aspect to the story. But he's not Robin Hood. Far from it. Robin Hood took from the greedy, tyrannical, undeserving rich to give to the desolate, unfairly-treated, deserving poor. Not to mention Robin Hood is fictional.
Musulin is not a modern-day Robin Hood. He stole money from depositors of the bank, not from the rich of the Robin Hood story. He hasn't given anything to the poor. The authorities tracked down part of the money and he still has the rest. What about this story smacks of Robin Hood exactly?
Musulin would be more of a hero to me if he had continued to work and earn money, rather than stealing money just because he feels entitled to it.
I really have no sympathy for the guy at all. He was wrong and I hope he gets caught.
It's scary to me that people are idolizing this guy. There is evidence to show that he planned the heist well in advance. How many stories have we heard of people who are unhappy with their jobs and lives who do far worse? What if he had decided to shoot instead of steal?
According to an article from Time.com, all of that changed on November 5. Two coworkers briefly left Musulin alone to run an arrand and he allegedly vanished with over $17.2 million in unmarked bills. On Monday, police recovered about $14 million that was stashed in a storage unit in Lyon, but Musulin is still on the run with the rest of the money.
All of this sudden noteriety has obviously placed Musulin at the top of French law enforcement's most wanted list. What's a little different about this story is that Musulin is also quickly becoming one of France's most popular anti-heros.
Within hours of news of the heist, many envious French citizens were Twittering about Musulin and praising the theft on internet blogs. More than 100 Facebook groups have been created with names like "Run Tony Musulin Run" and "Tony Musulin for President." The web domain name www.tonymusulin.fr was quickly bought by a web designer who is selling bumper stickers and t-shirts, some that feature Musulin's mugshot under palm trees or catchphrases like "I'm your girl, Tony."
Many say that the reason behind the unlikely support for Musulin is the economic and financial crisis in France. Many citizens are angry at the banking system for being partly to blame. Some are calling Musulin a modern-day Robin Hood, stealing from the rich (the banks) and giving to the poor (everyone else).
I just had to laugh when I read this story. I could totally see the same scenario playing out in the United States, given the current condition of the economy. Who doesn't love the story of an underdog who fought authority and (so far) won? It sounds like a great plot for a movie. I'm pretty sure if I saw the movie, I'd be rooting for Musulin's character along with most of the audience.
The thing is, this is the real world. Not a movie where everyone has a happy ending and Musulin gets to live the rest of his life out on a sandy beach somewhere.
I absolutely understand why he has so many supporters. I get the idealistic, "Robin Hood" aspect to the story. But he's not Robin Hood. Far from it. Robin Hood took from the greedy, tyrannical, undeserving rich to give to the desolate, unfairly-treated, deserving poor. Not to mention Robin Hood is fictional.
Musulin is not a modern-day Robin Hood. He stole money from depositors of the bank, not from the rich of the Robin Hood story. He hasn't given anything to the poor. The authorities tracked down part of the money and he still has the rest. What about this story smacks of Robin Hood exactly?
Musulin would be more of a hero to me if he had continued to work and earn money, rather than stealing money just because he feels entitled to it.
I really have no sympathy for the guy at all. He was wrong and I hope he gets caught.
It's scary to me that people are idolizing this guy. There is evidence to show that he planned the heist well in advance. How many stories have we heard of people who are unhappy with their jobs and lives who do far worse? What if he had decided to shoot instead of steal?
Thursday, November 5, 2009
Halloween-Themed Wedding Not Allowed
I found this article about the famous church in Sleepy Hollow, New York. Apparently the church refused to allow a Halloween-themed wedding to take place on October 31.
Jim Nieves and Lisa Panensky signed a contract 13 months ago to use the Sleepy Hollow church for their Halloween wedding. The church says they were unaware of the couple's plans for a themed wedding.
The couple planned to use traditional music along with themes from "The Addams Family" and "The Munsters." The church said no to the "fun gothic" tunes.
The couple had planned to wear non-traditional outfits also. Lisa would wear a black cocktai dress with a black veil and carry a bouquet adorned with miniature skulls. Jim would wear dark slacks, a pirate shirt and top hat. The church said no to that as well, saying that no costumes were permitted.
Guests were to be in casual dress, with children in costume. They planned to let the kids trick-or-treat after the ceremony.
It was the weekend before the ceremony was to take place that the church backed out. They said they didn't know of the couple's plans until Lisa emailed a song list to them that included the theme songs from "The Addams Family" and "The Munsters."
The church offered to refund the deposit and to marry the couple outside in the Sleepy Hollow Cemetery, but they declined.
The reason the church gave for not accomidating the couple's theme wedding? The church is a holy place, a "grand historic place" that should not be used for a costume party.
I have never understood people who want to have these Halloween-themed weddings. The history of Halloween is not something I would want to associate with the day I commit myself before God to one person for the rest of my life. It's just not my thing.
But that doesn't diminish the love that this couple shares. It also doesn't mean that they shouldn't have the wedding that they want. Especially when they arranged to use the church more than a year in advance and paid a deposit.
The way I see it, it should have been the church's responsibility to tell the couple what was and wasn't acceptible for an event taking place in the building.
They wanted to book the place for a Halloween wedding. That should have raised some common sense quesions, right? I mean, if it were me, I'd certainly ask just what they planned to do at this wedding. The church should have made it clear from the beginning that theme weddings are not permitted.
I do understand the point of view of the church. However, it's a little too late for that now. This should have been discussed a year ago to allow the couple ample time to find a new venue. I think the church is at fault here and should have allowed the wedding to take place. The couple signed a contract and the church should have honored that instead of backing out at the last minute.
Jim Nieves and Lisa Panensky signed a contract 13 months ago to use the Sleepy Hollow church for their Halloween wedding. The church says they were unaware of the couple's plans for a themed wedding.
The couple planned to use traditional music along with themes from "The Addams Family" and "The Munsters." The church said no to the "fun gothic" tunes.
The couple had planned to wear non-traditional outfits also. Lisa would wear a black cocktai dress with a black veil and carry a bouquet adorned with miniature skulls. Jim would wear dark slacks, a pirate shirt and top hat. The church said no to that as well, saying that no costumes were permitted.
Guests were to be in casual dress, with children in costume. They planned to let the kids trick-or-treat after the ceremony.
It was the weekend before the ceremony was to take place that the church backed out. They said they didn't know of the couple's plans until Lisa emailed a song list to them that included the theme songs from "The Addams Family" and "The Munsters."
The church offered to refund the deposit and to marry the couple outside in the Sleepy Hollow Cemetery, but they declined.
The reason the church gave for not accomidating the couple's theme wedding? The church is a holy place, a "grand historic place" that should not be used for a costume party.
I have never understood people who want to have these Halloween-themed weddings. The history of Halloween is not something I would want to associate with the day I commit myself before God to one person for the rest of my life. It's just not my thing.
But that doesn't diminish the love that this couple shares. It also doesn't mean that they shouldn't have the wedding that they want. Especially when they arranged to use the church more than a year in advance and paid a deposit.
The way I see it, it should have been the church's responsibility to tell the couple what was and wasn't acceptible for an event taking place in the building.
They wanted to book the place for a Halloween wedding. That should have raised some common sense quesions, right? I mean, if it were me, I'd certainly ask just what they planned to do at this wedding. The church should have made it clear from the beginning that theme weddings are not permitted.
I do understand the point of view of the church. However, it's a little too late for that now. This should have been discussed a year ago to allow the couple ample time to find a new venue. I think the church is at fault here and should have allowed the wedding to take place. The couple signed a contract and the church should have honored that instead of backing out at the last minute.
Dad lost his job, so this family takes to the road
I found this article about a man named Dave Dudley and his wife and three kids who took to the road after Dave was laid off.
Dave used to be the vice president of a software company and he and his wife, Joleen, and children- Justice, Adraine and Jayden- lived a pretty comfortable life in a sprawling house in Washington state. When Dave lost his job, he and Joleen knew it was only a matter of months before the mortgage and household expenses became unmanageable. So they made a decision. The family sold the house and hit the road in a 41-foot Heartland Cyclone Trailer towed by a GMC Topkick truck.
The Dudleys have been on the road for about a year. The original plan was to travel for about two years, scoping out possible locations to settle later. They say that they haven't made those plans solid yet, considering the ever-changing economy.
While on the road, Dave landed a job that allows him to work from their home on the road and the kids are keeping up with school by doing their assignments online. As for any possible problems with the close quarters, the kids say it's great. They like the togetherness that was sometimes absent in their large former home along with all of the outside activities that kept the family separated for much of the time.
While I don't know if I could handle this lifestyle, it sure seems to work for the Dudleys. I think it's commendable that they took charge of the situation when Dave lost his job. They knew what they could handle financially and made a decision rather than waiting around to eventually be foreclosed on and have to possibly depend on the help of others to turn things around.
The only thing I wish the article had gone into more detail about is the kids' schooling. It just says that they are doing their assignments online. I don't mean to say that homeschooling is not good. I've known plenty of people who were homeschooled and are very intelligent, educated people. I just hope that these kids are in a good program as well. It would definitely be an advantage to have to whole continent as your classroom anyway!
I was glad to read the quotes from the kids. It's good that they're enjoying the togetherness. I think we sometimes lose that in all of our extra activities and things that we find "necessary" to do instead of just spending time together.
I hope this lifestyle continues to work out for the Dudleys as long as they choose to continue on the road. Good luck to them!
Dave used to be the vice president of a software company and he and his wife, Joleen, and children- Justice, Adraine and Jayden- lived a pretty comfortable life in a sprawling house in Washington state. When Dave lost his job, he and Joleen knew it was only a matter of months before the mortgage and household expenses became unmanageable. So they made a decision. The family sold the house and hit the road in a 41-foot Heartland Cyclone Trailer towed by a GMC Topkick truck.
The Dudleys have been on the road for about a year. The original plan was to travel for about two years, scoping out possible locations to settle later. They say that they haven't made those plans solid yet, considering the ever-changing economy.
While on the road, Dave landed a job that allows him to work from their home on the road and the kids are keeping up with school by doing their assignments online. As for any possible problems with the close quarters, the kids say it's great. They like the togetherness that was sometimes absent in their large former home along with all of the outside activities that kept the family separated for much of the time.
While I don't know if I could handle this lifestyle, it sure seems to work for the Dudleys. I think it's commendable that they took charge of the situation when Dave lost his job. They knew what they could handle financially and made a decision rather than waiting around to eventually be foreclosed on and have to possibly depend on the help of others to turn things around.
The only thing I wish the article had gone into more detail about is the kids' schooling. It just says that they are doing their assignments online. I don't mean to say that homeschooling is not good. I've known plenty of people who were homeschooled and are very intelligent, educated people. I just hope that these kids are in a good program as well. It would definitely be an advantage to have to whole continent as your classroom anyway!
I was glad to read the quotes from the kids. It's good that they're enjoying the togetherness. I think we sometimes lose that in all of our extra activities and things that we find "necessary" to do instead of just spending time together.
I hope this lifestyle continues to work out for the Dudleys as long as they choose to continue on the road. Good luck to them!
Wednesday, November 4, 2009
What Soft Drinks Are Doing To Your Body
I found this article at Yahoo Health. It's about the negative effects that soft drinks, both diet and regular, have on our bodies.
The article states that soda is one of the worst beverages that we can be drinking for our health. One problem is that soft drinks contain little to no vitamins and other nutrients. Another problem, though, is what they do contain, ingredients like carbonation, caffeine, simple sugars, sugar substitutes, artificial coloring, flavoring and preservatives.
Many soft drinks contain a high amount of sugars. The daily allotment of sugar for a 2,000 calorie-per-day diet is 10 teaspoons. Many soft drinks contain more than that in a single serving and many people drink more than one soft drink daily.
All of this excess sugar can lead to elevated blood insulin levels. This, in turn, leads to depression of the immune system which weakens the body's ability to fight disease.
Also, excess sugars are stored as fat in the body. This leads to weight gain, which is a contributing factor to the possibility of heart disease and cancer.
The article says that diet soda can be just as bad for us, for different reasons. The artificial sweeteners used in diet sodas can pose a health risk. There is research to show that certain types can possibly cause cancer. Other types of sweeteners use a chemical reaction to stimulate the brain, causing the body to think that a beverage is sweet. This chemical can also cause cravings for other sweet foods and drinks, leading to weight gain.
Another ingredient found in both diet and regular soda that can be detrimental to our health, is carbonation. Drinks with bubbles contain phosphoric acid which can severely deplete blood calcium levels. Calcium is a key component in bone health, meaning that excessive soda consumption can increase your risk of osteoporosis later in life.
Caffeine, which is present in many soft drinks, can also deplete the calcium levels in our bodies. It also stimulates your central nervous system, and can contribute to stress, a racing mind and insomnia.
This article grabbed my interest because I've recently decided to stop drinking soda. I don't drink a lot as it is, maybe one soda a day, but after reading this article I've decided that even one a day is too much. Some of the effects of soft drinks really surprised me.
We've always heard about how bad the sugars and sweeteners are for our bodies. I was surprised that the article also went into detail about the carbonation and caffeine too. We don't hear as much about those ingredients.
I had no idea that the ingredients used to create carbonation also deplete our blood calcium levels. As a female, I hear all the time about the importance of calcium to prevent osteoporosis. It's important for everyone else too.
I've always heard about the negative effects of caffeine on the body, as far as insomnia, increased stress and a racing mind. I didn't know that caffeine can also contribute to calcium loss in the body.
Knowing all of these facts will definitely help me stick to my new no soda rule. It will be hard. I usually take advantage of Sonic's Happy Hour whenever I can and we're provided with free soda at work. I might just have to print this story and keep it in a place where I can see it often. I have done the no soda thing in the past and I know it really does make me feel better and I have more energy. I'll just have to keep that in mind the next time I get a craving for a Diet Dr. Pepper.
The article states that soda is one of the worst beverages that we can be drinking for our health. One problem is that soft drinks contain little to no vitamins and other nutrients. Another problem, though, is what they do contain, ingredients like carbonation, caffeine, simple sugars, sugar substitutes, artificial coloring, flavoring and preservatives.
Many soft drinks contain a high amount of sugars. The daily allotment of sugar for a 2,000 calorie-per-day diet is 10 teaspoons. Many soft drinks contain more than that in a single serving and many people drink more than one soft drink daily.
All of this excess sugar can lead to elevated blood insulin levels. This, in turn, leads to depression of the immune system which weakens the body's ability to fight disease.
Also, excess sugars are stored as fat in the body. This leads to weight gain, which is a contributing factor to the possibility of heart disease and cancer.
The article says that diet soda can be just as bad for us, for different reasons. The artificial sweeteners used in diet sodas can pose a health risk. There is research to show that certain types can possibly cause cancer. Other types of sweeteners use a chemical reaction to stimulate the brain, causing the body to think that a beverage is sweet. This chemical can also cause cravings for other sweet foods and drinks, leading to weight gain.
Another ingredient found in both diet and regular soda that can be detrimental to our health, is carbonation. Drinks with bubbles contain phosphoric acid which can severely deplete blood calcium levels. Calcium is a key component in bone health, meaning that excessive soda consumption can increase your risk of osteoporosis later in life.
Caffeine, which is present in many soft drinks, can also deplete the calcium levels in our bodies. It also stimulates your central nervous system, and can contribute to stress, a racing mind and insomnia.
This article grabbed my interest because I've recently decided to stop drinking soda. I don't drink a lot as it is, maybe one soda a day, but after reading this article I've decided that even one a day is too much. Some of the effects of soft drinks really surprised me.
We've always heard about how bad the sugars and sweeteners are for our bodies. I was surprised that the article also went into detail about the carbonation and caffeine too. We don't hear as much about those ingredients.
I had no idea that the ingredients used to create carbonation also deplete our blood calcium levels. As a female, I hear all the time about the importance of calcium to prevent osteoporosis. It's important for everyone else too.
I've always heard about the negative effects of caffeine on the body, as far as insomnia, increased stress and a racing mind. I didn't know that caffeine can also contribute to calcium loss in the body.
Knowing all of these facts will definitely help me stick to my new no soda rule. It will be hard. I usually take advantage of Sonic's Happy Hour whenever I can and we're provided with free soda at work. I might just have to print this story and keep it in a place where I can see it often. I have done the no soda thing in the past and I know it really does make me feel better and I have more energy. I'll just have to keep that in mind the next time I get a craving for a Diet Dr. Pepper.
Thursday, October 29, 2009
What happens to your Facebook after you die?
I don't know about you, but I have wondered a time or two what would happen to my online profiles such as Facebook if I should happen to die. Do they just float around in cyberspace forever, remaining exactly as I left them after my last status update, or will they eventually be cancelled for non-activity? I found an article on Time.com that answers that question.
On October 26, Max Kelly, Facebook's head of security, announced the company's policy of memorializing profiles of deceased users. The profiles are taken out of public search results, they are sealed from any future log-in attempts and their "wall" is left open for the family and friends to leave comments and pay their respects.
The company says that this has been an option since the early days of Facebook. They decided to publicize the policy after a recent criticism of the site. This was caused when a new version of the site's homepage was unveiled October 23. The new version automatically generates suggestions of friends to "reconnect" with. Almost immediately Facebook was hit with complaints from users claiming to have recieved suggestions concerning friends who had passed away.
This prompted Facebook to publicize the policy regarding users who have died in order to explain the process better. According to Kelly, a friend or family member of the deceased person needs to contact Facebook to request that the profile be memorialized. Facebook follows up by requiring proof, such as a link to an obituary, to discourage pranksters. Facebook also allows the option of deleting the profile altogether.
Maybe it's a little morbid of me, but I have wondered what happens when a Facebook user dies. If that person is the only one with the password, what then? I assumed the profile couldn't be cancelled by anyone other than the owner, and that the profile would just float around in internet archives indefinitely. I have been fortunate so far to not experience this firsthand. No one close to me has died since I was little.
I think it was smart of Facebook to publicly explain the process involved in memorializing or deleting the profile of someone who has died. The only thing I think could have been done better is to have done it a long time ago. The new updates to the homepage suggested reconnecting with those who have died and that upset some people. Understandably so. There has to be someone working for Facebook who's responsibility it is to catch things like this. I think it's unacceptable that the possibility of these "friend suggestions" was not brought to the attention of Facebook users prior to the new homepage being launched.
Which brings me to another thing that Facebook does that's kind of annoying. What's with the constant changes and "updates?" Enough already! I joined Facebook back in 2004 when it was JUST for college students and didn't have all of these extra applications and quizzes and Mafia this and Farmville that.
Why is this stuff necessary? I will say that I like a few of the changes they have made. Some things, like the status updates or Facebook mobile are okay. I'm even okay with Facebook being open to everyone now. It's kind of fun to be able to reconnect with people who aren't in college somewhere.
I also appreciate Facebook's attention to protecting the privacy of its users. So far they're doing pretty well. My only concern is that it could be on its way to becoming more like Myspace. I deleted my Myspace account a long time ago. It's become nothing more than a playground for perverts and pedophiles.
Okay, enough ranting for one day. I could go on forever about the evils of Myspace.
On October 26, Max Kelly, Facebook's head of security, announced the company's policy of memorializing profiles of deceased users. The profiles are taken out of public search results, they are sealed from any future log-in attempts and their "wall" is left open for the family and friends to leave comments and pay their respects.
The company says that this has been an option since the early days of Facebook. They decided to publicize the policy after a recent criticism of the site. This was caused when a new version of the site's homepage was unveiled October 23. The new version automatically generates suggestions of friends to "reconnect" with. Almost immediately Facebook was hit with complaints from users claiming to have recieved suggestions concerning friends who had passed away.
This prompted Facebook to publicize the policy regarding users who have died in order to explain the process better. According to Kelly, a friend or family member of the deceased person needs to contact Facebook to request that the profile be memorialized. Facebook follows up by requiring proof, such as a link to an obituary, to discourage pranksters. Facebook also allows the option of deleting the profile altogether.
Maybe it's a little morbid of me, but I have wondered what happens when a Facebook user dies. If that person is the only one with the password, what then? I assumed the profile couldn't be cancelled by anyone other than the owner, and that the profile would just float around in internet archives indefinitely. I have been fortunate so far to not experience this firsthand. No one close to me has died since I was little.
I think it was smart of Facebook to publicly explain the process involved in memorializing or deleting the profile of someone who has died. The only thing I think could have been done better is to have done it a long time ago. The new updates to the homepage suggested reconnecting with those who have died and that upset some people. Understandably so. There has to be someone working for Facebook who's responsibility it is to catch things like this. I think it's unacceptable that the possibility of these "friend suggestions" was not brought to the attention of Facebook users prior to the new homepage being launched.
Which brings me to another thing that Facebook does that's kind of annoying. What's with the constant changes and "updates?" Enough already! I joined Facebook back in 2004 when it was JUST for college students and didn't have all of these extra applications and quizzes and Mafia this and Farmville that.
Why is this stuff necessary? I will say that I like a few of the changes they have made. Some things, like the status updates or Facebook mobile are okay. I'm even okay with Facebook being open to everyone now. It's kind of fun to be able to reconnect with people who aren't in college somewhere.
I also appreciate Facebook's attention to protecting the privacy of its users. So far they're doing pretty well. My only concern is that it could be on its way to becoming more like Myspace. I deleted my Myspace account a long time ago. It's become nothing more than a playground for perverts and pedophiles.
Okay, enough ranting for one day. I could go on forever about the evils of Myspace.
Wednesday, October 28, 2009
Consumer Reports says Toyota, Honda and Ford are the best
According to an article I found at Time.com, Ford Motor Co. is the only domestic brand to match Toyota and Honda for reliability. Ninety percent of new Ford, Mercury and Lincoln products were found to have average or better expected reliabilty. This matched and even surpassed some scores posted by Toyota and Honda and their associated brands (Acura, Lexus, etc.).
Says David Champion, senior director of Consumer Reports Automotive Test Center, "It's rare for Consumer Reports to see family sedans from domestic car makers continue to beat the reliability scores of such highly regarded Japanese models as the Camry and Accord."
Officials at Ford are very happy with these results.
General Motors and Chrysler, companies that both accepted bailouts from the federal government (Ford did not), didn't do nearly as well as Ford. Not one Chrysler model made the list, with more than a third of them being labeled "much worse than average" in reliability. Only the Dodge Ram 1500 scored average. Jeep, Chrysler and Dodge (Chrysler's three brands) were among the four ranked worse in reliability.
There were a few products from GM that did well in the survey, but overall 28 of the 48 vehicles surveyed had below average ratings.
My initial reaction after reading the headline for this story was, "Of course Toyota and Honda, but Ford surprises me a little bit."
I happen to be a die hard Toyota fan. My first car was a 1987 Corolla. It treated me very well for 5 years. I hardly ever had a problem with that vehicle and it was still running great when I sold it at 230,000 miles. After that I had a 1994 Celica for 3 years and it treated me well also. In may of this year I traded that in for a new Matrix and so far, so good on my newest Toyota.
Seeing Ford mentioned in the same category as proven reliable brands like Toyota and Honda surprised me a little bit. The main reason for that is my personal experience. It seems that in many older (by older, I mean 1995 to 2005 or so, just not brand new cars) Fords there is this switch that flips at about 130,000 miles and everything starts to go wrong.
My parents had an 2001 F150 that blew the motor at 135,000 miles. My husband, who has always been a Ford driver had the same experience with a 1996 Ranger and a 2002 Taurus. Both started having multiple problems at around 130,000 miles. Maybe it's coincidence or maybe not, but it was enough to convince the husband anyway.
He has always made jokes about my "rice burner." His brother bought a Honda and got the same "rice burner" comments, all in good fun though. He said American cars were good enough and he didn't need to drive anything foreign. His dad was much the same way, and never drove anything but a Ford or Dodge.
Well, a few years ago his dad bought a new Jetta (VW is German) and slowly they both began to crack. My husband still bought the now defunct Taurus later the same year, stubborn as ever. He is the type of person who maintains a car very well, with regular oil changes and any other needed maintanence being done on time and done well, but it still had problems pretty regularly. I pointed out a time or several that, in the 3 years that we had both cars, my 1994 Celica had no issues while his 2002 Taurus was constantly needing some repair.
After a few years of fighting with the Taurus, he finally gave in and went foreign. As of this month he is the proud owner of a brand new Honda Fit. I have to say, it's kind of weird seeing him in his very own "rice burner," but he's super happy with it.
So, as far as my personal experience goes, you can probably see why I was surprised to see Ford at the top of the list of reliable vehicles. The more I thought about it though, I began to agree with the rating.
Since the other 2 of the "Big 3" accepted bailout money and Ford refused, saying they could get back on their feet with hard work, restructuring and some new ideas, Ford has really stepped up.
While Chrysler and GM remain "much worse than average" in reliability, Ford has really improved their vehicle lineup in many ways. I don't know about you, but I think that the styling is much better than in recent years. The cars are just more attractive and don't scream "boring famly sedan." Many have better MPG ratings than ever and apparently, better reliability ratings as well.
One thing still bugs me though. As close as the Toyota brand has always been to my heart and as good as my cars have treated me in the past, I'm still bothered by the fact that it's the 21st century and American auto makers are still struggling to make a reliable car that Americans want to buy. Because of poor sales, many brands have been cut from GM and Chrysler lineups. A few years ago, it was just Oldsmobile. Now Pontiac and Saturn have also been axed. What's next?
I'm glad to see that Ford has improved so much and I hope that Chrysler and GM can follow that example. It's about time America had an American car brand to be proud of.
Says David Champion, senior director of Consumer Reports Automotive Test Center, "It's rare for Consumer Reports to see family sedans from domestic car makers continue to beat the reliability scores of such highly regarded Japanese models as the Camry and Accord."
Officials at Ford are very happy with these results.
General Motors and Chrysler, companies that both accepted bailouts from the federal government (Ford did not), didn't do nearly as well as Ford. Not one Chrysler model made the list, with more than a third of them being labeled "much worse than average" in reliability. Only the Dodge Ram 1500 scored average. Jeep, Chrysler and Dodge (Chrysler's three brands) were among the four ranked worse in reliability.
There were a few products from GM that did well in the survey, but overall 28 of the 48 vehicles surveyed had below average ratings.
My initial reaction after reading the headline for this story was, "Of course Toyota and Honda, but Ford surprises me a little bit."
I happen to be a die hard Toyota fan. My first car was a 1987 Corolla. It treated me very well for 5 years. I hardly ever had a problem with that vehicle and it was still running great when I sold it at 230,000 miles. After that I had a 1994 Celica for 3 years and it treated me well also. In may of this year I traded that in for a new Matrix and so far, so good on my newest Toyota.
Seeing Ford mentioned in the same category as proven reliable brands like Toyota and Honda surprised me a little bit. The main reason for that is my personal experience. It seems that in many older (by older, I mean 1995 to 2005 or so, just not brand new cars) Fords there is this switch that flips at about 130,000 miles and everything starts to go wrong.
My parents had an 2001 F150 that blew the motor at 135,000 miles. My husband, who has always been a Ford driver had the same experience with a 1996 Ranger and a 2002 Taurus. Both started having multiple problems at around 130,000 miles. Maybe it's coincidence or maybe not, but it was enough to convince the husband anyway.
He has always made jokes about my "rice burner." His brother bought a Honda and got the same "rice burner" comments, all in good fun though. He said American cars were good enough and he didn't need to drive anything foreign. His dad was much the same way, and never drove anything but a Ford or Dodge.
Well, a few years ago his dad bought a new Jetta (VW is German) and slowly they both began to crack. My husband still bought the now defunct Taurus later the same year, stubborn as ever. He is the type of person who maintains a car very well, with regular oil changes and any other needed maintanence being done on time and done well, but it still had problems pretty regularly. I pointed out a time or several that, in the 3 years that we had both cars, my 1994 Celica had no issues while his 2002 Taurus was constantly needing some repair.
After a few years of fighting with the Taurus, he finally gave in and went foreign. As of this month he is the proud owner of a brand new Honda Fit. I have to say, it's kind of weird seeing him in his very own "rice burner," but he's super happy with it.
So, as far as my personal experience goes, you can probably see why I was surprised to see Ford at the top of the list of reliable vehicles. The more I thought about it though, I began to agree with the rating.
Since the other 2 of the "Big 3" accepted bailout money and Ford refused, saying they could get back on their feet with hard work, restructuring and some new ideas, Ford has really stepped up.
While Chrysler and GM remain "much worse than average" in reliability, Ford has really improved their vehicle lineup in many ways. I don't know about you, but I think that the styling is much better than in recent years. The cars are just more attractive and don't scream "boring famly sedan." Many have better MPG ratings than ever and apparently, better reliability ratings as well.
One thing still bugs me though. As close as the Toyota brand has always been to my heart and as good as my cars have treated me in the past, I'm still bothered by the fact that it's the 21st century and American auto makers are still struggling to make a reliable car that Americans want to buy. Because of poor sales, many brands have been cut from GM and Chrysler lineups. A few years ago, it was just Oldsmobile. Now Pontiac and Saturn have also been axed. What's next?
I'm glad to see that Ford has improved so much and I hope that Chrysler and GM can follow that example. It's about time America had an American car brand to be proud of.
Thursday, October 22, 2009
Bible-Burning Pastor
Noth Carolina pastor Marc Grizzard is planning to host an event at his church to burn what he calls heretical books and music. The book at the top of his list to burn is none other than the Bible. Any version except the King James that is. Grizzard and the 14 members of Amazing Grace Baptist Church plan to host the bonfire on Halloween night.
Grizzard says that the KJV is the only true word of God. He also believes that all other translations are "satanic" and "perversions" of God's word.
Says Grizzard, "I believe the King James version is God’s preserved, inspired, inerrant, infallible word of God… for English-speaking people."
He goes further to say that any other religious or Christian text that is not the KJV Bible is sacreligious. He considers authors such as Mother Teresa, Billy Graham and Rick Warren to be heretics.
Some residents of the town agree with Grizzard that the KJV is the only "true" version of the Bible. Others disagree, saying that many of the other translations make the Bible easier to understand.
People like this guy really annoy me. He's the type of misinformed, self-righteous bigot that makes other Christians look crazy.
There'a a quote I've heard that says the greatest single cause of atheism in the world today is Christians, who acknowledge Jesus with their lips and walk out the door and deny Him by their lifestyle. That is what an unbelieving world simply finds unbelievable.
It's very frustrating to me that this one crazy guy is who gets the publicity and his story on a national news network. How many true Christians are there who are doing amazing things and no one knows? The weirdos are the ones that can grab the public's attention.
My initial reaction when I saw the headline (Pastor to Host Halloween Bible-Burning Event) was to assume it must be some alternative, possibly satanic, church. It never occured to me that someone calling themselves a Christian would burn the Bible.
As I read farther, I got really irritated by many of the things this guy says.
Why is the KJV the only "true word of God?" Why not the original Hebrew text? Did God tell Grizzard that he liked the Shakespearian sound better? It would stand to reason that the original language would be the closest to God's true word, right? A lot of things can get lost in translation from an ancient language to a modern one.
Another thing I take issue with is Grizzard's comment that the KJV is God's true word "for English-speaking people." So, all you foreigners out there can go to hell or speak English. At least that's how I understand it from Grizzard's statement. I guarantee that God's people, the Old Testament nation of Israel, did not speak King James English. I'm pretty sure that there is no verse, not ONE, in the Bible (KJV, NIV, NKJV, whatever you use) that limits believers to one translation.
I personally don't believe that you have to limit your reading strictly to one translation. I think there are benefits to comparing texts. Some passages may make more sense with a slightly different wording. I think that as long as you keep in mind that they are translations done by humans and not handwritten by God, you'll be fine. I believe the words of the Bible should be taken literally. We run into trouble when we begin to form our own, different, interpretaion of what's being said.
While this man still irritates me beyond belief, I feel a little sorry for him and his congregation. I think that Grizzard is mislead in his beliefs and it's sad to me that he thinks this is the way to show God to the world. There are so many things that could be done that show God's love for people and instead he chooses this hate-filled message.
If they really want to send a message to the town on Halloween, their time and money would be better spent hosting a party for neighborhood kids or helping out poor families. Something other than this misguided attempt to make a statement would have been wise.
I'd also like to point out a little irony I noticed in this situation. All of those books and CDs they plan to burn had to come from somewhere. They had to be purchased at some point. So...while they may think they're condemning this music and literature, they're still supporting the artists and authors. It doesn't matter what you do with the product once you buy it. You've already given your money to that person and supported them financially. I wonder if Pastor Grizzard would consider supporting the lifestyle of the "heretics" as heresy. Maybe his church gets a free pass on details like that.
Grizzard says that the KJV is the only true word of God. He also believes that all other translations are "satanic" and "perversions" of God's word.
Says Grizzard, "I believe the King James version is God’s preserved, inspired, inerrant, infallible word of God… for English-speaking people."
He goes further to say that any other religious or Christian text that is not the KJV Bible is sacreligious. He considers authors such as Mother Teresa, Billy Graham and Rick Warren to be heretics.
Some residents of the town agree with Grizzard that the KJV is the only "true" version of the Bible. Others disagree, saying that many of the other translations make the Bible easier to understand.
People like this guy really annoy me. He's the type of misinformed, self-righteous bigot that makes other Christians look crazy.
There'a a quote I've heard that says the greatest single cause of atheism in the world today is Christians, who acknowledge Jesus with their lips and walk out the door and deny Him by their lifestyle. That is what an unbelieving world simply finds unbelievable.
It's very frustrating to me that this one crazy guy is who gets the publicity and his story on a national news network. How many true Christians are there who are doing amazing things and no one knows? The weirdos are the ones that can grab the public's attention.
My initial reaction when I saw the headline (Pastor to Host Halloween Bible-Burning Event) was to assume it must be some alternative, possibly satanic, church. It never occured to me that someone calling themselves a Christian would burn the Bible.
As I read farther, I got really irritated by many of the things this guy says.
Why is the KJV the only "true word of God?" Why not the original Hebrew text? Did God tell Grizzard that he liked the Shakespearian sound better? It would stand to reason that the original language would be the closest to God's true word, right? A lot of things can get lost in translation from an ancient language to a modern one.
Another thing I take issue with is Grizzard's comment that the KJV is God's true word "for English-speaking people." So, all you foreigners out there can go to hell or speak English. At least that's how I understand it from Grizzard's statement. I guarantee that God's people, the Old Testament nation of Israel, did not speak King James English. I'm pretty sure that there is no verse, not ONE, in the Bible (KJV, NIV, NKJV, whatever you use) that limits believers to one translation.
I personally don't believe that you have to limit your reading strictly to one translation. I think there are benefits to comparing texts. Some passages may make more sense with a slightly different wording. I think that as long as you keep in mind that they are translations done by humans and not handwritten by God, you'll be fine. I believe the words of the Bible should be taken literally. We run into trouble when we begin to form our own, different, interpretaion of what's being said.
While this man still irritates me beyond belief, I feel a little sorry for him and his congregation. I think that Grizzard is mislead in his beliefs and it's sad to me that he thinks this is the way to show God to the world. There are so many things that could be done that show God's love for people and instead he chooses this hate-filled message.
If they really want to send a message to the town on Halloween, their time and money would be better spent hosting a party for neighborhood kids or helping out poor families. Something other than this misguided attempt to make a statement would have been wise.
I'd also like to point out a little irony I noticed in this situation. All of those books and CDs they plan to burn had to come from somewhere. They had to be purchased at some point. So...while they may think they're condemning this music and literature, they're still supporting the artists and authors. It doesn't matter what you do with the product once you buy it. You've already given your money to that person and supported them financially. I wonder if Pastor Grizzard would consider supporting the lifestyle of the "heretics" as heresy. Maybe his church gets a free pass on details like that.
Wednesday, October 14, 2009
Textbook defintion of dumb
Maxi Sopo, originally from Camaroon, Africa, came to the United States around 2003. He used to make his living selling roses in Seattle nightclubs. Apparently that wasn't cutting it so he eventually moved on to bank fraud.
Federal prosecutors say that Sopo and an associate falsely obtained over $200, 000 from banks and credit unions in the Seattle area. Sopo and the associate, Edward Asatoorians, would persuade young co-conspirators to lie about income in order to recieve loans for fake auto purchases. They then used the money for Asatoorians's business and to take a pricey trip to Las Vegas.
Asatoorians was caught and convicted by a federal jury, but Sopo escaped to Mexico when they realized their scheme had been discovered. Since then, authorities have been unable to locate Sopo. They have been periodically checking social networking sites like Facebook and Myspace but with no luck for a long time. Then Secret Service agent Seth Reeg happened to check Facebook one more time and there was Maxi Sopo.
Sopo's profile was private but not his friends list. Reeg started going through the list and stumbled across one friend who was a former Justice Department official. Reeg contacted the friend and explained the situation. The friend was able to provide Sopo's address to authorities and he was arrested last month.
Apparently he had been living a pretty good life in Cancun since running from the U.S. He worked in a hotel and partied and relaxed on the beach all the time.
If Sopo is convicted, he will face up to 30 years in prison.
I love this information age we're in now! It just makes my day to hear stories like this. If there is one thing that irritates me almost more than anything else, it's when people get away scot-free after committing crimes. I love that we're in an era now where everything you do leaves a footprint behind. I've been hearing more and more stories of fugitives being captured with the help of the internet and new software.
When I read the headline for this story (Fugitive busted after accepting friend request) I thought it was going to be a pretty good story. By the second paragraph I was laughing out loud.
Then he did two things that are never a good idea when you're on the run from authorities: He started posting Facebook updates about how much fun he was having — and added a former Justice Department official to his list of friends.
Seriously, how dumb can you get? This guy is on the run from authorities. He's now an international fugitive. What seems like the best course of action?
Maybe lay low and change your name?
Maybe try to head for a country not in cooperation with the country in which you are a criminal?
Maybe NOT open a Facebook account in your real name?
I guess Sopo didn't like or didn't think of any of these options. I find it kind of hard to believe that he could be so dumb considering the intelligence he needed to pull of the scheme he was running in Seattle. Or maybe his partner was the brains of the operation. Whatever the situation, it still seems like Criminal On The Run 101 to not broadcast your whereabouts on the internet.
I guess he just got a little over confident, or all that partying took its toll on his brain cells.
The funniest part of this whole story, to me, is that one of his Facebook friends just happened to be a former Justice Department official. How unlucky can you get? I applaud this guy for helping the U.S. authorities out in catching Sopo.
The only question I still have about this story is this: What, if anything, happened to the "young co-conspirators" that the article mentioned? It hardly seems fair if they get away without punishment, however small a part they played.
In case you don't get to read the full article, I thought I'd post some of the comments and status updates provided from Sopo's Facebook. Just because I think they're kind of funny.
In status updates, Sopo said he was "loving it" and "living in paradise."
"LIFE IS VERY SIMPLE REALLY!!!!" he wrote on June 21. "BUT SOME OF US HUMANS MAKE A MESS OF IT...REMEMBER AM JUST HERE TO HAVE FUN PARTEEEEEEE."
I wonder what his status would have been if he were able to update right at the time he was arrested.
Federal prosecutors say that Sopo and an associate falsely obtained over $200, 000 from banks and credit unions in the Seattle area. Sopo and the associate, Edward Asatoorians, would persuade young co-conspirators to lie about income in order to recieve loans for fake auto purchases. They then used the money for Asatoorians's business and to take a pricey trip to Las Vegas.
Asatoorians was caught and convicted by a federal jury, but Sopo escaped to Mexico when they realized their scheme had been discovered. Since then, authorities have been unable to locate Sopo. They have been periodically checking social networking sites like Facebook and Myspace but with no luck for a long time. Then Secret Service agent Seth Reeg happened to check Facebook one more time and there was Maxi Sopo.
Sopo's profile was private but not his friends list. Reeg started going through the list and stumbled across one friend who was a former Justice Department official. Reeg contacted the friend and explained the situation. The friend was able to provide Sopo's address to authorities and he was arrested last month.
Apparently he had been living a pretty good life in Cancun since running from the U.S. He worked in a hotel and partied and relaxed on the beach all the time.
If Sopo is convicted, he will face up to 30 years in prison.
I love this information age we're in now! It just makes my day to hear stories like this. If there is one thing that irritates me almost more than anything else, it's when people get away scot-free after committing crimes. I love that we're in an era now where everything you do leaves a footprint behind. I've been hearing more and more stories of fugitives being captured with the help of the internet and new software.
When I read the headline for this story (Fugitive busted after accepting friend request) I thought it was going to be a pretty good story. By the second paragraph I was laughing out loud.
Then he did two things that are never a good idea when you're on the run from authorities: He started posting Facebook updates about how much fun he was having — and added a former Justice Department official to his list of friends.
Seriously, how dumb can you get? This guy is on the run from authorities. He's now an international fugitive. What seems like the best course of action?
Maybe lay low and change your name?
Maybe try to head for a country not in cooperation with the country in which you are a criminal?
Maybe NOT open a Facebook account in your real name?
I guess Sopo didn't like or didn't think of any of these options. I find it kind of hard to believe that he could be so dumb considering the intelligence he needed to pull of the scheme he was running in Seattle. Or maybe his partner was the brains of the operation. Whatever the situation, it still seems like Criminal On The Run 101 to not broadcast your whereabouts on the internet.
I guess he just got a little over confident, or all that partying took its toll on his brain cells.
The funniest part of this whole story, to me, is that one of his Facebook friends just happened to be a former Justice Department official. How unlucky can you get? I applaud this guy for helping the U.S. authorities out in catching Sopo.
The only question I still have about this story is this: What, if anything, happened to the "young co-conspirators" that the article mentioned? It hardly seems fair if they get away without punishment, however small a part they played.
In case you don't get to read the full article, I thought I'd post some of the comments and status updates provided from Sopo's Facebook. Just because I think they're kind of funny.
In status updates, Sopo said he was "loving it" and "living in paradise."
"LIFE IS VERY SIMPLE REALLY!!!!" he wrote on June 21. "BUT SOME OF US HUMANS MAKE A MESS OF IT...REMEMBER AM JUST HERE TO HAVE FUN PARTEEEEEEE."
I wonder what his status would have been if he were able to update right at the time he was arrested.
Tuesday, October 13, 2009
License pictures scanned to find criminals
The FBI has begun using facial-recognition software on millions of drivers to search for fugitives. The software compares pictures gathered from scanning millions of drivers to pictures of known criminals. The focus of this article is the effort in North Carolina that has already helped capture one criminal by using this method.
While this method sounds like an ideal way to catch criminals on the run, many are concerned about their privacy. One attorney, Christopher Calabrese, who focuses on privacy issues likens the program to drivers being put in a vitual lineup when they obtain a driver's license. Many privacy advocates are worried that this will allow authorities to track people who have done nothing wrong.
Says Calabrese, "Licenses started as a permission to drive. Now you need them to open a bank account. You need them to be identified everywhere. And suddenly they're becoming the de facto law enforcement database."
The facial recognition software is not new, but the program in North Carolina is the first major step for the FBI in using it to locate criminals. With the success so far, they are looking at expanding use of the program nationwide.
The FBI has established a panel to decide how to best implement use of the software in the rest of the country and it will be some time before we see it very widely used.
At this point, state and federal laws allow license agencies to release license records to law enforcement, but the FBI is not authorized to collect and store the photos. A spokesperson for the FBI says that, unless someone is a criminal there is no reason to store the photo. They say they want to steer clear of anything like that, since it is definitely a privacy concern.
I actually think this is a great idea. If something helps law enforcement officials catch up with criminals on the run, I say go for it.
As I was reading farther into this article, I began to understand the viewpoint of people who might be against this program. I understand that there could be cause for concern among people who have done nothing wrong. They could definitley feel that their privacy might be invaded. That being said, I don't agree with them.
The FBI has said that they have no intention of storing photos of non-criminals or people who have no reason to be investigated. The way I see it, if you've done something wrong you really have no legitimate reason to oppose this program. The only reason I can see for a criminal to be against this is to avoid getting caught.
If you've done nothing wrong, what is there to worry about? The government already knows pretty much everything there is to know about a person. Why not have your picture too? I would actually expect them to have it already.
I think this is a huge step for law enforcement. I hope that this will lead to many more criminals being caught. It's not right that so many can run from state to state and evade capture for years.
Personally, it doesn't bother me at all if my picture is stored by the FBI. If they stick by what they claim and don't use pictures of non-criminals, I have nothing to worry about anyway.
I do understand the viewpoint of people who are against this program, but I still think it will be very useful. We live in a time when it's necessary to provide identification in almost every situation. There is just so much fraud and identity theft going on, not to mention the rising terrorist threat. That's why I don't really agree with the statement made by Mr. Calabrese about driver's licenses (quoted in my summary above). I think it's absolutely necessary these days to provide a valid, state-issued ID whenever asked. I see no problem with the government using the picture from that ID to help with the apprehension of fugitives.
While this method sounds like an ideal way to catch criminals on the run, many are concerned about their privacy. One attorney, Christopher Calabrese, who focuses on privacy issues likens the program to drivers being put in a vitual lineup when they obtain a driver's license. Many privacy advocates are worried that this will allow authorities to track people who have done nothing wrong.
Says Calabrese, "Licenses started as a permission to drive. Now you need them to open a bank account. You need them to be identified everywhere. And suddenly they're becoming the de facto law enforcement database."
The facial recognition software is not new, but the program in North Carolina is the first major step for the FBI in using it to locate criminals. With the success so far, they are looking at expanding use of the program nationwide.
The FBI has established a panel to decide how to best implement use of the software in the rest of the country and it will be some time before we see it very widely used.
At this point, state and federal laws allow license agencies to release license records to law enforcement, but the FBI is not authorized to collect and store the photos. A spokesperson for the FBI says that, unless someone is a criminal there is no reason to store the photo. They say they want to steer clear of anything like that, since it is definitely a privacy concern.
I actually think this is a great idea. If something helps law enforcement officials catch up with criminals on the run, I say go for it.
As I was reading farther into this article, I began to understand the viewpoint of people who might be against this program. I understand that there could be cause for concern among people who have done nothing wrong. They could definitley feel that their privacy might be invaded. That being said, I don't agree with them.
The FBI has said that they have no intention of storing photos of non-criminals or people who have no reason to be investigated. The way I see it, if you've done something wrong you really have no legitimate reason to oppose this program. The only reason I can see for a criminal to be against this is to avoid getting caught.
If you've done nothing wrong, what is there to worry about? The government already knows pretty much everything there is to know about a person. Why not have your picture too? I would actually expect them to have it already.
I think this is a huge step for law enforcement. I hope that this will lead to many more criminals being caught. It's not right that so many can run from state to state and evade capture for years.
Personally, it doesn't bother me at all if my picture is stored by the FBI. If they stick by what they claim and don't use pictures of non-criminals, I have nothing to worry about anyway.
I do understand the viewpoint of people who are against this program, but I still think it will be very useful. We live in a time when it's necessary to provide identification in almost every situation. There is just so much fraud and identity theft going on, not to mention the rising terrorist threat. That's why I don't really agree with the statement made by Mr. Calabrese about driver's licenses (quoted in my summary above). I think it's absolutely necessary these days to provide a valid, state-issued ID whenever asked. I see no problem with the government using the picture from that ID to help with the apprehension of fugitives.
Monday, October 12, 2009
Fake Jobs
There are new scams popping up every day all over the internet. One type of scam that's on the rise preys on the unemployed who are looking for jobs. This article talks about this new trend.
People are using popular job search websites to gain access to personal information such as names, dates of birth and social security numbers from those who think they're applying for jobs. These scam artists will post fake job openings to grab the attention of those searching the websites for work. Then they ask for all sorts of personal info to help in applying for the fake job. With that info, they can then apply for credit cards and other things in the unsuspecting applicants name.
The Federal Trade Commission (FTC) is working harder than ever to catch the people responsible for these and other scams. One case the FTC filed was against a bogus company called Job Safety. Their ads were aimed at people seeking work in maintenance and cleaning. They said that for $98, applicants could get a "certificate registration number" and that Job Safety would help them find a job. There were no jobs and the company was fake.
There are many more scams out there and job hunters need to be alert when searching. The article list many "red flags" to look for when searching for a job online.
It really doesn't surprise me that there are people who would do things like this. It's sad that people have gone so far as to prey on those who are desperately looking for a means to make a living. Sad, but not unbelievable.
As I was reading this article, I just got more and more irritated at the people responsible for these scams. It's frustrating that someone can put so much time and energy into coming up with these ideas. That time could be better spent working at a real job.
This might sound strange but I was also a little annoyed that so many people are falling for these scams. Some scam artists are very good, but most of them really aren't that great. They are too concerned with making a quick profit to spend too much time and money on the scam. Some of these bogus claims are really pretty easy to see right through. This is an example from the article:
Jay Foley, executive director of the Identity Theft Resource Center, is working with a man who took what he thought was a job as a mystery shopper for Western Union. After answering an ad on Craigslist, he received a $3,500 check, which he deposited into his bank account. He then went to Western Union to wire the money and observe the quality of customer service. The man was cautious — he waited for the check to clear first. Only later did he find out that while the check was written on a real account, it wasn't authorized. The company eventually voided the transaction, leaving the man responsible for the $3,500 he'd wired.
This man and his bank frustrate the heck out of me. He should have known better than to take something he found on craigslist.com at face value. He should have taken the time to research the company or contact the Better Business Bureau or the FTC. If it's legitimate, it's worth going the extra few steps to make sure.
His bank is partly at fault though. Bank employees are trained in fraud and security and should be able to recognize this "secret shopper" scam right away. They are one of the most commonly used scams and are pretty hard to miss. It's the bank's responsibility to protect and educate their customers. If a teller at the bank where I work let one of these checks through, they'd likely lose their job. The bank is out that money just like the customer.
I wish that stuff like this didn't go on, but the truth is that it does. We have to be much more cautious and hesitant than ever now. There are scam artists and people waiting to trick you out of a few dollars all over the place these days. The internet has only made this easier.
While I do think it's great that the FTC and other organizations are making such an effort to combat these scams, I'm not sure that it will ever be enough. People are creative when they need to make some money and there will always be new scams out there. We just have to be more and more careful all the time.
People are using popular job search websites to gain access to personal information such as names, dates of birth and social security numbers from those who think they're applying for jobs. These scam artists will post fake job openings to grab the attention of those searching the websites for work. Then they ask for all sorts of personal info to help in applying for the fake job. With that info, they can then apply for credit cards and other things in the unsuspecting applicants name.
The Federal Trade Commission (FTC) is working harder than ever to catch the people responsible for these and other scams. One case the FTC filed was against a bogus company called Job Safety. Their ads were aimed at people seeking work in maintenance and cleaning. They said that for $98, applicants could get a "certificate registration number" and that Job Safety would help them find a job. There were no jobs and the company was fake.
There are many more scams out there and job hunters need to be alert when searching. The article list many "red flags" to look for when searching for a job online.
- Legitimate companies won't use an email account with a domain like Hotmail, Yahoo, or Gmail. They will use a company email address.
- NO company has any reason to ask for bank account or credit card info just to apply for a job.
- Many scams will try to make you think you have to pay to receive unemployment benefits. This is not true.
It really doesn't surprise me that there are people who would do things like this. It's sad that people have gone so far as to prey on those who are desperately looking for a means to make a living. Sad, but not unbelievable.
As I was reading this article, I just got more and more irritated at the people responsible for these scams. It's frustrating that someone can put so much time and energy into coming up with these ideas. That time could be better spent working at a real job.
This might sound strange but I was also a little annoyed that so many people are falling for these scams. Some scam artists are very good, but most of them really aren't that great. They are too concerned with making a quick profit to spend too much time and money on the scam. Some of these bogus claims are really pretty easy to see right through. This is an example from the article:
Jay Foley, executive director of the Identity Theft Resource Center, is working with a man who took what he thought was a job as a mystery shopper for Western Union. After answering an ad on Craigslist, he received a $3,500 check, which he deposited into his bank account. He then went to Western Union to wire the money and observe the quality of customer service. The man was cautious — he waited for the check to clear first. Only later did he find out that while the check was written on a real account, it wasn't authorized. The company eventually voided the transaction, leaving the man responsible for the $3,500 he'd wired.
This man and his bank frustrate the heck out of me. He should have known better than to take something he found on craigslist.com at face value. He should have taken the time to research the company or contact the Better Business Bureau or the FTC. If it's legitimate, it's worth going the extra few steps to make sure.
His bank is partly at fault though. Bank employees are trained in fraud and security and should be able to recognize this "secret shopper" scam right away. They are one of the most commonly used scams and are pretty hard to miss. It's the bank's responsibility to protect and educate their customers. If a teller at the bank where I work let one of these checks through, they'd likely lose their job. The bank is out that money just like the customer.
I wish that stuff like this didn't go on, but the truth is that it does. We have to be much more cautious and hesitant than ever now. There are scam artists and people waiting to trick you out of a few dollars all over the place these days. The internet has only made this easier.
While I do think it's great that the FTC and other organizations are making such an effort to combat these scams, I'm not sure that it will ever be enough. People are creative when they need to make some money and there will always be new scams out there. We just have to be more and more careful all the time.
Thursday, October 8, 2009
Sex Offenders Banned From Church
I was surprised to learn that many sex offenders are apparently being banned from attending church services in some states. The more I read of this article, the more I understood the reasoning for this regulation, but I'm still torn on whether it should be in place.
The focus of the article is convicted sex offender James Nichols who says he was trying to better himself by going to church. The problem is that he was arrested by officers who say the reason is that the church has a daycare facility that makes it off limits to sex offenders. Now Nichols is challenging the laws in South Carolina that contributed to his arrest.
In some states, issues like that of Nichols are raising questions about the rights of sex offenders to attend places of worship. Many state laws make the places off limits automatically due to programs and care facilities provided for minor children. The article states that sex offender advocates agree that some offenders should not be allowed around children but that barring all offenders denies them support they need to become productive citizens.
Presently 36 states have established zones where registered sex offenders cannot live or visit, but only a few provide exemptions for churches.
Many church leaders are torn on the idea of allowing sex offenders to attend services. While many would like to provide a second chance and support for offenders on the road to recovery, they are still wary.
Joseph Green, pastor of a church Nichols attended after his arrest, says,
"I told him as long as he's honest with me, then we're willing to embrace him and help him focus and get his life back on track. The Bible talks about wolves coming in in sheep's clothing, so I've got to be watchful over everyone coming into my church."
I'm still somewhat undecided on this issue. My first reaction to the story was to think that sex offenders gave up many rights when they committed their crimes and should expect things like this to happen. I was in total agreeance with the laws that led to Nichols being arrested.
But the farther I read and the more I thought about things, it doesn't seem entirely fair. Yes, I know- life's not fair, they got what they deserved, etc.
But I'm leaning more toward Nichols's view on the matter. How can he be expected to learn how to live a better life and learn from his past crimes when society never really allows him to be a part of it anymore?
It's such a controversial topic, allowing a sex offender anywhere remotely near a child. In some cases, I think it shouldn't be allowed at all. There are many offenders whose crimes are so heinous that, if they aren't locked up for life, they shouldn't be allowed to ever see a child again.
I do believe that there are some that truly do want to make up for past mistakes and start over on a better path.
It's hard for a church especially, to tackle this issue. On the one hand, the church is there to provide sanctuary and second chances to those that everyone else may have given up on. But on the other hand, the church is a place of safety for all who attend. I can completely understand any parents who would have a problem with a convicted offender being anywhere near their child. If I had children, I know I would.
I just don't think they should be barred from church entirely. Many, many people who were previously thought hopeless have turned their lives around due in part to the church. I believe in second chances and forgiveness and that both should be extended to just about everyone.
That doesn't mean that I'd campaign for Nichols or anyone like him to be the new youth minister at my church.
I think it's the responsiblity of the chruch to offer help to all who need it. They also have the responsiblity to protect the children who can't protect themselves. Many churches, mine included, conduct a thorough background check on anyone interested in working with the youth. This helps to weed out anyone who could potentially pose a threat to the safety of the kids. It seems to me that if more churches adopted procedures like this, it would largely solve this problem. Churches would still be able to reach out to sex offenders to help them turn their lives around and children would be kept safe in the care of qualified people.
Worshipping in a place of their choice is something that should be available to anyone, no matter their past decisions. Jesus reached out to the outcasts and the ones no one else would help.What makes us too good to do the same?
The focus of the article is convicted sex offender James Nichols who says he was trying to better himself by going to church. The problem is that he was arrested by officers who say the reason is that the church has a daycare facility that makes it off limits to sex offenders. Now Nichols is challenging the laws in South Carolina that contributed to his arrest.
In some states, issues like that of Nichols are raising questions about the rights of sex offenders to attend places of worship. Many state laws make the places off limits automatically due to programs and care facilities provided for minor children. The article states that sex offender advocates agree that some offenders should not be allowed around children but that barring all offenders denies them support they need to become productive citizens.
Presently 36 states have established zones where registered sex offenders cannot live or visit, but only a few provide exemptions for churches.
Many church leaders are torn on the idea of allowing sex offenders to attend services. While many would like to provide a second chance and support for offenders on the road to recovery, they are still wary.
Joseph Green, pastor of a church Nichols attended after his arrest, says,
"I told him as long as he's honest with me, then we're willing to embrace him and help him focus and get his life back on track. The Bible talks about wolves coming in in sheep's clothing, so I've got to be watchful over everyone coming into my church."
I'm still somewhat undecided on this issue. My first reaction to the story was to think that sex offenders gave up many rights when they committed their crimes and should expect things like this to happen. I was in total agreeance with the laws that led to Nichols being arrested.
But the farther I read and the more I thought about things, it doesn't seem entirely fair. Yes, I know- life's not fair, they got what they deserved, etc.
But I'm leaning more toward Nichols's view on the matter. How can he be expected to learn how to live a better life and learn from his past crimes when society never really allows him to be a part of it anymore?
It's such a controversial topic, allowing a sex offender anywhere remotely near a child. In some cases, I think it shouldn't be allowed at all. There are many offenders whose crimes are so heinous that, if they aren't locked up for life, they shouldn't be allowed to ever see a child again.
I do believe that there are some that truly do want to make up for past mistakes and start over on a better path.
It's hard for a church especially, to tackle this issue. On the one hand, the church is there to provide sanctuary and second chances to those that everyone else may have given up on. But on the other hand, the church is a place of safety for all who attend. I can completely understand any parents who would have a problem with a convicted offender being anywhere near their child. If I had children, I know I would.
I just don't think they should be barred from church entirely. Many, many people who were previously thought hopeless have turned their lives around due in part to the church. I believe in second chances and forgiveness and that both should be extended to just about everyone.
That doesn't mean that I'd campaign for Nichols or anyone like him to be the new youth minister at my church.
I think it's the responsiblity of the chruch to offer help to all who need it. They also have the responsiblity to protect the children who can't protect themselves. Many churches, mine included, conduct a thorough background check on anyone interested in working with the youth. This helps to weed out anyone who could potentially pose a threat to the safety of the kids. It seems to me that if more churches adopted procedures like this, it would largely solve this problem. Churches would still be able to reach out to sex offenders to help them turn their lives around and children would be kept safe in the care of qualified people.
Worshipping in a place of their choice is something that should be available to anyone, no matter their past decisions. Jesus reached out to the outcasts and the ones no one else would help.What makes us too good to do the same?
Tuesday, October 6, 2009
Possible vaccine for cocaine addiction
I never thought much about something like a cocaine addiction vaccine actually working. The way this article explains it though, it could work a lot like nicotine patches do for smokers.
Recent research has shown that this vaccine-like shot is preventing users from getting high and also helping them fight their drug addiction. So far the shots don't work perfectly for every individual but the results look very promising. Researchers say that a perfected shot could be widely used to treat addiction within several years.
The vaccine works much the same way that nicotine vaccines do for smokers. They both stimulate the immune system to produce antibodies that attach to molecules of the drugs and block them from reaching the brain. This prevents the "high" that you would get from cocaine or nicotine.
In a study of this new vaccine, participants didn't experience the typical euphoric high that comes with cocaine use. Nearly 40 percent of them substantially cut back their use or stopped at least temporarily.
While the vaccine is still in it's early stages, many researchers say that the recent results are very promising. They hope to intoduce it to the mass market within several years to help battle the rising number of people hooked on cocaine.
I think the possiblity of a vaccine for cocaine dependancy is wonderful. I don't altogether understand what makes some people start in the first place but I do understand that it's next to impossible to quit once you're hooked. I've seen people addicted to cocaine and watched their lives spiral out of control. You really can't quit on your own. Something like this vaccine could give hope to a lot of people.
I was somewhat surprised to find out that methadone has no effect on cocaine addiction. The article talks about methadone being used to treat herion addiction but it also mentions that methadone is ineffective when it comes to cocaine dependancy.
I was impressed with some of the statistics of the study too. The article states that, of the group of 115 cocaine users, 53 percent stopped using cocaine for more than half the duration of the 12 week study. While they may have gone back to using, I think these results are very promising. Cocaine addiction is a very serious thing. Some addicts can't go more than mere hours between hits. To be able to stop altogether, even if it is temporary, is definitely an accomplishment.
The only concern I had when reading this article was this: What happens after? Once the addict has started treatment and successfully quits using cocaine, what happens then. How long do they need to keep up a regimen of shots to prevent a relapse? Can they become as dependant on the vaccine as they were on the cocaine?
I hope we hear more about this in the future. I think the possiblity of a cure for cocaine addiction is a great thing and I wish all the luck in the world to the doctors and scientists working on this project.
Recent research has shown that this vaccine-like shot is preventing users from getting high and also helping them fight their drug addiction. So far the shots don't work perfectly for every individual but the results look very promising. Researchers say that a perfected shot could be widely used to treat addiction within several years.
The vaccine works much the same way that nicotine vaccines do for smokers. They both stimulate the immune system to produce antibodies that attach to molecules of the drugs and block them from reaching the brain. This prevents the "high" that you would get from cocaine or nicotine.
In a study of this new vaccine, participants didn't experience the typical euphoric high that comes with cocaine use. Nearly 40 percent of them substantially cut back their use or stopped at least temporarily.
While the vaccine is still in it's early stages, many researchers say that the recent results are very promising. They hope to intoduce it to the mass market within several years to help battle the rising number of people hooked on cocaine.
I think the possiblity of a vaccine for cocaine dependancy is wonderful. I don't altogether understand what makes some people start in the first place but I do understand that it's next to impossible to quit once you're hooked. I've seen people addicted to cocaine and watched their lives spiral out of control. You really can't quit on your own. Something like this vaccine could give hope to a lot of people.
I was somewhat surprised to find out that methadone has no effect on cocaine addiction. The article talks about methadone being used to treat herion addiction but it also mentions that methadone is ineffective when it comes to cocaine dependancy.
I was impressed with some of the statistics of the study too. The article states that, of the group of 115 cocaine users, 53 percent stopped using cocaine for more than half the duration of the 12 week study. While they may have gone back to using, I think these results are very promising. Cocaine addiction is a very serious thing. Some addicts can't go more than mere hours between hits. To be able to stop altogether, even if it is temporary, is definitely an accomplishment.
The only concern I had when reading this article was this: What happens after? Once the addict has started treatment and successfully quits using cocaine, what happens then. How long do they need to keep up a regimen of shots to prevent a relapse? Can they become as dependant on the vaccine as they were on the cocaine?
I hope we hear more about this in the future. I think the possiblity of a cure for cocaine addiction is a great thing and I wish all the luck in the world to the doctors and scientists working on this project.
Friday, October 2, 2009
Why Banks Should Charge Higher Overdraft Fees
I found this opinion piece from Newsweek and I kind of agree with the author. It's about time banks stopped getting blamed for customers trying to use money that isn't in their accounts.
The article talks about how there has been a lot of negative media attention given to banks and the overdraft fees they charge. The fees are portrayed as unfair and it's implied that banks are preying on poor, unsuspecting Americans with those fees.
Congress has expressed anger over these charges and intends to do something about it. They have already introduced legislation intended to force these banks into charging lower fees or possibly none at all in some situations. The banks are starting to cave, with some already lowering fees or not charging at all if the overdraft is under a certain amount.
Many people are criticizing banks for charging overdraft fees, claiming that banks only prey on poor people. The author presents the following point and I agree with him. The only people group that banks are targeting is the group of people who spend money they don't have. Credit card companies react in much the same way when you reach your credit limit. You have only a certain amount to use and you should plan for that.
The article suggests that we seem to have forgotten whose fault it really is when we spend money we don't have. Ours. Banks aren't there to babysit us.
I agree with this article one hundred percent. I do think that there are banks that haven't used the best judgement in making loans. That's become blatantly obvious in the last few years. But I believe that customers should take resposibility for overdrawing their accounts.
Working in a bank, I talk to people all the time about the fees we've charged them for spending what they don't have. Our bank is actually a little more lenient as far as overdrafts go. Our normal fee of $20 is a little lower than a lot of other banks and we don't assess that fee until it's 6 p.m. and no deposit was made to cover the overdraft.
Even though we do try to make things a little easier, there are still people who are convinced that we're out to get them and they are the only customer being targeted with the fees.
I do agree with the author when he says that we have become a "nanny state" where everyone should be coddled and pampered, every child is gifted and talented and we shouldn't be expected to pay for our mistakes.
I love my job, but it is frustrating sometimes. We have customers every now and then who rant and rave about how we shouldn't charge those fees because they just made an itsy-bitsy mistake and the federal bailout money that so many banks recieved should be used instead.
I want to explain that our bank refused that money because we're fine on our own. We haven't made poor decisions that led other banks to have to beg money from the government. What started out as a small community bank 30 years ago now has over 20 percent of the business in Jasper and Newton counties. It didn't get that way by waiving fees for every customer who spent money that wasn't there.
I don't say all of that because I do like my job and I'd like to keep it.
Really, though I don't understand this sense of entitlement that our country has developed. The way I see it, if I overdraw my checking account that's my own fault and I expect to pay back what I owe the bank. I would be embarrased to make a fuss and blame the bank for my mistake.
I hope that some of this proposed legislation that blames the banks for customer mistakes isn't passed. Why punish the bank when it's generally the customer's fault that they overdraft?
What I see happening is this: Banks can't charge these fees (which they are totally justified in doing) so the customer thinks, "Hey, there's no penalty for spending what I don't really have. That's basically free money right?" This is going to result in charged off accounts galore. How does that help the poor customer? They learn nothing and have a pretty blemish on their credit report.
Basically I think it's time more people learned to be financially responsible. Work with what we have, not what we can weasel out of the bank.
The article talks about how there has been a lot of negative media attention given to banks and the overdraft fees they charge. The fees are portrayed as unfair and it's implied that banks are preying on poor, unsuspecting Americans with those fees.
Congress has expressed anger over these charges and intends to do something about it. They have already introduced legislation intended to force these banks into charging lower fees or possibly none at all in some situations. The banks are starting to cave, with some already lowering fees or not charging at all if the overdraft is under a certain amount.
Many people are criticizing banks for charging overdraft fees, claiming that banks only prey on poor people. The author presents the following point and I agree with him. The only people group that banks are targeting is the group of people who spend money they don't have. Credit card companies react in much the same way when you reach your credit limit. You have only a certain amount to use and you should plan for that.
The article suggests that we seem to have forgotten whose fault it really is when we spend money we don't have. Ours. Banks aren't there to babysit us.
I agree with this article one hundred percent. I do think that there are banks that haven't used the best judgement in making loans. That's become blatantly obvious in the last few years. But I believe that customers should take resposibility for overdrawing their accounts.
Working in a bank, I talk to people all the time about the fees we've charged them for spending what they don't have. Our bank is actually a little more lenient as far as overdrafts go. Our normal fee of $20 is a little lower than a lot of other banks and we don't assess that fee until it's 6 p.m. and no deposit was made to cover the overdraft.
Even though we do try to make things a little easier, there are still people who are convinced that we're out to get them and they are the only customer being targeted with the fees.
I do agree with the author when he says that we have become a "nanny state" where everyone should be coddled and pampered, every child is gifted and talented and we shouldn't be expected to pay for our mistakes.
I love my job, but it is frustrating sometimes. We have customers every now and then who rant and rave about how we shouldn't charge those fees because they just made an itsy-bitsy mistake and the federal bailout money that so many banks recieved should be used instead.
I want to explain that our bank refused that money because we're fine on our own. We haven't made poor decisions that led other banks to have to beg money from the government. What started out as a small community bank 30 years ago now has over 20 percent of the business in Jasper and Newton counties. It didn't get that way by waiving fees for every customer who spent money that wasn't there.
I don't say all of that because I do like my job and I'd like to keep it.
Really, though I don't understand this sense of entitlement that our country has developed. The way I see it, if I overdraw my checking account that's my own fault and I expect to pay back what I owe the bank. I would be embarrased to make a fuss and blame the bank for my mistake.
I hope that some of this proposed legislation that blames the banks for customer mistakes isn't passed. Why punish the bank when it's generally the customer's fault that they overdraft?
What I see happening is this: Banks can't charge these fees (which they are totally justified in doing) so the customer thinks, "Hey, there's no penalty for spending what I don't really have. That's basically free money right?" This is going to result in charged off accounts galore. How does that help the poor customer? They learn nothing and have a pretty blemish on their credit report.
Basically I think it's time more people learned to be financially responsible. Work with what we have, not what we can weasel out of the bank.
Wednesday, September 30, 2009
Shouldn't the judicial system decide this, not celebrities?
I had heard a little bit about this story recently but today I finally read the whole thing and frankly, it ticks me off that this guy expects to get away with what he did.
According to the article, in March of 1977, film director Roman Polanski (age 44 at the time) fed a 13 year old girl champagne and sedatives. According to the girl's grand jury testimony, Polanski then raped her. He agreed to plead guilty and was convicted of statutory rape, a lesser charge. He spent 42 days in a mental facility and apparently was led to believe that it would be considered "time served" and he would be put on probation. When he discovered that the judge intended to put him in jail, he jumped bail and went to France.
He's been living comfortably in France for the last three decades until last Saturday. He flew to Zurich to attend a film festival and was picked up by Swiss authorities who had a longstanding agreement with the U.S.
He's being held awaiting extradition back to the U.S.
In the middle of all of this, it seems half of Hollywood has come together to protest the extradition attempt, criticizing authoritities for pursuing Polanski after such a long time. many celebrities such as Debra Winger, Harrison Ford and Whoopi Goldberg are writing letters and speaking out. Whoopi went as far as making a statement on "The View," where she is a cohost.
"I know it wasn't 'rape' rape. I think it was something else, but I don't believe it was 'rape' rape," said Goldberg, dismissing the possibility that Polanski had forced himself on anyone.
"He pled guilty to having sex with a minor and he went to jail, and when they let him out (on bail, pending sentencing), he said, 'You know what, this guy's going to give me 100 years in jail. I'm not staying.' And that's why he left.
"So that's why I wanted to be really clear," Goldberg said, "cause I want to know exactly what I'm talking about."
First off, I've never been much of a fan of Whoopi Goldberg. She's okay, but I've never found her as funny as some do. After that comment, I'm never watching anything with her in it ever again.
If I had the chance, I'd like to ask her just what her definition of rape is versus "rape rape." Obviously she's never been taken advantage of by a man or she'd realize that rape is rape is rape.
Whoopi aside, I don't understand why all of these celebrities are banding together to defend the guy. He raped a 13 year old girl and ran away from the consequences. He's been living a cushy life for over 30 years when he should have served time in prison for such a heinous act.
Just because it happened a long time ago and some celeb says it's a "gross miscarriage of justice" and Polanski is a "humanist" he's supposed to get away with this?
I don't think so.
Reading this article, I started to wonder how Harrison Ford or Harvey Weinstein, supporters of Polanski, would feel if that girl from 1977 had been their daughter. If either of them are anything like a lot of the fathers I know, life in prison wouldn't be enough to make up for what that monster did to their little girl.
It baffles me that so many people think Polanski should get away with this. It shouldn't matter if it happened 30 years or 3 days ago. He still raped a girl. The only reason this is an issue now is because he ran away! What right does he have to decide that he's not going to pay the price for what was done to that girl?
As for the "gross micarriage of justice" that these celebs think is playing out, I think it's merely justice that's been a long time coming. It's certainly not any kind of miscarriage. He deserves to serve time in prison. He should not get to go back to his easy life in France simply because he's managed to string this situation along for so many years.
I have read a few more articles about this situation and apparently the victim has joined the bid for dismissal of the case. At some point, she sued Polanski and recieved an undisclosed settlement and now just wants the case to be over. I can understand her feelings in the matter but I still think he needs to own up and take responsibility for what he did. It doesn't seem right that he can pay a sum of money and not serve the jail time because he had the resources to run away from the problem.
According to the article, in March of 1977, film director Roman Polanski (age 44 at the time) fed a 13 year old girl champagne and sedatives. According to the girl's grand jury testimony, Polanski then raped her. He agreed to plead guilty and was convicted of statutory rape, a lesser charge. He spent 42 days in a mental facility and apparently was led to believe that it would be considered "time served" and he would be put on probation. When he discovered that the judge intended to put him in jail, he jumped bail and went to France.
He's been living comfortably in France for the last three decades until last Saturday. He flew to Zurich to attend a film festival and was picked up by Swiss authorities who had a longstanding agreement with the U.S.
He's being held awaiting extradition back to the U.S.
In the middle of all of this, it seems half of Hollywood has come together to protest the extradition attempt, criticizing authoritities for pursuing Polanski after such a long time. many celebrities such as Debra Winger, Harrison Ford and Whoopi Goldberg are writing letters and speaking out. Whoopi went as far as making a statement on "The View," where she is a cohost.
"I know it wasn't 'rape' rape. I think it was something else, but I don't believe it was 'rape' rape," said Goldberg, dismissing the possibility that Polanski had forced himself on anyone.
"He pled guilty to having sex with a minor and he went to jail, and when they let him out (on bail, pending sentencing), he said, 'You know what, this guy's going to give me 100 years in jail. I'm not staying.' And that's why he left.
"So that's why I wanted to be really clear," Goldberg said, "cause I want to know exactly what I'm talking about."
First off, I've never been much of a fan of Whoopi Goldberg. She's okay, but I've never found her as funny as some do. After that comment, I'm never watching anything with her in it ever again.
If I had the chance, I'd like to ask her just what her definition of rape is versus "rape rape." Obviously she's never been taken advantage of by a man or she'd realize that rape is rape is rape.
Whoopi aside, I don't understand why all of these celebrities are banding together to defend the guy. He raped a 13 year old girl and ran away from the consequences. He's been living a cushy life for over 30 years when he should have served time in prison for such a heinous act.
Just because it happened a long time ago and some celeb says it's a "gross miscarriage of justice" and Polanski is a "humanist" he's supposed to get away with this?
I don't think so.
Reading this article, I started to wonder how Harrison Ford or Harvey Weinstein, supporters of Polanski, would feel if that girl from 1977 had been their daughter. If either of them are anything like a lot of the fathers I know, life in prison wouldn't be enough to make up for what that monster did to their little girl.
It baffles me that so many people think Polanski should get away with this. It shouldn't matter if it happened 30 years or 3 days ago. He still raped a girl. The only reason this is an issue now is because he ran away! What right does he have to decide that he's not going to pay the price for what was done to that girl?
As for the "gross micarriage of justice" that these celebs think is playing out, I think it's merely justice that's been a long time coming. It's certainly not any kind of miscarriage. He deserves to serve time in prison. He should not get to go back to his easy life in France simply because he's managed to string this situation along for so many years.
I have read a few more articles about this situation and apparently the victim has joined the bid for dismissal of the case. At some point, she sued Polanski and recieved an undisclosed settlement and now just wants the case to be over. I can understand her feelings in the matter but I still think he needs to own up and take responsibility for what he did. It doesn't seem right that he can pay a sum of money and not serve the jail time because he had the resources to run away from the problem.
Tuesday, September 29, 2009
Should the President be assasinated? Who are we to decide that?
When will people learn that Facebook is not a free for all? Posts are monitered for goodness sakes!
In an article from Fox News, I read that someone created a Facebook poll that asks "Should Obama be killed?" The possible choices were no, maybe, yes and yes if he cuts my healthcare.
The poll was created by an idividual using a third party application on Facebook on Saturday. It was immediately removed when Facebook learned of its existence.
Says Facebook spokesman Barry Schnitt,
"The application was immediately suspended while the inappropriate content could be removed by the developer and until such time as the developer institutes better procedures to monitor their user-generated content."
The discovery of the poll has prompted an investigation by the Secret Service. It's unclear if they have any lead as to who created the poll but a spokesman says the investigation is ongoing.
Facebook is in total cooperation with the Secret Service.
I am in complete agreement that the person or persons resposible for this poll whould be found and have to face the consequences of such a stupid move. I don't agree with some of the policies of our president but that is absolutely no reason to contemplate assasinating him!
Really, think about it. If President Obama were assasinated who does that leave us with as president? Scary. I think I'd rather the administration stay just the way it is.
What seems really strange to me is that someone would think it's okay to post this poll. The internet is open to everyone. Facebook is a social networking site. This kind of thing is not going to go unnoticed by the Secret Service.
The President has a crazy amount of protection around himself and his family as well he should. According to the article, before the election last year, he recieved more death threats than any other candidate during the campaign. I'm sure many of those making the threats have not changed their opinions. Obviously one still feels the same way.
While I'm not exactly fond of President Obama, I would never entertain even a thought of him being assasinated. What right do I have to decide whether someone lives or dies based on my political opinion? The idea is just ridiculous to me.
One thing about this article that really struck me as ignorant was a comment made by Bob Beckel, Democratic Party strategist and Fox News correspondent. This is directly from the article:
"This is the kind of garbage that's generated from the extreme right against Obama, and it's going way over the line," Beckel told FOXNews.com. "It's got to be stopped. Find him, prosecute him and put him in jail."
I do agree with Mr. Beckel that this person should be found and prosecuted, but that's about all I agree with. He automatically assumes, with no evidence, that this poll must have been created by someone from the "extreme right," generators of all things garbage.
How ironic is it that the same type of comment probably would not be published had this situation happened a few years ago with former President Bush as the focus.
Heaven forbid anyone reveal anything less than golden where the Democrats are concerned.
I don't think it's only the extreme right continually propagating this kind of tension. I think extreme leftists and the liberal media are just as much to blame.
In an article from Fox News, I read that someone created a Facebook poll that asks "Should Obama be killed?" The possible choices were no, maybe, yes and yes if he cuts my healthcare.
The poll was created by an idividual using a third party application on Facebook on Saturday. It was immediately removed when Facebook learned of its existence.
Says Facebook spokesman Barry Schnitt,
"The application was immediately suspended while the inappropriate content could be removed by the developer and until such time as the developer institutes better procedures to monitor their user-generated content."
The discovery of the poll has prompted an investigation by the Secret Service. It's unclear if they have any lead as to who created the poll but a spokesman says the investigation is ongoing.
Facebook is in total cooperation with the Secret Service.
I am in complete agreement that the person or persons resposible for this poll whould be found and have to face the consequences of such a stupid move. I don't agree with some of the policies of our president but that is absolutely no reason to contemplate assasinating him!
Really, think about it. If President Obama were assasinated who does that leave us with as president? Scary. I think I'd rather the administration stay just the way it is.
What seems really strange to me is that someone would think it's okay to post this poll. The internet is open to everyone. Facebook is a social networking site. This kind of thing is not going to go unnoticed by the Secret Service.
The President has a crazy amount of protection around himself and his family as well he should. According to the article, before the election last year, he recieved more death threats than any other candidate during the campaign. I'm sure many of those making the threats have not changed their opinions. Obviously one still feels the same way.
While I'm not exactly fond of President Obama, I would never entertain even a thought of him being assasinated. What right do I have to decide whether someone lives or dies based on my political opinion? The idea is just ridiculous to me.
One thing about this article that really struck me as ignorant was a comment made by Bob Beckel, Democratic Party strategist and Fox News correspondent. This is directly from the article:
"This is the kind of garbage that's generated from the extreme right against Obama, and it's going way over the line," Beckel told FOXNews.com. "It's got to be stopped. Find him, prosecute him and put him in jail."
I do agree with Mr. Beckel that this person should be found and prosecuted, but that's about all I agree with. He automatically assumes, with no evidence, that this poll must have been created by someone from the "extreme right," generators of all things garbage.
How ironic is it that the same type of comment probably would not be published had this situation happened a few years ago with former President Bush as the focus.
Heaven forbid anyone reveal anything less than golden where the Democrats are concerned.
I don't think it's only the extreme right continually propagating this kind of tension. I think extreme leftists and the liberal media are just as much to blame.
Friday, September 25, 2009
Sickening
I've already done my 3 posts for this week but I really wanted to post a link to this article. It made me sick to my stomach when I read it.
Especially the part about "Jesus Loves the Little Children."
Especially the part about "Jesus Loves the Little Children."
Thursday, September 24, 2009
The Stockpiling Continues
After reading this article, I'd say that ammunition manufacturers have some of the safest jobs in the country. Right now anyway.
In the U.S., ammo sales continue to spike almost a year after the election of our new president. According to the story in Fox News, bullet makers are working around the clock, seven days a week and still fall short of the demand presented by Americans.
The reason for the demand? Many consumers are afraid that President Obama and the Democratic-controlled congress will pass antigun legislature, making it next to impossible to buy firearms and ammunition.
So far nothing has been presented to this effect. The president has even signed a law allowing people to carry loaded guns in national parks.
According the the NRA (National Rifle Association) Americans usually purchase around 7 billion rounds of ammo per year. In the last year, that number jumped to around 9 billion.
Says Al Russo, spokesman for the Remington Arms company out of North Carolina, "We are working overtime and still can't keep up with the demand. We've had to add a fourth shift and go 24-7. It's a phenomenon that I have not seen before in my 30 years in the business."
To help cope with the huge demand, many retailers are placing limits on quantities that customers can purchase at a time. With some types, the limit is as small as one box, depending on the demand for that product.
Many of these customers aren't running right out to the range though. They're stockpiling everything they can get their hands on in preparation for the antigun laws they're sure are coming someday.
When I read this article, it really came as no surprise to me that the demand is still so high and that companies are struggling to cope with shortages. I think part of that just comes from living in the Midwest.
In this part of the country especially, there are so many Americans who are really not in favor of the president and are positive that's he's going to take away their guns eventually.
It was news to me to hear that many companies have taken to working 24-7 to keep up with demand. I knew that some ammo was harder to find, but I just assumed that was because the production wasn't rising along with demand. It's interesting to me that companies have increased production significantly and still can't match the demand.
I have experienced this personally since my husband is a cop. I'll admit he's one of those who started stockpiling after the election. The closet at the top of our stairs used to be reserved just for towels and sheets. I've had to make room for a bunch of ammo in the last year. He's gotten better in recent months though. Thank goodness! Now he just gets excited if he finds something particularly scarce and he'll snatch up a few boxes.
There for a while I thought we were well on our way to being ready for World War III.
He did also purchase another gun and that was an ordeal. The demand for firearms has increased along with ammo. We ordered this gun in February of this year and it was on backorder. He finally recieved it in July.
I used to work at Academy Sports here in Joplin and I saw the change there too. When I started the job, the store always had a pretty good supply of guns and ammo and had no problem meeting customer demands. Now if you visit the gun counter, there isn't much to see. They have a very limited supply of firearms and have placed pretty strict quantity limits on certain types of ammo, if they're even in stock to begin with.
I understand the reason for all of this fuss over guns and ammo. I realize why so many people, my husband included, have stockpiles of ammo stashed away at home. I even had some of the same thoughts for months after the election. Now though, I'm rethinking some things. I didn't vote for President Obama and am not that crazy about the guy, but I don't think we're in much danger of having all gun rights taken away. I think he plays the fence a little bit and wants to keep both parties happy and that won't happen if strict gun laws are passed.
I think for now, our gun rights are pretty safe. I don't see any change in the near future.
In the U.S., ammo sales continue to spike almost a year after the election of our new president. According to the story in Fox News, bullet makers are working around the clock, seven days a week and still fall short of the demand presented by Americans.
The reason for the demand? Many consumers are afraid that President Obama and the Democratic-controlled congress will pass antigun legislature, making it next to impossible to buy firearms and ammunition.
So far nothing has been presented to this effect. The president has even signed a law allowing people to carry loaded guns in national parks.
According the the NRA (National Rifle Association) Americans usually purchase around 7 billion rounds of ammo per year. In the last year, that number jumped to around 9 billion.
Says Al Russo, spokesman for the Remington Arms company out of North Carolina, "We are working overtime and still can't keep up with the demand. We've had to add a fourth shift and go 24-7. It's a phenomenon that I have not seen before in my 30 years in the business."
To help cope with the huge demand, many retailers are placing limits on quantities that customers can purchase at a time. With some types, the limit is as small as one box, depending on the demand for that product.
Many of these customers aren't running right out to the range though. They're stockpiling everything they can get their hands on in preparation for the antigun laws they're sure are coming someday.
When I read this article, it really came as no surprise to me that the demand is still so high and that companies are struggling to cope with shortages. I think part of that just comes from living in the Midwest.
In this part of the country especially, there are so many Americans who are really not in favor of the president and are positive that's he's going to take away their guns eventually.
It was news to me to hear that many companies have taken to working 24-7 to keep up with demand. I knew that some ammo was harder to find, but I just assumed that was because the production wasn't rising along with demand. It's interesting to me that companies have increased production significantly and still can't match the demand.
I have experienced this personally since my husband is a cop. I'll admit he's one of those who started stockpiling after the election. The closet at the top of our stairs used to be reserved just for towels and sheets. I've had to make room for a bunch of ammo in the last year. He's gotten better in recent months though. Thank goodness! Now he just gets excited if he finds something particularly scarce and he'll snatch up a few boxes.
There for a while I thought we were well on our way to being ready for World War III.
He did also purchase another gun and that was an ordeal. The demand for firearms has increased along with ammo. We ordered this gun in February of this year and it was on backorder. He finally recieved it in July.
I used to work at Academy Sports here in Joplin and I saw the change there too. When I started the job, the store always had a pretty good supply of guns and ammo and had no problem meeting customer demands. Now if you visit the gun counter, there isn't much to see. They have a very limited supply of firearms and have placed pretty strict quantity limits on certain types of ammo, if they're even in stock to begin with.
I understand the reason for all of this fuss over guns and ammo. I realize why so many people, my husband included, have stockpiles of ammo stashed away at home. I even had some of the same thoughts for months after the election. Now though, I'm rethinking some things. I didn't vote for President Obama and am not that crazy about the guy, but I don't think we're in much danger of having all gun rights taken away. I think he plays the fence a little bit and wants to keep both parties happy and that won't happen if strict gun laws are passed.
I think for now, our gun rights are pretty safe. I don't see any change in the near future.
Tuesday, September 22, 2009
Once again, it's those crazy Christians making everybody else uncomfortable...
A grocery store in St. Louis has stirred up some controversy over one store manager's public expression of faith.
Tom Collora, manager of Cullinaria in downtown St. Louis, put up a crucifix behind the customer service counter in view of the checkout registers. Collora has worked for the chain for 40 years and has displayed a crucifix at 2 other Schnucks (name of the parent company) stores with no complaints from customers.
This time, though, someone is upset. Lori Weinstock,who is Jewish, said that the crucifix in the St. Louis store upset her enough to write a letter to the Jewish Light newspaper. Weinstock says, "It would have been equally startling if it had been a Star of David or an emblem of another religion. It's grocery shopping, and it should be welcoming to all and exclude none."
Collora says that the crucifix is not meant to promote his faith over another. He says, "It's just an opportunity to share a part of my faith with people I work hard to serve every day."
Lori Willis, communications director for Schnucks, says that Collora is the only manager to request to display such an object and that company leaders granted the request out of respect for Tom and his faith.
One reason for the controversy is that the crucifix, which shows Jesus nailed to a cross, is an ambiguous symbol that can mean something good to one religion and something entirely different to another. To the Jewish people, like Lori Weinstock, it can mean, "You're a Christ killer."
Whatever the opinions about Tom's display may be, it continues to hang in the store. The Anti-Defamation League of St. Louis has decided not to lodge an official complaint with Schnucks, despite recieving individual complaints. Says a company spokesperson, " After some significant discussion within the Jewish and interfaith communities, we felt this was not a battle that should be pressed right now."
The first line of the article simply says that a manager of a grocery store is causing some concern after hanging a crucifix behind the customer service counter of his store. My initial reaction is of course it's going to cause concern! A religious symbol hanging in a public business? Not the best idea if you don't like to attract negative attention.
I read a little farther and discovered that this is a chain of stores, not just one store belonging solely to this guy. That's when I started to wonder how on earth he was getting away with with a stunt like this. Isn't there someone at the corporate level who wouldn't allow such a blatant display of faith in one of their chain of stores? I wasn't upset with Collora though. Far from it, in fact. I was already admiring the guy for having the guts to do something like this. But I still wondered how he managed to pull it off.
So I read the rest of the article and was pleasantly surprised to read that the company leaders had already approved this display of faith in at least 2 other stores. I had been worried about this guy losing his job over his beliefs, but the company is backing him! I think that's pretty awesome, myself. I'm happy for him that he has a job where he can express his beliefs without fear of being reprimanded or fired.
As for those who complained about the crucifix, I say shop somewhere else. If it makes you uncomfortable to see such displays, don't leave your house. What's next? Telling churches that every cross or other symbol has to be moved to the inside of the building just so no one has to feel uncomfortable while walking down the sidewalk? Sadly, ideas like that don't seem so far-fetched anymore.
We are a country that prides itself on being accepting of everyone, no matter what they believe or what lifestyle they choose. That is, unless that faith happens to be the Christian one. In that case, you'll most likely be labeled a fanatical, overbearing faith-pusher if anyone hears a peep from you.
Anyway...time to come down from soap box now. One last thing though-
I have to wonder if Ms. Weinstock really would feel the same way about any other religious symbol that didn't remind her that the Jewish people killed Jesus?
Tom Collora, manager of Cullinaria in downtown St. Louis, put up a crucifix behind the customer service counter in view of the checkout registers. Collora has worked for the chain for 40 years and has displayed a crucifix at 2 other Schnucks (name of the parent company) stores with no complaints from customers.
This time, though, someone is upset. Lori Weinstock,who is Jewish, said that the crucifix in the St. Louis store upset her enough to write a letter to the Jewish Light newspaper. Weinstock says, "It would have been equally startling if it had been a Star of David or an emblem of another religion. It's grocery shopping, and it should be welcoming to all and exclude none."
Collora says that the crucifix is not meant to promote his faith over another. He says, "It's just an opportunity to share a part of my faith with people I work hard to serve every day."
Lori Willis, communications director for Schnucks, says that Collora is the only manager to request to display such an object and that company leaders granted the request out of respect for Tom and his faith.
One reason for the controversy is that the crucifix, which shows Jesus nailed to a cross, is an ambiguous symbol that can mean something good to one religion and something entirely different to another. To the Jewish people, like Lori Weinstock, it can mean, "You're a Christ killer."
Whatever the opinions about Tom's display may be, it continues to hang in the store. The Anti-Defamation League of St. Louis has decided not to lodge an official complaint with Schnucks, despite recieving individual complaints. Says a company spokesperson, " After some significant discussion within the Jewish and interfaith communities, we felt this was not a battle that should be pressed right now."
The first line of the article simply says that a manager of a grocery store is causing some concern after hanging a crucifix behind the customer service counter of his store. My initial reaction is of course it's going to cause concern! A religious symbol hanging in a public business? Not the best idea if you don't like to attract negative attention.
I read a little farther and discovered that this is a chain of stores, not just one store belonging solely to this guy. That's when I started to wonder how on earth he was getting away with with a stunt like this. Isn't there someone at the corporate level who wouldn't allow such a blatant display of faith in one of their chain of stores? I wasn't upset with Collora though. Far from it, in fact. I was already admiring the guy for having the guts to do something like this. But I still wondered how he managed to pull it off.
So I read the rest of the article and was pleasantly surprised to read that the company leaders had already approved this display of faith in at least 2 other stores. I had been worried about this guy losing his job over his beliefs, but the company is backing him! I think that's pretty awesome, myself. I'm happy for him that he has a job where he can express his beliefs without fear of being reprimanded or fired.
As for those who complained about the crucifix, I say shop somewhere else. If it makes you uncomfortable to see such displays, don't leave your house. What's next? Telling churches that every cross or other symbol has to be moved to the inside of the building just so no one has to feel uncomfortable while walking down the sidewalk? Sadly, ideas like that don't seem so far-fetched anymore.
We are a country that prides itself on being accepting of everyone, no matter what they believe or what lifestyle they choose. That is, unless that faith happens to be the Christian one. In that case, you'll most likely be labeled a fanatical, overbearing faith-pusher if anyone hears a peep from you.
Anyway...time to come down from soap box now. One last thing though-
I have to wonder if Ms. Weinstock really would feel the same way about any other religious symbol that didn't remind her that the Jewish people killed Jesus?
The Other Biggest Losers
Imagine what shape our economy could be in if everyone thought like this family. We might not be facing a housing crisis or massive unemployment, among other things.
Just 5 years ago, the Hildebrants of New Richmond, Wisconsin, were carrying more than $100,000 in credit card and personal debt. In those 5 years they have paid off everything by sheer determination along with hard work and a little frugality. These days the only debt they carry is a mortgage (it wasn't among the $106, 000 in debt that they've paid off).
Five years ago, Russell and Kelly Hildebrant had credit cards totalling about $89,000 and owed $17,000 to a family member. They were keeping current on all their payments, but their interest rates were climbing and they began to really struggle with the monthly payments.
The Hildebrant's mounting debt was not really the product of a lavish lifestyle. They just weren't as careful as they could have been. Russell worked as a chemist and Kelly stayed at home to homeschool the children. Family vacations were usually just visits to extended family and they rented a small townhome.
What contibuted to the slow decline were small things, such as always purchasing new clothes for the kids and name brand groceries over store brands. They also had some medical expenses related to Russell's diabetes and several miscarraiges that Kelly had experienced.
They knew that they had to do something but bankruptcy, the suggestion of several friends and family members, wasn't an option for Russell and Kelly. They contacted the Consumer Credit Counseling Service (CCCS) and came up with a 5 year plan to pay off their debt. To make the intense payment schedule work, they began purchasing generic grocery brands and clothing from thrift stores. They also stopped exchanging birthday and Christmas presents with family and friends and made due with one car for a long time. They still couldn't quite make the $2,000 per month payment so Russell took a second job cleaning a local grocery store at nights.
The schedule was grueling for the whole family, but it began to get better the closer they got to the end. Everything was eventually paid off and the family was able to purchase a home and Russell quit the second job. They have learned some valuable lessons and formed some good habits, such as bargain shopping. They remain debt free other than the mortgage.
Before I started reading this article, I was just expecting another story about a family living above and beyond their means because they just had to have this car or that house. I was certainly surprised when I read a little bit farther. This isn't a family who spent lavishly. I realized that a significant part of the debt were medical bills and they weren't living in a house that was too expensive for them. This family was even continuing to set aside ten percent of their income to go to their church as a tithe.
I read a little farther and discovered that it was really a slow decline and the mistakes that they did make, such as purchasing name brand groceries and brand new clothes, are mistakes any of us could make. I guess the little things really do catch up with you eventually.
I was very impressed that they decided to take the debts on and pay everything instead of declaring bankruptcy. That would have been the easy way out. I'm also impressed at the lengths they went to in order to pay $106, 000 in just five years. According to the article, when Russell took the second job his schedule went something like this: Wake up, go to job #1, work a full day, go home and catch a few hours of sleep, wake up and head to job #2, work from midnight to 4:30 a.m., head home, sleep a couple hours then head back to job #1 and start all over again. Talk about stressful! I don't know if I could handle it.
I also think it's amazing that this family was able to stick together during this process. Many couples end up divorced over money troubles that are really trivial. So, it really does make me wonder...what kind of shape would our country be in if more people had this kind of determination and willingness to take responsibility for their finances?
Just 5 years ago, the Hildebrants of New Richmond, Wisconsin, were carrying more than $100,000 in credit card and personal debt. In those 5 years they have paid off everything by sheer determination along with hard work and a little frugality. These days the only debt they carry is a mortgage (it wasn't among the $106, 000 in debt that they've paid off).
Five years ago, Russell and Kelly Hildebrant had credit cards totalling about $89,000 and owed $17,000 to a family member. They were keeping current on all their payments, but their interest rates were climbing and they began to really struggle with the monthly payments.
The Hildebrant's mounting debt was not really the product of a lavish lifestyle. They just weren't as careful as they could have been. Russell worked as a chemist and Kelly stayed at home to homeschool the children. Family vacations were usually just visits to extended family and they rented a small townhome.
What contibuted to the slow decline were small things, such as always purchasing new clothes for the kids and name brand groceries over store brands. They also had some medical expenses related to Russell's diabetes and several miscarraiges that Kelly had experienced.
They knew that they had to do something but bankruptcy, the suggestion of several friends and family members, wasn't an option for Russell and Kelly. They contacted the Consumer Credit Counseling Service (CCCS) and came up with a 5 year plan to pay off their debt. To make the intense payment schedule work, they began purchasing generic grocery brands and clothing from thrift stores. They also stopped exchanging birthday and Christmas presents with family and friends and made due with one car for a long time. They still couldn't quite make the $2,000 per month payment so Russell took a second job cleaning a local grocery store at nights.
The schedule was grueling for the whole family, but it began to get better the closer they got to the end. Everything was eventually paid off and the family was able to purchase a home and Russell quit the second job. They have learned some valuable lessons and formed some good habits, such as bargain shopping. They remain debt free other than the mortgage.
Before I started reading this article, I was just expecting another story about a family living above and beyond their means because they just had to have this car or that house. I was certainly surprised when I read a little bit farther. This isn't a family who spent lavishly. I realized that a significant part of the debt were medical bills and they weren't living in a house that was too expensive for them. This family was even continuing to set aside ten percent of their income to go to their church as a tithe.
I read a little farther and discovered that it was really a slow decline and the mistakes that they did make, such as purchasing name brand groceries and brand new clothes, are mistakes any of us could make. I guess the little things really do catch up with you eventually.
I was very impressed that they decided to take the debts on and pay everything instead of declaring bankruptcy. That would have been the easy way out. I'm also impressed at the lengths they went to in order to pay $106, 000 in just five years. According to the article, when Russell took the second job his schedule went something like this: Wake up, go to job #1, work a full day, go home and catch a few hours of sleep, wake up and head to job #2, work from midnight to 4:30 a.m., head home, sleep a couple hours then head back to job #1 and start all over again. Talk about stressful! I don't know if I could handle it.
I also think it's amazing that this family was able to stick together during this process. Many couples end up divorced over money troubles that are really trivial. So, it really does make me wonder...what kind of shape would our country be in if more people had this kind of determination and willingness to take responsibility for their finances?
Friday, September 18, 2009
10 Marriage Truths
This is an opinion piece from Fox News and I just really like what this guy has to say about marriage. It's refreshing to hear the ideas of someone who doesn't seem totally jaded by this world and its lackluster view on marriage.
Reverend Bill Shuler is the pastor of Capital Life Church in Arlington, VA. He's compiled a list of 10 things that are absolutes where marriage is concerned, even though we've forgotten many of them, it seems. Reverend Shuler put this list together among rising divorce rates and ongoing attempts to redifine what marriage is in our country. Here's the actual list if you don't get a chance to read his piece:
I love this article. Thes things are so true. A couple that really stick out to me are 1, 2 and 10.
Marriage is a covenant, not a contract. I think we tend to forget this one for sure. Marriage is intended to be for life. We shouldn't enter into a covenant without absolute certainty that we do not intend to break it at a later date. Now, I do realize that every situation is different and there are definitely some very valid reasons for divorce, but those people aren't the ones I'm talking about. I;m really onlytalking about those of us who never really had forever in mind at the altar.
One must not redefine the original intent without consulting the author. This really says it all. God is the author of everthing, marriage included. Who are we to rewrite perfection?
The definition of marriage was not originally based in social opinion or manmade laws and should not now be reduced to either. This seems to me to go hand in hand with God being the author of marriage. God didn't consult us when he created the world and everything in it, nor should he have had to. What right do we have to redefine the will of God with our often petty and trivial manmade laws?
Sorry, I'm ranting a little I guess. I don't mean to offend anyone, but this is what I believe and I was pretty excited to find this little article. It's reassuring to remember that I'm not just old-fashioned in the way I think or in the values I hold. I'm just part of a dwindling number I suppose.
Reverend Bill Shuler is the pastor of Capital Life Church in Arlington, VA. He's compiled a list of 10 things that are absolutes where marriage is concerned, even though we've forgotten many of them, it seems. Reverend Shuler put this list together among rising divorce rates and ongoing attempts to redifine what marriage is in our country. Here's the actual list if you don't get a chance to read his piece:
- Marriage is a covenant not simply a contract.
- One must not redefine original intent without the permission of the author.
- All indicators point toward the emotional, social and economic benefits of marriage.
- The virtues of commitment and faithfulness must be reclaimed in America.
- The state of the union is no stronger than the union of our marriages.
- The marriage penalty tax is contrary to the values we claim to embrace.
- There is no greater weapon against child poverty and crime than healthy marriages.
- Strengthen marriage and you strengthen the family.
- Strengthen families and you strengthen a nation.
- The definition of marriage was not originally based in social opinion or manmade laws and should not now be reduced to either.
I love this article. Thes things are so true. A couple that really stick out to me are 1, 2 and 10.
Marriage is a covenant, not a contract. I think we tend to forget this one for sure. Marriage is intended to be for life. We shouldn't enter into a covenant without absolute certainty that we do not intend to break it at a later date. Now, I do realize that every situation is different and there are definitely some very valid reasons for divorce, but those people aren't the ones I'm talking about. I;m really onlytalking about those of us who never really had forever in mind at the altar.
One must not redefine the original intent without consulting the author. This really says it all. God is the author of everthing, marriage included. Who are we to rewrite perfection?
The definition of marriage was not originally based in social opinion or manmade laws and should not now be reduced to either. This seems to me to go hand in hand with God being the author of marriage. God didn't consult us when he created the world and everything in it, nor should he have had to. What right do we have to redefine the will of God with our often petty and trivial manmade laws?
Sorry, I'm ranting a little I guess. I don't mean to offend anyone, but this is what I believe and I was pretty excited to find this little article. It's reassuring to remember that I'm not just old-fashioned in the way I think or in the values I hold. I'm just part of a dwindling number I suppose.
What to do with my easy bake oven now?
How many of you have held a yard sale? Helped your parents set up for one? Tried to keep them from selling your massive collection of Barbies and/or Hot Wheels? We all have. But now it might cost you a lot more than you bargained for. According to an article at FoxNews.com, the Consumer Product Safety Commission, or CMSC, has come up with some pretty rigid regulations on what we can and can't resell.
These rules were set up in the 2008 Consumer Product Safety Improvement Act after a series of toy recalls that made big news. The rules originally applied only to new products, but now the CPSC is enforcing these rules when it comes to used toys.
This is directly from the article and explains the reason for these new rules:
"Those who resell recalled children's products are not only breaking the law, they are putting children's lives at risk,” said CPSC Chairman Inez Tenenbaum. "Resale stores should make safety their business and check for recalled products and hazards to children."
So what this means for resale stores, flea-markets and individuals selling used goods is many tedious hours consulting the CPSC's often-updated website and handbook for what they can and can't sell.
The consequences if your yard sale is targeted and you get caught selling an Easy Bake Oven that was recalled 15 years ago? Up to $100,000 in fines for one infraction and up to $15 million for a series of related incidents. Seriously.
The CPSC says that they are enfocing these regulations for the protection of children who might come into possesion of a second-hand toy that was recalled at one time.
While I do see the point of view of the CPSC in this matter, I definitely don't agree with it. I encourage them to monitor the sales and recalls of new toys but I don't think that they have any place policing yard sales and flea markets for toys that were recalled years ago.
When you purchase something secondhand, you purchase with the knowledge that it is just that- used. I think it's up to the parents in these situations to decide whether a used toy is still safe for their child. I would hope than any parent with common sense is going to ensure that a toy is safe before giving it to their child.
I think it's unfair to slap these fines on individuals and small resale shops when many of them don't even know these regulations exist. It's ridiculous to me that they are expected to track every product recall and search through the sometimes cluttered and unorganized inventory of a flea market to find these things. Especially a business that might only be run by 2 or 3 people. They'd need another full time person just to search for recalled products.
After reading this article, I will say that I fully understand the position of the CPSC and I realize why they're doing this, but I think they should stick to regulating products being sold new. Leave the yard sales to the parents.
These rules were set up in the 2008 Consumer Product Safety Improvement Act after a series of toy recalls that made big news. The rules originally applied only to new products, but now the CPSC is enforcing these rules when it comes to used toys.
This is directly from the article and explains the reason for these new rules:
"Those who resell recalled children's products are not only breaking the law, they are putting children's lives at risk,” said CPSC Chairman Inez Tenenbaum. "Resale stores should make safety their business and check for recalled products and hazards to children."
So what this means for resale stores, flea-markets and individuals selling used goods is many tedious hours consulting the CPSC's often-updated website and handbook for what they can and can't sell.
The consequences if your yard sale is targeted and you get caught selling an Easy Bake Oven that was recalled 15 years ago? Up to $100,000 in fines for one infraction and up to $15 million for a series of related incidents. Seriously.
The CPSC says that they are enfocing these regulations for the protection of children who might come into possesion of a second-hand toy that was recalled at one time.
While I do see the point of view of the CPSC in this matter, I definitely don't agree with it. I encourage them to monitor the sales and recalls of new toys but I don't think that they have any place policing yard sales and flea markets for toys that were recalled years ago.
When you purchase something secondhand, you purchase with the knowledge that it is just that- used. I think it's up to the parents in these situations to decide whether a used toy is still safe for their child. I would hope than any parent with common sense is going to ensure that a toy is safe before giving it to their child.
I think it's unfair to slap these fines on individuals and small resale shops when many of them don't even know these regulations exist. It's ridiculous to me that they are expected to track every product recall and search through the sometimes cluttered and unorganized inventory of a flea market to find these things. Especially a business that might only be run by 2 or 3 people. They'd need another full time person just to search for recalled products.
After reading this article, I will say that I fully understand the position of the CPSC and I realize why they're doing this, but I think they should stick to regulating products being sold new. Leave the yard sales to the parents.
Thursday, September 17, 2009
Immigration Limbo
Sgt. Michael Ferschke of the U.S. Marines was killed in Iraq last year, leaving behind a widow and infant son, both Japanese citizens. Michael's widow, Hotaru wants to raise their son in the Tennessee home of Michael's parents, but U.S. immigration laws are standing in the way. The United States is denying Hotaru and her son permanent residency rights, citing a 1950s legal standard that was put in place with the intention of preventing marraige fraud. The U.S. government won't recognize the marriage, but the military does.
Michael and Hotaru had been together in Japan for over a year and she was pregnant when Michael was deplyed to Iraq. After his deployment, they were married in what is called a proxy wedding. Japan does not require an actual wedding ceremony. Instead, couples sign sworn affidavits stating that they are legally free to marry and they register at a Japanese municipal government office. They don't have to both be present and together for the marriage.
The United States Military recognizes proxy marriages to make things easier for couples who are separated by war. They also pay health and survivor benefits to the spouse in a proxy marriage. Michael and Hotaru's proxy marraige took place in July while they were on separate continents. Michael was killed one month later.
Now the U.S. government is denying Hotaru residency rights based on a 57-year old immigration law that states the marraige must be consummated to be recognized. The couple were not able to meet in person again after the proxy wedding before Michael was killed.
The law preventing Hotaru from becoming an American citezen was put into place to prevent fraudulent marraiges between people who never intended to actually live together and only married to guarantee citizenship for one of them.
My intial reaction to this story is sympathy for Michael's widow and baby. It's hardy her fault that the marraige wasn't consummated after the wedding. That's just a hazard of Michael's chosen career. I don't really understand why it's totally fine for the military to pay out benefits to her as his surviving widow, but the government won't even recognize her as his wife.
The more I read about why the laws are in place, the more I understood that they do serve a purpose. I realized that without them, there would be fraudulent marriages galore.
I can see that there must be some kind of regulation enforced to prevent anyone and everyone from finding an easy way to obtain citizenship. I'm a firm believer that people should earn their citizenship to ANY country, not just the United States, so these laws make sense to an extent.
After considering that these laws might be beneficial in many circumstances, I thought about people like Hotaru who are denied entry to the country because of what really just amounts to bad timing. I think that whoever is in charge of enforcing these rules should also look at individual cases that might warrant a closer investigation. It's unfair to apply one big blanket rule to every case without looking at situations like Hotaru and Michael a little more closely.
I hope that someone does reconsider in Hotaru's situation and allow her to live in her husband's country. It would be a shame that the child, who will never meet his father, would also never get to meet his grandparents.
Michael and Hotaru had been together in Japan for over a year and she was pregnant when Michael was deplyed to Iraq. After his deployment, they were married in what is called a proxy wedding. Japan does not require an actual wedding ceremony. Instead, couples sign sworn affidavits stating that they are legally free to marry and they register at a Japanese municipal government office. They don't have to both be present and together for the marriage.
The United States Military recognizes proxy marriages to make things easier for couples who are separated by war. They also pay health and survivor benefits to the spouse in a proxy marriage. Michael and Hotaru's proxy marraige took place in July while they were on separate continents. Michael was killed one month later.
Now the U.S. government is denying Hotaru residency rights based on a 57-year old immigration law that states the marraige must be consummated to be recognized. The couple were not able to meet in person again after the proxy wedding before Michael was killed.
The law preventing Hotaru from becoming an American citezen was put into place to prevent fraudulent marraiges between people who never intended to actually live together and only married to guarantee citizenship for one of them.
My intial reaction to this story is sympathy for Michael's widow and baby. It's hardy her fault that the marraige wasn't consummated after the wedding. That's just a hazard of Michael's chosen career. I don't really understand why it's totally fine for the military to pay out benefits to her as his surviving widow, but the government won't even recognize her as his wife.
The more I read about why the laws are in place, the more I understood that they do serve a purpose. I realized that without them, there would be fraudulent marriages galore.
I can see that there must be some kind of regulation enforced to prevent anyone and everyone from finding an easy way to obtain citizenship. I'm a firm believer that people should earn their citizenship to ANY country, not just the United States, so these laws make sense to an extent.
After considering that these laws might be beneficial in many circumstances, I thought about people like Hotaru who are denied entry to the country because of what really just amounts to bad timing. I think that whoever is in charge of enforcing these rules should also look at individual cases that might warrant a closer investigation. It's unfair to apply one big blanket rule to every case without looking at situations like Hotaru and Michael a little more closely.
I hope that someone does reconsider in Hotaru's situation and allow her to live in her husband's country. It would be a shame that the child, who will never meet his father, would also never get to meet his grandparents.
Friday, September 11, 2009
I've always wondered what exactly ACORN really does...
This has got to be one of the more ridiculous stories I've heard in quite a while. Really absurd.
The Association of Community Organizations for Reform Now, better known as ACORN, is as it's website states, "the nation's largest community organization of low- and moderate-income families, working together for social justice and stronger communities."
This article makes me wonder what some of the members have in mind when they think of social justice and strong community.
ACORN officials in Baltimore were secretly filmed giving advice to a couple posing as a prostitute and her pimp about how to lie to the IRS and set up a bogus business front for what would really be a brothel full of child prostitutes.
The video was made by 25-year old independant film maker James O'Keefe and a girl identified as "Kenya." They posed as a couple wanting to get a loan to help them secure a facility where they could continue to run a prostitution business.
They were also encouraged to lie to the IRS on tax forms and given advice on how to claim underage girls from South America as dependants to recieve government benefits. The ACORN staffer admits that the activities being discussed are illegal, specifically bringing in 13 underage girls from El Salvador, but encourages the couple to claim them as dependants anyway.
I can't possibly describe everything well enough for you to really get the gist of what was going on so here's an excerpt from the conversation between the ACORN member and the 'pimp.'
Here they are talking about the problem with claiming the girls when they are working illegaly.
"What if they are going to be making money because they are performing tricks too?" the pimp says.
"If they making money and they are underage, then you shouldn't be letting anybody know anyway," the ACORN staffer says, and laughs. "It's illegal. So I am not hearing this, I am not hearing this. You talk too much. Don't give up no information you're not asked."
The "pimp" then asks ACORN staffers to "promise" not to discriminate against his sex worker because of "who she is and what she does," according to the audiotape.
"If we don't have the information, then how are we going to discriminate?" the ACORN staffer replies. "You see what I am saying?"
If the girls are under age 16, the ACORN staffer says on the tape, then they are not legally allowed to work in the state, regardless of what they do.
"So it's like they don't even exist?" "Kenya" asks.
"Exactly," the ACORN staffer replies. "It's like they don't even exist."
You really should read the entire article. It's unbelievable.
There's a second article too, you can read it here. It's even better.
What really caught my attention in the first place was just the title of the article, "ACORN Fires More Officials For Helping 'Pimp','Prostitute' In Washington Office." It sounded like it might be a good read.
After reading the first sentence, which states that ACORN members tried to help this couple set up a brothel for underage girls, I was shocked! I find it very disturbing that this kind of thing is going on. How many more people are there that have really committed these crimes, and gotten away scot-free?
The more I read of the dialogue between ACORN and the 'pimp' the more outraged I was. How can someone be so callous when speaking of selling young girls into what amounts to slavery? That aspect bothered me more than anything, more than cheating the IRS or lying about 'Kenya's' job.
I'm a sponsor for the youth group at my church and our high school age girls have gotten really involved with something called Rapha House here in Joplin. Some of you may have heard of it, but if not you should definitely check out this website. Rapha house is an organization with 4 facilities in Asia and a home office in Joplin. They work to rescue girls are victims of the sex trafficking industry.
Working with the girls in the youth group, I've learned so much about the sex trafficking epidemic. It breaks my heart to hear the stories some of these girls tell.
So when I read this article, the part about those girls is what stood out to me. While the couple knew that this was a lie and there were no girls from El Salvador, the ACORN employee did not. I think it's absolutely outrageous that the only thing I've heard so far is that a couple a people got fired! Whoopee, they lost their jobs. They should lose more than that for what they were preparing to take part in.
I will say that I also feel for ACORN. I know that there is probably an honest person or two working for the organization and that someone still holds to the values that ACORN was founded on and this just makes them look bad with the rest of the bunch.
I hope that this inspires whoever has the power to take a closer look at what's going on at ACORN and maybe they can weed out any more members who would take part in something so heinous.
The Association of Community Organizations for Reform Now, better known as ACORN, is as it's website states, "the nation's largest community organization of low- and moderate-income families, working together for social justice and stronger communities."
This article makes me wonder what some of the members have in mind when they think of social justice and strong community.
ACORN officials in Baltimore were secretly filmed giving advice to a couple posing as a prostitute and her pimp about how to lie to the IRS and set up a bogus business front for what would really be a brothel full of child prostitutes.
The video was made by 25-year old independant film maker James O'Keefe and a girl identified as "Kenya." They posed as a couple wanting to get a loan to help them secure a facility where they could continue to run a prostitution business.
They were also encouraged to lie to the IRS on tax forms and given advice on how to claim underage girls from South America as dependants to recieve government benefits. The ACORN staffer admits that the activities being discussed are illegal, specifically bringing in 13 underage girls from El Salvador, but encourages the couple to claim them as dependants anyway.
I can't possibly describe everything well enough for you to really get the gist of what was going on so here's an excerpt from the conversation between the ACORN member and the 'pimp.'
Here they are talking about the problem with claiming the girls when they are working illegaly.
"What if they are going to be making money because they are performing tricks too?" the pimp says.
"If they making money and they are underage, then you shouldn't be letting anybody know anyway," the ACORN staffer says, and laughs. "It's illegal. So I am not hearing this, I am not hearing this. You talk too much. Don't give up no information you're not asked."
The "pimp" then asks ACORN staffers to "promise" not to discriminate against his sex worker because of "who she is and what she does," according to the audiotape.
"If we don't have the information, then how are we going to discriminate?" the ACORN staffer replies. "You see what I am saying?"
If the girls are under age 16, the ACORN staffer says on the tape, then they are not legally allowed to work in the state, regardless of what they do.
"So it's like they don't even exist?" "Kenya" asks.
"Exactly," the ACORN staffer replies. "It's like they don't even exist."
You really should read the entire article. It's unbelievable.
There's a second article too, you can read it here. It's even better.
What really caught my attention in the first place was just the title of the article, "ACORN Fires More Officials For Helping 'Pimp','Prostitute' In Washington Office." It sounded like it might be a good read.
After reading the first sentence, which states that ACORN members tried to help this couple set up a brothel for underage girls, I was shocked! I find it very disturbing that this kind of thing is going on. How many more people are there that have really committed these crimes, and gotten away scot-free?
The more I read of the dialogue between ACORN and the 'pimp' the more outraged I was. How can someone be so callous when speaking of selling young girls into what amounts to slavery? That aspect bothered me more than anything, more than cheating the IRS or lying about 'Kenya's' job.
I'm a sponsor for the youth group at my church and our high school age girls have gotten really involved with something called Rapha House here in Joplin. Some of you may have heard of it, but if not you should definitely check out this website. Rapha house is an organization with 4 facilities in Asia and a home office in Joplin. They work to rescue girls are victims of the sex trafficking industry.
Working with the girls in the youth group, I've learned so much about the sex trafficking epidemic. It breaks my heart to hear the stories some of these girls tell.
So when I read this article, the part about those girls is what stood out to me. While the couple knew that this was a lie and there were no girls from El Salvador, the ACORN employee did not. I think it's absolutely outrageous that the only thing I've heard so far is that a couple a people got fired! Whoopee, they lost their jobs. They should lose more than that for what they were preparing to take part in.
I will say that I also feel for ACORN. I know that there is probably an honest person or two working for the organization and that someone still holds to the values that ACORN was founded on and this just makes them look bad with the rest of the bunch.
I hope that this inspires whoever has the power to take a closer look at what's going on at ACORN and maybe they can weed out any more members who would take part in something so heinous.
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)
