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.
Tuesday, October 6, 2009
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?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
