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.

• 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.

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?

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.

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.

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.

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.

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."