Too much religion?

Most of us have heard about the young man who went on a shooting rampage in Colorado, killing several young people at a missionary training center, and later on at a church. Such episodes have happened before, and we usually chalk it up to the shooter being mentally ill or "troubled", call it a tragedy, and then move on.

Well, any time we lose a life, and especially a young life, it IS a tragedy. But there is more to this story than just that. The shooter was raised in what the media reports as a "very, very religious" family. He was homeschooled (which is done by many fundamentalist Christians in an attempt to shield their children from the temptations of the world). He was taken to church at every opportunity, and probably taught to read the Bible daily, pray daily, put everything "in God's hands", etc.

Yet, the most recent reports claim that the young man was tossed out of the very missionary program where he committed the fist murders, seemed to have little motivation to attend or finish college, and had been posting anti-Christian rants online for months prior to the attacks, such as this one:

"You Christians brought this on yourselves," Murray wrote, according to the station, which did not identify the site. "All I want to do is kill and injure as many of you as I can especially Christians who are to blame for most of the problems in the world."

Obviously, that strict religious upbringing and the isolation from outside influences did NOT prevent this young man from developting serious mental problems, or from becoming a killer. In fact, it forces me to wonder if that kind of upbringing isn't EXACTLY what led to this tragedy.

Many Christian fundamentalists claim that it is our "sinful" world which leads to such horrible tragedies. They argue that living a "Godless" life causes depression, cynicism, and even mental illness, and that it is this which causes people to behave in all sorts of inappropriate ways, up to and including going on shooting rampages. They think that by isolating (from the secular world) and sheltering their own children from those "influences" (like secular television programming and music, or public education), they can prevent such things from affecting the way their kids think and behave.

But as has been shown over and over again, many children raised in such strictly religious environments become even more rebellious than the average teen - turning away from the religion, the family, and in some extreme cases, from society and sanity as well. It seems to me that this current incident is another example of that - a young man who was raised in a strict and perhaps overly devout Christian family who ended up hating the religion he was raised with, and lashing out in the most brutal way against those who still follow it.

Everyone needs a sense of balance in their life, and I think this incident shows us exactly why it's so important.

Sphere: Related Content

Parenting Gone Horribly Wrong

Several news stories have been posted about Megan Meier, the 13 year-old girl who committed suicide after being rejected by a "boy" she thought was her friend. Turns out the boy wasn't a boy - or even a real person. It was a hoax, perpetrated by the MOTHER of another young girl that used to be friends with Megan.

Various reports have noted that the woman, Lori Drew, who is 47 years old, created the character of Josh specifically for the purpose of befriending Megan (who had recently broken off her friendship with Ms. Drew's daughter) and finding out what (if anything) Megan was saying about the Drew child. The Josh persona spent several weeks chatting with Megan until she felt she had formed a close friendship with him. Then, apparently without warning, the false Josh turned on Megan, saying he wanted nothing to do with her and accusing her of being mean to her other friends. A short time later, a sobbing Megan (who was being treated for depression already) retreated to the closet in her bedroom and hung herself.

It boggles my mind that any parent, let alone a woman nearly in her 50's, would do something so cruel and vindictive to a child. What is even more disturbing is that Lori Drew KNEW that Megan had emotional problems and was being treated with antidepressants. Yet it apparently never occurred to this so-called adult that her actions might exacerbate the child's problems, or lead to a disasterous result. And, as the article above points out, the woman doesn't even seem to show any remorse for her part in driving this child to suicide.

I am forced to wonder if Ms. Drew is stupid, ignorant, uneducated, trying to relive her own chidhood, or simply too busy trying to be her own daughter's "friend" to remember her only real job was to be a parent - and a good example. Personally, I'd like to see her lose custody of her own child, before she corrupts her daughter's morals and behavior any further. If I were her husband, I'd have already filed for divorce - and custody.

Unfortunately, whatever motivated this woman to do something so irresponsible and stupid, her actions were not illegal. Immoral, unethical, inhumane and inexplicable - yes. But not illegal - at least not yet. The local authorities are actively making new laws to address such situations, and I'm sure this will be looked at by both state and federal lawmakers as well.

Honestly, I would consider what this woman did to be tantamount the emotional abuse of a child, which either is, or should be, a crime. If she had treated her own daughter that way, she would likely have found her daughter being taken away by the authorities. But it would seem that there is no punishment for emotionally abusing someone else's child.

Here's my question though... should we need laws to force us to behave in responsible and ethical ways? I would like to think the answer is that we don't... but then a story like this comes along and makes me wonder if such juvenile and unconscionable behavior by someone who was well beyond "old enough to know better" is a fluke, or proof that humankind has not evolved as much as we'd like to think.

Sphere: Related Content

EzineBlog.org - reciprocal links for your site

I came across a reference to EzineBlog.org yesterday, and their offer to help increase your site's page ranking and traffic. I decided to give it a try.

EzineBlog is offering to give a free linkback to anyone who posts a review of their site along with a link to them. They claim to have a Top 100 page rank in Technorati. When I checked last night, EzineBlog was rated at 13, but those ranks are pretty fluid, so the claim may be an average over time, rather than a snapshot on any given day.

In exchange for your review, they promise to put up a post featuring your site and list your site on their "Cool Blogs" page. So, here I am, writing this review. I don't know how well it will work yet, but I will keep track and let you know as soon as I do. If I see a big traffic (or ranking) increase at once, I'll post about it. I will also track the traffic over a week and a month, comparing it with what I'm getting from other sources (not much yet, but this blog is still pretty new), and then write another review to let you know the results.

Oh, by the way - the folks over at EzineBlog don't just offer free traffic generation. The blog has some interesting articles to read too! One article I enjoyed was from last August, in which they point out that President Bush is likely to beat the old record for the most vacation time taken by a sitting President (previously held by Ronald Reagan). Another is about the British Ministry of Defense effectively gagging it's soldiers by restricting them from participating in blogs, interviews, surveys, and even online gaming if there is any chance it might lead to them saying anything about their experiences in the military. Even the soldier's text messages are restricted and require "permission".

So check out EzineBlog.org. It's worth a visit!

Sphere: Related Content

Mirror posts

I recently started an account with BlogRush (see their widget on the right). I created the account for this blog, but then realized that I wanted to go with a blogging program that allowed for different categories, since I planned to blog on many different topics (politics, religion, news items, an online game I moderate, and product reviews). So I created a new blog with TypePad, which does offer categories.

Unfortunately, BlogRush has not approved my second blog - yet. It may be simply that the new blog is too new. So, for now, I will maintain both blogs. I will do the bulk of my postings on my TypePad blog, but I will copy those that I feel are most relevant to this blog as well. Those that are copied will have a small disclaimer at the bottom so you, the reader, will know it appears in both locations.

Here is the link to my TypePad blog (which I will also add to the side menu here):
http://themindofmoe.typepad.com/moes_musings/

I hope that you will visit both, as there will be additional content accumulating in Moe's Musings.

Sphere: Related Content

State-sanctioned marriage - is that really what we want?

Conservatives are funny people. One of their most prolific claims to fame is that they oppose big government, socialism in any form, and any intrusion on the privacy of the average American. Or so they claim...

But the truth is, they only oppose those things when it benefits them (as in not providing government benefits to the poor, preventing a national health care program that would cover all Americans, etc.). Mostly their opposition coincides with their estimation of what such government-run programs might cost them in taxes (which is usually much higher than what the reality would be).

However, they don't complain when the government intrudes on one of our most highly valued rights of passage - marriage. In fact, they actually advocate for stricter government regulation of what should be a very private and personal choice made by the individual, without government influence or oversight.

In Monday's NY Times, Stephanie Coontz writes an interesting review of the history of marriage regulation, and shows quite clearly that in today's world, a marriage license can no longer be used as a yardstick for determining one's duties and responsibilities, familial connections, or financial obligations.

I agree completely with Ms. Coontz's stance on this issue. Marriage should be a matter of personal choice, and should be based solely on the couple's level of affection, commitment, and willingness to share a life together. No one should need a "license" to marry, which is tantamount to having to ask for the government's permission to spend your life with the person of your choice.

Rather than having to apply for a license prior to marriage, couples should be able to register their union with the local government AFTER they have taken their vows. In this manner, there is a legal recording of the marriage (and all its obligations) and a method to ensure that neither party is a minor child or close blood relative - but without anyone having to ask the state's "permission" to get married in the first place.

This would, of course, effectively end the debate over same-sex marriage, as couples (regardless of gender) would not have to have a license to get married. And that would not be very palatable to the conservatives, who apparently don't mind the government sticking it's nose into our private lives, as long as it serves their political agenda.

**Note: This article first appeared at: http://themindofmoe.typepad.com/moes_musings/

Sphere: Related Content

Burger King Ads Cross The Line

Has anyone else felt the least bit put off by the new batch of Burger King commercials featuring three women/moms trying to kill the "Burger King"?

I have seen two of these commercials so far. The first was, for the most part, just kind of stupid and contrived. It was one of many commercials that cause me to wonder if the ad execs who approve this drivel think the average American viewer has the IQ of a toadstool.

But the second in this series went beyond what I consider to be the boundaries of acceptable advertising. In it, the three moms, having failed their first attempt to kill BK by running him over, are now hiring a hit man to do the deed for them. It opens with them turning over payment as the hit man tells them the brake line on BK's car has been cut.

Do we really want a fast food chain that caters to the younger set advocating (even as a joke) the premeditated murder of a human being, or the use of a hired killer to accomplish that murder?

There are many things that advertisers have done over the years that I have thought were in bad taste, or downright poor judgment - but I think this current set of ads tops the list.

I am sending a letter to the Burger King execs about these ads, including a link to this post. I hope others will as well. It's time these ridiculous commercials were pulled off the air.

**Note: This article was first published on my other blog, which can be found here:
http://themindofmoe.typepad.com/moes_musings/2007/11/burger-king-ads.html#more

Sphere: Related Content

On the road today...

A belated Happy Thanksgiving wish to all my readers. Sorry I haven't posted anything new, but other than the details of my holiday cooking, there wasn't much to report yesterday. The turkey came out good, though! :-D

We will be on the road most of today to do some visiting, but I'll be back later this evening, so there should be new posts tonight or tomorrow morning.

Until then, have a safe and enjoyable holiday weekend!!

Sphere: Related Content

Aren't hospitals supposed to heal?

Just read this story about Dennis Quaid's newborn twins being given an overdose of Heparin (a blood thinner) while they are in the hospital. We're not talking about a small oversight either... the babies were given 10,000 units instead of the 10 units that were prescribed.

How does someone mistake 10,000 for 10?

Making matters worse, this occurred at Cedars Sinai Medical Center, one of the most reknowned hospitals in the world, and it happened to three patients in all. One would think that such "preventable errors" would not occur in a hospital that prides itself on being the best of the best, and one would also expect that such an error would be caught before it occurred three times.

Unfortunately, having worked in a hospital myself, I know that such errors are all too frequent. I am not a nurse, but I worked with nurse managers who were responsible - in part - for quality control in their respective departments. The thing I learned is that everyone who works in a hospital is human, and therefore capable of making mistakes. That applies to everyone from your neurosurgeon to the guy mopping the floor.

More important to us, as patients, is that any one of those mistakes has the potential to do us harm. For example, one friend of mine signed herself out AMA after being given soiled towels to use after having had a C-section. Luckily she started out drying her hair, and discovered the mess on the towels before they got near her incision. But it was a close call, and she left the hospital feeling she was far safer from infection in her own house than in that purportedly "sterile" environment.

Another friend nearly died when her doctor nicked her colon during a "simple procedure". As if that weren't bad enough, both the doctor and the ER she went to later pooh-poohed her complaints about pain, fever, and excessive bleeding until she collapsed at home. By then, she had to have 70% of her blood volume replaced, and spent more than a month in the hospital getting massive doses of antibiotics to fight the infections caused by bodily waste mixing with her blood. After years of pain, repeated corrective surgeries, and various other treatments that I can't even list, she still doesn't have her life back, and likely never will.

Technology was supposed to help prevent many of those human errors. They have computers dispensing meds, lasers and high-tech cameras to aid in surgical procedures, and just about everything from your blood pressure to your location are electronically monitored if you're in the hospital these days. But even with all that technology supposedly making our hospital stays safer, accidents like the one mentioned above still happen.

So if you're going to be in the hospital, be on your guard. Ask questions, and insist on answers. Double check what they're putting in your IV, take a good look at the towels, bring your own toothbrush, etc. Even more importantly, be prepared by assigning someone in your family to closely monitor every aspect of your care if you are unable to (due to illness or state of consciousness). Also, make sure that person's name is listed as your authorized representative with all your doctors, clinics, or hospitals - otherwise the staff won't tell them anything due to HIPAA restrictions.

Being sick or hospitalized is not something any of us want to think about. But spending a little time getting prepared in case something happens could be the most important thing you do for your own health - right up there with mammograms, annual physicals, and wearing seat belts.

Basically, it could mean the difference between recovery and death.

Sphere: Related Content

RoadLoans - car financing made easy

Shortly after moving to Pennsylvania, my husband and I realized that our very old car was not going to pass inspection here. The car was a 1995 Dodge Intrepid with over 160,000 miles on it, so the cost of making it inspection-ready would be more than what the car was actually worth. Obviously it would cost us money either way, but in the long run, we felt it was better to have one regular monthly payment than to keep getting blindsided by ever-increasing repair bills on the old car.

Naturally, the first thing we needed was to find a bank or finance company that would give us a car loan. We tried going through the dealers, but most wanted very large downpayments, and even with that, they couldn't guarantee us an approval. My husband is retired and I'm not working right now (at least not for a salary), so getting approved was quite a challenge.

After the first discouraging week, I decided to go online and see if I could find some auto loans that were tailored for those with credit problems. That was when I found the link for RoadLoans.com.

I read through all the information on their website (see link at right or banner at bottom of page), and it sounded easy. Besides, I thought, what have we got to lose besides our old clunker? So I filled out the application online, which took approximately 10 minutes. The next morning I had an email saying we had been approved for an auto loan up to $15,000, and that the paperwork - along with a check we could take to any franchise dealer - would be sent to us via overnight mail!

Honestly, I was still pretty skeptical. This sounded too easy, and they hadn't even asked to verify our income. But we desperately needed a car, and since there were no up-front fees, we didn't have anything to lose by giving it a try. Now I'm very glad we did.

There are a few things you should know up front:

1.) The interest rates are a bit high, but since these loans are primarily for those who have problem credit, then a higher interest rate should be expected. Still, it's a lot lower than what many folks are paying for interest on their credit cards.

2.) It's a "simple interest" loan, which means if you can pay more than the minimum, that amount comes off your principle, which also lowers your total interest charges over the life of the loan. There is NO prepayment fee either, so if that lottery ticket pays off, you can pay off the loan early, saving even more on interest charges.

3.) You must go through a franchise dealer (Buick, Dodge, Ford, Toyota, Subaru, etc.) - not one of those tiny used car lots. RoadLoans also has an option for buying from a private seller, but that is a bit more complicated and takes longer. We chose to use a reputable dealer.

4.) Although you get a "blank check" right away, the deal isn't closed until RoadLoans informs the dealer that the check will be approved for funding. This is often done within 24 hours though, unless it's a weekend or holiday.

5.) You must have a current utility bill (less than 30 days old) to prove your residence address. This is very important! We used a bill that was about 33 days old at first, and it wasn't acceptable, so we had to wait a day for the new bill to come in the mail and then send them that one instead.

All in all, the process of getting our car loan was quick, painless, and very easy - much easier than I had dared to hope when we started out looking for a car. Our monthly payments are fixed, and since we could take a loan term up to 72 months, we could keep the payments relatively low so we weren't overextended. In the end, thanks to RoadLoans we are now driving around in a 2004 Jeep Cherokee that has less than 50k miles on it, and is likely to last us long past the life of the loan.

So, I can honestly say - based on our personal experience - RoadLoans is a very reliable, easy, safe, and affordable way to get the car you need right now, with no hassle, no hidden fees, and no pain. Plus, the check is good at any franchise dealer, so you can shop around as much as you like until you find the right car, and then negotiate with the dealer as if you were walking in with the cash in your hand.

Don't let the banks and auto finance companies get you down. Check out RoadLoans today. I am positive you will be glad you did.


Note: This is my first real product endorsement - however, I am not being paid for this (other than the small affiliate fee I get if you use the RoadLoans banners on this page to access their application). Rather, I am writing this review solely because we had such a good experience with this company that I want to help others who may be having trouble financing a new or used car.

Sphere: Related Content

A culture of hate

There are times when it's not the news itself that grabs my attention, but rather the reactions to it that are written by others. Such was the case today when I read this story on AOL...

http://news.aol.com/story/_a/suv-plunges-into-canal-killing-seven/20071119065709990001

It's the story of a group of people - human beings, including several young children - who died when an SUV plunged off the road and into a canal in California. It's a tragic story of lives lost and a reminder about protecting ourselves and our kids with car seats and seat belts.

That should be the end of the story, except for the families who must now deal with the loss of loved ones.

But what grabbed my attention was not so much the story as the comments written in response to the story by the readers. Because those in the car had Hispanic surnames, it appears that many readers are assuming the occupants were illegal aliens. Making that assumption, when the article never mentions the immigration status of any of the victims, is proof that far too many people are using immigration status as a way of promoting prejudice. But it goes deeper than that, as you can see in the following comment posted by one responder (I hate giving this comment space here, but to prevent my readers from having to scroll through 50 pages of comments to find it, I will copy it for you)...

uneedsome2day 02:06:12 PM Nov 19 2007

Look perhaps some people cant read! In intitial post, it was stated that There was remorse for loss of life! However, if these people - KEY IF - were illegals then its ok! We dont need more mouth to feed in this country! Unless of course they are LEGAL LAW ABIDING RESIDENTS who have been born in or allowed to reside here legally! Does that make more sense. I simply stated that 7 people would equal 49 cause each could have 7 kids. And if one takes 49 X 7 that should equal 343 less Illegals this United States Government would have to support! Its that simple! how is this prejudice or biggot remark I dont get it?I simply made an observation of facts. Likewise if they were all legals then my heart goes out to them and their families for their loss! TU COMPRENDES Nosotros?


What the hell is wrong with this person?
Since when does someone have to have a green card in order to have the right to exist?
Since when is the death of a child - much less several children - NOT a tragedy?

How can anyone so easily write off 7 human lives without a moment of regret or even a kind word for their grieving families just because the victims MIGHT not have been legal immigrants (and there's no proof of that anyway)? This person doesn't even seem to have any sympathy or compassion for the children who, regardless of their immigration status, had no more choice about where they live (legally or not) than they did about being in that car.

It is this kind of behavior that I refer to in the title above. What is worse is that it is our own government - beginning with Bush himself - that has encouraged this kind of hatred, prejudice, and divisiveness. The hatred being spewed against immigrants (legal or not) has been all but encouraged by the Bush administration and Republicans in general. The same is true in regard to the other groups for whom hatred and bigotry are accepted, such as gays, Muslims, the poor, etc.

Why? Because it gives American's someone to blame for the dire straights our leaders have put us in, and turns our attention away from the more serious problems facing our nation - like the war, the healthcare crisis, global warming, gas prices and the economy, homelessness, dwindling natural resources, the disintegration of much of our infrastructure, etc.

Instead of focusing our attention on our elected officials and demanding they stop pandering to special interests and do the job we hired them for, we are allowing them to manipulate us into blaming the problems in our society on illegal immigration, welfare, sexual orientation or religious affliation, nationality, and even smoking. But those are not the real causes of our problems, just as the small percentage of illegal immigrants living in America are not responsible for unemployment and underemployment. It is not the few jobs that immigrants take (most of which are not wanted by any legal residents because they pay far too little, have no benefits, and demand excessive hours with no paid sick time or vacation) that is hurting the US economy - it's the deals that Congress and the White House made with big business, allowing them to outsource their production to other countries in order to increase their profits at the expense of both quality workmanship and jobs for Americans.

Reading that reply made me sick. It makes me ashamed to think that the person who wrote that reply is an American, and ashamed that anyone in the 21st century can still think that a human life has so little value. I'm ashamed that my fellow Americans are so ignorant and easily manipulated. And I'm ashamed that our government is responsible for it.

When will we learn? When will we wake up? When will we start valuing humanity more than we value money and materialism? When will we realize that the longer we allow ourselves to devalue ANYONE, for ANY reason - the better the chances are that one day, it will be our own lives that someone deems as no great loss, and our own humanity that is considered unworthy of compassion, kindness, or tolerance.

Sphere: Related Content

Snow!!

Well, we've now experienced all of Pennsylvania's weather options. The snow began early Sunday morning (or late Saturday night for those who were out partying), lasted all day yesterday, and through the night. In fact, it's still snowing now, but not as heavily. So far we've got about 6 inches, but could hit 8 before it's over.

I added a couple of pictures on the right >>>

We really have a marvelous view here, even on a day like this. It did get kind of spooky last night when the power went out, as the whole city below us went dark as well. But with all the snow, it didn't even seem that dark. Kind of eerily beautiful, actually. And the power was back on by the time I woke up this morning. Plus, the power company offers a free wake-up call when there's an outage, so it didn't even make my son late for school (they were on a 2-hour delay anyway).

All in all, a very enjoyable winter event! (Well, at least until we have to start shoveling it.)

Sphere: Related Content

Religious faith or delusion?

Read this in the morning news...

http://news.aol.com/story/_a/sect-holes-up-in-cave-to-await-doomsday/20071115174909990001?ncid=NWS00010000000001

MOSCOW (Nov. 15) - At least 30 members of a Russian doomsday cult have barricaded themselves in a remote cave to await the end of the world and are threatening to commit suicide if police intervene, officials and media said Thursday.

So here we have a group of people who have decided that the world is coming to an end (next May - just in case you want to make any plans, lol), and plan to wait it out in a cave. The article doesn't specify why they chose to do this, so I can only assume they are either hoping to be spared, or ghoulishly planning to watch it all unfold before their own turn comes (maybe they think it will take a while for "God" to find them in that cave?). What makes this really sick is that they have at least 4 children with them.

Even more disturbing is that the article goes on to claim that the leader of this little troupe is a known schizophrenic who had taken to sleeping in a coffin for months before the authorities could get hold of him and get him treatment. The police have since brought the man back to his group to try and persuade them to leave the cave, but they refused.

I don't understand this kind of behavior at all. For one thing, even if I knew for sure that the world was coming to an end, the last thing I would want to do is spend the end of my life holed up in a dark, dank, smelly cave with a bunch of lunatics. I'd be out doing all the things I wanted to but thought I had more time for, just like people do when they find out they've got late-stage cancer or other terminal diseases. I'd go on a cross-country trek just to see it all before it's gone. I'd visit every one of my relatives (even those I haven't seen in 30 years or more) just to tell them I love them. I'd advise others to live every day like it was their last - just in case.

That is the way that reasonable people behave when faced with the prospect that their own lives are coming to an end. But once you put religion into the mix, reason seems to disappear like mist on a sunny morning.

That may sound strange coming from someone who is an ordained minister, but my "religion" is Humanism, which is a system of beliefs based on reason, logic, scientific knowledge, and the strong conviction that humanity can solve it's own problems. We do not attempt to answer the question of whether or not a "god" exists, first because there is not enough evidence to support or deny such a being's existence, and second because it's not relevant to our daily lives. What IS relevant is how we choose to live, how we treat our fellow humans, and what we can do to make our world a better place.

And as a Humanist, I can assure you that the world will not be coming to an end next spring, nor any time in our lifetimes. At some point, millions or even billions of years from now, our sun will die, and it will take life on Earth with it. But that's so far in the future that we cannot even predict if humanity will still exist at that time (extinction can happen to ANY species, including homo-sapiens). In fact, it is far more likely that humanity will die off by our own hands - through nuclear or biological attacks, destruction of the ozone layer, global climate change, or the continued wasting of our natural resources - than through any natural or supernatural event.

I hope the Russian police find a way to get those folks out of that cave safely, especially the children. It's even remotely possible that the children will leave on their own (as kids sometimes have more common sense than the adults they are entrusted to). But if that doesn't happen, then one has to wonder what they will do when June comes around and the world is still here. Will they realize they were wrong and come out of that cave? Will they accept that they were misled by a man who was mentally ill and stop treating his delusions as "revelations" from their higher power?

Or will they do as so many similar cults have done before and claim there was a miscalculation - or worse, take their own lives to avoid facing reality?

For the children's sake, I hope someone in that group will come to their senses.

Sphere: Related Content

Banners

Just wanted to let everyone know that I'm gradually adding a few ad banners at the bottom of this blog. There are a few things I want to tell you about how I choose these banners, and why:

1. All banners that you will see are for products, services, or companies I have personally used or use repeatedly, and which I feel offer quality, fair pricing, and good value.

2. I will not promote any site, service, product or company that I cannot (in good conscience)personally vouch for.

3. There will be one banner that rotates ads based on the advertisers I selected at Commission Junction. Those selections were subjected to the same criteria I listed in #1 above.

4. In addition to the one rotating (active) banner, there will be a few static banners. These are featured advertisements from a select list of products, services, or businesses that I am personally involved with on a recurring basis (ex: our car loan came from RoadLoans.com, and I am a game moderator at DukesandDragons.com).

5. Once I begin writing product reviews, I may feature banners for that particular product or service during the month the review appears on the main page of the blog, or longer if I feel the subject of the advertisement deserves additional exposure. As stated previously, any product reviews I do for compensation will be clearly marked as such within the post.


I tell you this because I want you to know that, although I do hope to generate income from this blog (and others), I also realize that any endorsements I allow here, whether through banner ads or reviews, put my integrity on the line. Because of this, I will not promote ANY product, website, service, or business unless I feel confident that any reader who patronizes that product or business will be as satisfied with the results as I was.

Sphere: Related Content

Politics

I used to hate politics. In my younger days, the minute any politician started talking, my eyes glazed over and I found something more interesting to do.

But as you grow older, become a parent, have a career, and deal with issues like a sick family member with no health insurance, or a paycheck that doesn't cover your basic needs, etc. - you begin to realize just how important it is to know what your representatives are all about, what agenda's they are pushing, and how it will affect your ability to survive in an unpredictable world.

I always identified with the Democrats because I grew up poor and had been led to believe that the Dem's were advocates for the issues that had the greatest impact on those living in poverty, such as affordable healthcare and housing, improved education, and a living wage. But while that may have been true at one time, I'm not so sure it is any more.

These days, politics are all about "spin". There are very few people currently in the running for President (or any other office) whom I feel can be trusted or who I expect to live up to their promises. In fact, despite the fact that the 2008 elections could put the first woman or black man into the White House, I am sorry to say I don't think it will make much difference. Both Hillary Clinton and Barrack Obama have been so carefully groomed to appeal to the widest possible voter base that I am no longer sure either of them is capable of having an original thought. And if there is anything America does NOT need, it's another President who can't speak without a script.

I would like to see an end to politicial parties. I would like to see a day when ANYONE can run for public office, without having to kiss the posteriors of campaign donors, even if they aren't independently wealthy. I would like to see the day when we choose who to vote for based on their personal level of honesty, integrity, intelligence, skill, and ability to do the job we're hiring them for.

Most of all, I'd like to see the day when Americans can actually TRUST their government again.

I don't know who I'll be voting for next year. The only candidate that I found to be truly unique and willing to listen to the American people is Mike Gravel. But he is practically ignored in the media, and without the financial resources of a Clinton or almost any Republican candidate, it's doubtful he'll be able to stay in the race.

When that happens, America loses.

Sphere: Related Content

OJ goes on trial... AGAIN!

I'm not a sports fan. I never watch it on television, and I've only attended a few sporting events in my life (most of which have been my son's wrestling matches). So I was never a fan of OJ Simpson when he was playing football, and his brief stint in movies and television didn't impress me much either.

In fact, the only time he really caught my attention was when he was on trial for killing his ex-wife and her friend, Ron Goldman. I thought he was guilty all along. There simply was no other logical explanation for the forensic evidence (not the infamous glove, but the blood of BOTH victims inside his car, in his private shower at his home, and on his socks). I was appalled when the jury did not convict him.

I applauded the jury in the civil trial for doing what the criminal jury did not have the guts for. We all know that there isn't any amount of money that can make up for the brutal murder of a loved one, but at least the Goldman family has made sure that OJ did not benefit from his crime (for the most part).

And perhaps now, with OJ facing a new trial on robbery and other charges (possibly including kidnapping), it will be time for OJ to really pay the piper. I mean, let's face it - jail is jail. Whether he's incarcerated for this crime, or for the previous murders, he will still be losing his freedom, possibly for the rest of his life.

Maybe this time justice really will prevail.

Of course, OJ had his own spin on things:
"This is what we expected," Simpson told The Associated Press before he left the courtroom. "If I have any disappointment it's that I wish a jury was here. As always, I rely on the jury system."

Yeah, I'll just bet he does. But he should also remember that another jury found him culpable for the previous murders, which ironically helped lead him to his current legal troubles.

Life lesson here: What goes around really DOES come back around again. ;-)

Sphere: Related Content

Life gets hectic sometimes...

Well, I'm back.

It's been a while since I've posted here, and I do apologize for my absence. Unfortunately, life does sometimes get in the way of the things we'd rather be doing. The past few months have been quite busy for me and my family. We're still adjusting to our new home in Pennsylvania, our older car was giving up the ghost so we had to devote a lot of time to purchasing a replacement, and there have been some other family issues as well. Nothing serious - just time consuming and requiring a lot of attention. In addition, my husband had to get set up with several new doctors, as he has some health issues that need monitoring on a regular basis. That alone has taken up a large amount of time in getting his new insurance coverage started, choosing doctors, filling out reams of paperwork, and getting many diagnostic tests re-done because the new doctors don't want to rely on reports from the old doctors.

However, things are settling down, and with the holiday season upon us, I thought it was time I returned to my first love... writing, and sharing my thoughts with all of you.

I also wanted you to know that I will be looking into some ways of turning this blog into an income-producer, and one of these may be to write sponsored reviews through PayPerPost.com. I chose this particular group because I like their ethics disclosure, and the fact that they have no problem with bloggers revealing that some posts are "paid" reviews or commentaries. I would have done that anyway, but it's nice to know they actually want to be honest with the readers who patronize their writer's blogs.

Most of my posts will continue to be about life and/or things in the news that give me pause. But now and then there will be one that is a sponsored review, and it will be clearly stated as such within the post itself.

I hope this will not be objectionable to anyone, but please feel free to leave your comments below (for or against the idea). I want to know what you think.

Sphere: Related Content

Just checking in...

Just wanted to post a quick update. Yesterday we went down to NY to pick up my son from his extended visit with friends, and went out to dinner with some of our family as well. It was a really great day for us, although my son had a somewhat different view. He isn't happy about our move to PA and being so far from his friends. Hopefully time will help with that.

We have a lot to do today, so I probably won't get to post again until later. Hope everyone reading is having a good day. :-)

Sphere: Related Content

Finally, a bit of sanity...

I don't know if anyone else has been following this story, but it had gotten me twisted when I first read it, and I'm glad to see that finally some common sense has prevailed. Even so, it still took far too long...

http://news.aol.com/story/_a/bottom-slapping-case-dismissed/20070820171109990001?ncid=NWS00010000000001

So, here's the short version for those who haven't read about this before. There were a couple of teenage boys in Oregon who had engaged in what most of us would consider to be normal teenage boy behavior - butt slapping, teasing girls, and trying to get their sweaty palms on someone's breast.

Now, most of us would agree that this is what boys that age do, and that while it is inappropriate and should be discouraged, it's not a crime - nor should it result in branding these young men for life as sex offenders. Yet that is exactly what almost happened in this case.

A few complaints were made to the school staff, and this is where it got stupid. Not only were the boys disciplined at school and by their parents, but the police were called in. Felony charges were filed, including felony sex abuse. For six months the boys and their parents have had to wonder not only if they would go to jail (yes, jail), but if they would forever be labled as sex offenders - seriously limiting their chances of getting admitted to college, finding a decent job, or even being able to live peacefully in any community.

Luckily, after tons of public pressure, including pleas by the alleged "victims" that they never felt that violated, the judge and prosecutor have shown some common sense and dismissed the charges. From the story, the boys did apologize to the girls they offended, have to pay a small fine to each girl, and will be given some kind of "boundaries" counseling (what is with this new fad of going to rehab for everything from racism to being a sexually curious and somewhat obnoxious teenager?).

But the bigger issue in this is the fact that America can't seem to ever find a happy medium. We don't want our kids to get hooked on drugs, so we turn teenage girls who bring a Midol to school because they have cramps into drug felons. We don't want our kids to get molested, so we accuse anyone who comes near them of being a sexual predator - even if it's as innocent as a teenage boy liking a girl, or a small child giving a hug to a friendly teacher.

Isn't it time we all got a grip on reality and stop making a federal case out of things that shouldn't even be an issue?

Sphere: Related Content

Credit vs Debit - Part 2

Earlier I posted my own views on the credit vs debit card issue, and in that piece I referred to something I'd read on AOL that was touting the use of credit cards as a better option. AOL was very accommodating (although I'm sure it was unintentional) in featuring that same piece again today, as a link on one of the welcome screen panels. The information actually comes from an article in The Street, which is a money and finance publication.

Here is the link to the story:
http://money.aol.com/thestreet/banking/credit-cards-vs-debit-cards

So, now that I have the full article handy, let me tackle their points one by one...

1. Fraud protection:
The article claims that there is more fraud protection on credit cards than on debit cards. This may be true to an extent - but both credit and debit cards put a long list of restrictions in their fraud protections which, in the long run, could easily mean you aren't protected at all. Further, the article claims that if you aren't timely about reporting a lost or stolen debit card, you could be out of luck. The same is true for credit cards - and really, why would you delay? If my card goes missing, you can bet I'll be on the phone to cancel it even before calling the police. Better safe than sorry.

2. Merchant Disputes:
The article claims that using a debit card puts you in a weaker position if you have a dispute with the merchant about the item purchased. But let's face it - no matter how you paid for the item, the merchant is not going to be happy about giving you a refund. When the dispute is settled, however, it can still take up to 2 weeks to get the money refunded to your card, no matter which one you use. The primary difference though, is that if you used a credit card, you're likely to have incurred interest charges on that purchase before the amount is refunded. The merchant isn't going to cover that, and while you can dispute the interest with the credit card company, the process is long, complicated, and designed to be more trouble than it's worth so that you'll opt to pay the interest rather than going through the hassle.

You won't have that problem with a debit card. There are no interest charges, so when the money is refunded, it's all yours.

3. Personal Account:
The article claims that using your personal funds (via a debit card) puts you at risk for a cascading default on all your other payments should there be fraud or a dispute over a purchase. Nevermind that the only way that can happen is if you were overspending in the first place, or if the card is stolen and used by the thief (in which case the fraud protections should kick in if you report the theft immediately - which also helps you avoid any problems with late or bounced payments due to the theft).

If anything, you're far more likely to end up in default on a credit card than by using debit cards for all your transactions. Let's face it - if you didn't have the money to buy that HDTV in the first place, then you're not likely to have the money to pay for it when the bill comes in either.

4. Rewards:
The article claims that the rewards offered by credit cards are more "valuable" than those offered by some debit cards (most debit cards still don't offer rewards). However, it's important to weigh the actual value of those rewards to your own life and circumstances. For instance, I don't fly, so frequent flyer miles or points are not valuable to me. When I lived in NY, I used public transit, so gas rewards were useless too.

The only reward that seems universally valuable is cash back, but even that is such a small reward (usually 1% or less) that it's almost negligible. Do I really care that much if I get 89 cents back on a $89.00 purchase? Yes, over time those cash back rewards do add up, but you'll be waiting a very long time before you earn enough cash back to even buy lunch.

Most of all, it's important to remember that those "rewards" have a price of their own. You have to spend a lot to get a little back. Basically, it's a gimmick they use to encourage you to buy things you can't afford with their credit card, which earns them far more in interest and fees than you will ever get back in rewards.

5. No Added Services:
The article claims that credit cards offer added services such as extended warranties and insurance on rental cars. But there is much they leave out, such as the fact that these benefits are usually only available on higher level cards (gold or platinum), which is the way they encourage users to increase their spending limits (and then max them out). Those same services can be purchased from the merchant (extended warranties are offered at almost all major stores these days - even on small ticket items like a blender) or rental company. Yes, you will pay for them - but you're paying for them when you get them from your credit card too (it's called interest, annual fees, maintenance fees, etc.). You're also paying for them when you buy the product or service, as the price is often increased to cover the cost of those "benefits".

6. Tracking Spending:
I found this to be one of the most laughable claims made in the article. The author claims that it can be difficult to keep track of your balance when using a debit card if you aren't "diligent about writing down" every transaction. Excuse me? Isn't this the age of online banking? Any time I want to check my balance, all I have to do is log into my bank's account services - which I can do from my pc, laptop, library pc, or even my cell phone. Further, many debit card charges are processed in real time, so by the time you get home and fire up your pc, the transaction is complete and the new balance is reflected in your account. Some are not processed as quickly, but it's a simple matter to keep your receipts, add up any that haven't been processed yet, and subtract that total from the balance reflected in your account. This isn't rocket science, folks.

7. "Banks May Trick You Into Fees":
Are they kidding or what? Like credit card companies don't do this? In fact, credit cards are far more likely to hit you with unexpected fees than your bank. Their terms and conditions are so convoluted you'd need a whole firm of lawyers to sort out what fees you'll be charged, when, and why or how to avoid them. Banks are a bit more straightforward. They will charge you an overdraft fee if you bounce a check or spend more than you have in your account, and they charge you for using some ATM's as well. But that's all, and if you're careful about your spending (and take your cash back at the local supermarket instead of the ATM), you can avoid those fees entirely.

8. Credit History:
The article claims that banks do not report your transactions and payments to credit monitoring agencies like Equifax the way credit cards do. However, it fails to mention that this has a negligible effect on your credit rating. As long as you're paying those bills on time, your credit rating won't suffer because you paid them with a debit card or check. Those you owe money to - whether it's your local utility company or your mortgage - WILL report you if the payments are late or you default on the account (which is far more likely when you use credit cards for everything, as you're likely to find yourself in more debt than you can pay back).

So, to keep your credit rating in good standing, the best thing you can do is pay your bills on time. What card you use for that is irrelevant.

9. Not Always Accepted:
The article claims that you cannot always use your debit card for certain things, such as renting a car. The article does not list any companies that refuse debit cards, and I have found no instance in my own experience where that was the case. My husband and I have reserved hotel rooms and rented a U-Haul truck and storage space, all with a debit card. The primary factor is whether or not the limit on the card is sufficient to cover the fees and any security deposit.
It is true that you often have to wait several days or a week to get that security deposit back - but that is true no matter which card you use, and again there is the risk that you'll be charged interest on that deposit if your credit card's billing cycle ends before the refund is made.
____________________________

So perhaps now you can see why I felt the article was commissioned (and perhaps paid for) by a credit card company. The fact that it appeared in The Street, a publication dedicated to influencing the continued health of the stock market, makes the article even more suspect. After all, if more Americans stick to using their debit cards, then the credit card companies will make less profits, and that would have a detrimental effect on their stocks - often a major player in the portfolios of the affluent among us.

But, I'm not a financial advisor. I'm just a consumer who has learned from experience that buying anything on credit is a ticket to financial disaster, especially when so many of us are living paycheck to paycheck these days. One illness, one layoff, or one emergency like a car accident or broken refrigerator can easily set you on the path to bankruptcy as those credit card fees keep piling up faster than you can pay them off.

I won't ask you to take my word for it. Just think about it, and don't let yourself be manipulated by misleading advertising or articles with an agenda that does not include your best interests.

To help you in making your decision, I recommend you read the following article, also featured on AOL (on the same day!):
http://money.aol.com/top5/credit/credit-card-costs-to-avoid

Sphere: Related Content

Credit vs Debit Cards

I recently read an article on AOL regarding the alleged "drawbacks" to using a debit card instead of a credit card for purchases. The article claimed that making credit purchases were "safer" because there were more protections on credit cards than on debit cards. It even went so far as to claim that using credit cards can save you money because of all the perks they offer, like travel discounts; and that you can "earn" money by keeping your cash in an interest bearing account until the time comes to pay the credit card bill.

As I read the piece, I could not help but wonder if the author's paycheck was being signed by an exec at Visa. After all, who benefits the most from convincing consumers that it's better to use their credit cards?

So here's the other side of the story:

When you use a credit card to make a purchase, what you are doing is spending someone else's money. Needless to say, the credit card companies are not going to "loan" you their money without getting something in return, in the form of interest, fees, penalties, etc. Because of all those fees, and the good chance that you won't be able to pay off the whole "loan" at the end of the billing cycle, that blouse you bought "on sale" for $20 is likely to cost you twice as much by the time you pay it off. As for keeping your money in an interest bearing account, what the article doesn't mention is that you're likely to earn about 2-3% interest on your money, but pay anywhere from 12-30% interest on those credit card purchases.

Saving money? I don't think so.

Debit cards are different. Although most now carry the Visa or Mastercard logo, and work exactly like credit cards for making purchases either online, over the phone, or at your local mall; what they don't do is loan you money. The money you spend is coming from your own checking or savings accounts - which helps ensure (provided that you are responsible about paying your primary bills before going shopping) that you cannot spend more than you can afford, as your spending limit is equal to your bank balance. Further, most banks do not charge a fee for using a debit card, unless you use it to take out cash at an ATM. But you can avoid that fee entirely by taking cash back when you use the card to pay for groceries or other items at your local store instead.

Most importantly, debit cards help you live within your means, which is the best possible way to avoid ending up thousands of dollars in debt and risking bankruptcy. As for security, although most terminals will only ask you for your PIN number when using a debit card for a purchase, you can select an option to sign for the purchase as well, which offers much more protection than using the PIN alone. Or you can simply select "Credit" even though you're using a debit card. Most terminals will process the card under the type you select, as long as it has the proper logo/encoding.

Personally, I don't own a credit card, nor does my husband. We have debit cards attached to our checking account, and that is all we use for everything from paying the electric bill to buying food and gas. We can easily check our balance online or by phone at any time, and we never pay a penny in interest or late fees. When we want to purchase something that we can't currently afford, like a new TV or refrigerator, we save up for it and watch the sales circulars. When the time and our finances are right, we buy it. This makes managing our money simple, and ensures that we don't end up in debt.

Depending on the circumstances, some may feel it's good to have just one credit card for emergencies, like if your car breaks down three days before you get paid. But the problem with this is human nature. Little by little, things that really aren't urgently needed will seem like they are, because you know you have the ability to get them on someone else's "dime". Because of this, it's highly likely that when your car does break down, you'll already have used up your credit limit and have to get an increase, loan, or second card to cover the cost of fixing it.

It may take decades before we can actually elect someone who will be responsible about managing the federal budget. But if they won't set the example for us, perhaps we should set the example for them instead. So I recommend that you cut up those credit cards, pay off the balances,and live within your means. It may take a while, but in the long run I think you will find you actually have more money left over at the end of the month that way.

Sphere: Related Content

Commercials

Have you ever noticed that TV commercials seem to spend more time trying to pressure you into buying their product than actually telling you why you should? This is not really a new phenomenon, but it's one that I thought would eventually fade out as consumers became more savvy and less prone to pressure sales tricks. But that doesn't seem to be happening, and so I thought it was time to enlighten the reading public to how they are being manipulated by advertising.

The other night really clinched this for me. In just one commercial segment, I was yelled at by a guy selling a knife sharpener - and then by the same guy selling some kind of car product. Through both commercials he is literally bellowing at you about the product, making claims that the visuals seem to support (but we all know such things can be faked), and topping off his pitch by urging me to call "right now" lest I should miss out on his "incredible" offer. Nevermind that it was 3am, or that I've seen the same commercials for more than a month - indicating that they are not likely to run out of the product, or retract the offer, any time soon.

Right between these ads were two others - one for Hair Club for Men, and the other for some male "enhancement" product. (Okay, 3am is not prime time for commercials either, but some of these run during the day too.) The Hair Club ad really ticked me off. My husband is bald. So what? It doesn't bother him, and it certainly doesn't bother me. In fact, I love that I can lean over and kiss the top of his head without getting hair in my mouth.

But do the folks at Hair Club care that many bald men are quite happy with their appearance and don't wish to spend thousands of dollars trying to look like someone else? Of course not. In fact, they don't just hawk their products - they use their commercial to try and make bald men feel bad about their appearance. They don't come right out and say it, of course, but everything they DO say is geared toward making a balding man feel that he's somehow lacking in looks, manhood, confidence, etc. - just so he will pay them to restore the self-esteem they took from him in the first place.

The male enhancement ads do the same thing. They claim that their product will make the guy bigger, better, etc. Guess what? Size really does not matter. What does matter is what you do with what you've got. Big or small, a man's best tool for being a great lover is his own imagination and ingenuity - neither of which can be bought. It also doesn't hurt if he's actually interested in pleasing his partner, rather than just getting his own satisfaction and then rolling over for a nap.

Such commercials are pretty obvious in their aims, which are clearly to make the viewer feel that their life is incomplete unless they buy and/or use the product being sold to them. But mankind has survived for millions of years without the need for hair replacement, male enhancements, Viagra, a car wax so tough you can burn coal on it without leaving a mark, or a knife so sharp you can cut concrete with it. Our kids do not have to dress like supermodels in order to do well in elementary school, nor do they need a laptop, cell phone, PDA, and MP3 player in order to get through college.

We really don't "need" all the products being sold to us, no matter how much the advertisers try to tell us we do. At a time when Americans are sinking under billions in credit card debts - much of which was spent on products that the buyer was told they just had to have "right now", and that often do not live up to the hype in their commercials - isn't it time that we started pressuring these companies to stop wasting money on inane advertising that treats Americans like idiots and spend that money on improving the quality of their products instead?

What do you think?

Sphere: Related Content