Showing posts with label bad guys. Show all posts
Showing posts with label bad guys. Show all posts

Friday, October 14, 2011

Sugar-free Salt?


Thinking to buy more salt yesterday, I was surprised and dismayed to find every box of iodized salt in a local grocery store also listed dextrose as an ingredient.

When did they start doing that? My old box of salt has only salt, iodide, and something to keep the salt free-flowing.

It doesn't do much good for people trying to decrease the amount of sugar they consume to have it added to salt.

Since sugar is addictive and since there's no good reason to add sugar to salt, why did the salt companies add it? What were they thinking? Is it to keep people tied to their product who would otherwise decrease the amount of salt they're putting in their food?

Are we going to have to demand sugar-free salt?


Saturday, September 10, 2011

What's the Point?


Yesterday, I took a car trunk full of plastic to a nearby recycling establishment I've gone to several times before only to be told the recycling facility they take the plastic to doesn't accept anything except recycling codes 1 and 2.

Giving the man one gallon jug, one liter bottle, a grocery bag full of #1 containers, and another bag of #2 containers that barely filled out the bottom of the bag, I left with six bags full of codes 4, 5, 6, and 7 containers.

I haven't checked the telephone book for other recycling collection points to see if this is the only one that discriminates which recyclable containers are accepted, but the disappointment has me wondering if recycling facilities aren't accepting all the recyclable plastics, what's the point of having the various codes? Are the other codes not profitable enough for the recycling facility or the collection point or is it simply a matter of the recycling facility having never been set up to process the other plastics?

The plastic recycling codes were set up to help save the planet. It's bad enough when consumers don't care enough for their children's future to recycle. What about when the very companies that are established to receive and process the materials are the road blocks?

Obviously, I've been patronizing the wrong recycling collection point. I just hope a better one is nearby.


Tuesday, February 8, 2011

Death of a Liar


I feel odd.

Over five years ago, my ringing phone awakened me from a nap. It was an attorney in another state dunning me to pay on my credit card.

Being sleepy, my first reaction was fear that I had forgotten to make my payment on time. Then, I realized that the company would have added a late payment fee onto my next statement and wouldn't have sicced a collector onto me until I missed several payments. That this was an attorney meant the situation was serious.

Gradually more alert as minutes ticked away, I began arguing with the attorney. I wasn't the one she was after. She had the right phone number, but the wrong location, wrong occupation, wrong Social Security number, wrong spousal information, and wrong everything else because she was talking to the wrong person. I didn't even have the credit card she was calling about.

After she apologized for disturbing me and hung up, I started pulling pieces together from things I recalled seeing on the Internet about a person fitting what the attorney said was supposed to have been about me. Spending a few minutes to verify my memory and find a phone number, I used my Caller-ID to call the attorney back and gave her the other person's phone number saying, "Try this number."

She thanked me and was curious as to why I tracked it down for her and from where I got it.

I replied, "Because I hate lying deadbeats and remembered I saw it before on Yahoo."

The reason I feel odd now is because while searching for something else on Google, I discovered that the person who had apparently given out my phone number to avoid collection calls back then was a member of the First Baptist Church in her town. From her photo, she was a nice, responsible woman like my deadbeat aunt who also attends church albeit Lutheran in a different state.

The sad part is that I ran across the information about her being a member of the Baptist church in her obituary online. I wish I could ask her, as a Christian, whatever in the world made her think she could put my phone number on her credit card account as if it were her own and get away with it? It wasn't a mistake. The numbers are much too different for it to have been a typographical error.

I hope she repented.


Psalms 37:21. The wicked borroweth, and payeth not again

Revelation 21:8. But the fearful, and unbelieving, and abominable, and murderers, and whoremongers, and sorcerers, and idolaters, and all liars, shall have their part in the lake which burneth with fire and brimstone: which is the second death.


Thursday, October 21, 2010

Cue Evil Laughter


All this preparedness stuff got me thinking about camping. This means I have to inventory my camping gear because a lot of things were stolen from my car when I was in San Ysidro, CA.

One of the items stolen was a BearVault. Although I'm not currently in bear country, a bear-resistant canister also protects food from being stolen by small creatures such as raccoons that are quite adept at accessing food campers thought they had secured.

Not only do I have to decide whether or not to replace the BearVault now or wait until later, I also need to decide whether to buy another BearVault or get a canister made by a different company.

Reading customer reviews, I was struck by a series of thoughts:

Considering that bears can break into cars but not into canisters approved by the Sierra Interagency Black Bear Group (SIBBG)...

Considering that BearVaults are made of super-strong polycarbonate, the same stuff used to make bullet-proof glass...

Considering that some campers were able to open their BearVaults to store food inside but missed meals because they weren't able to re-open them to get their food out...

Considering that I may have removed the label on the lid that has instructions on how to open the BearVault (I can't recall)...

Considering that San Ysidro, being a border town, has a majority Hispanic population and the thief might not have been able to read English if I left the label on (considering some restaurants there had menus only in Spanish and many business signs were in Spanish)...

Considering I had nothing worth more than US$20 stored in my BearVault (a coffee mug gift for a friend wrapped in a couple of shawls for cushioning)...

The thief likely expended great effort over a period of time to open my BearVault for very little reward, if it was ever opened at all!

Cue evil laughter.

I'm getting a kick from the thought of buying another see-through BearVault, putting a $20 bill in it, and Super gluing the lid shut just for the joy of knowing another thief will be aggravated by not knowing how to get the money out.

Except bear canisters are too expensive to buy just for the heck of it, I'd rather spend the $20 myself, and when the time comes, I've decided to try the Model 812 by Garcia Machine that can be opened, obviously, with a simple tool such as a coin.

Still, it's good to laugh at the idea.


Wednesday, August 25, 2010

Friend or Foe?


While working on my new journal pages for my website, something strange happened to my Facebook news feed. Whenever one of my Friends liked or commented on a status of one of their Friends, a stranger to me, the stranger's status and all the associated comments were displayed on my news feed. This happened one day, disappeared the next, and returned the day after. It was odd.

That's not what this post is about.

One stranger's status was about her ex-husband remarrying and her hope that someone warned his new wife about his alcoholism and abusiveness because none of her friends who knew him had the decency to warn her. She ended her status with, "SHAME ON YOU!"

I know exactly what she means because when I was 18, I got engaged to an abusive man before knowing he was abusive. A couple of my friends from high school knew what he was like but didn't warn me because I was so happy they didn't want to spoil my happiness. They said they didn't want to hurt my feelings. As a result, I ended up in the emergency room.

Fortunately, my friends owned up to their mistake and apologized although that didn't happen until several weeks after I got him out of my life with the help of the police, my apartment building's security guard, and my dad.

Years later, I discovered a true friend in Roxie whom I've mentioned in previous posts. Not only does she support me with my writing, when I got close to a friend with the expectation of more, she warned me about an undesirable aspect of his that had great potential for causing problems if we had married. Unbeknownst to her, I already knew about it and because he was in counseling for it, I thought it would work out somehow.

My affinity for the man ended when he abandoned me, not saying a word nor giving me a hug or anything but keeping his distance when my mother died unexpectedly. That's not what good friends do and there's no way anyone should entertain any thoughts of marriage whatsoever to someone who won't stand by you during a hard time like the death of a parent.

But, because of my supposed friendship with him, I learned that Roxie is a good friend because she has my back. She has proved that she wants only good for me.

Unfortunately, none of the comments for the Facebook stranger's status acknowledged her pain at the betrayal of her friends who should have warned her about her ex. The best comment reassured her that she will find a good man. The others told her to put it behind her and move on.

I was appalled. Although they probably had good intentions, what they did was like telling a victim of a traffic accident to get up and walk away after being hit by a drunk driver instead of helping her get to a hospital. As a result, I sent her a message telling her to ignore them and go get counseling because that's the best way to get over the kind of injury she sustained and be able to move on with her life. She thanked me for taking the time to give good advice to a total stranger.

Another type of friend was revealed when I posted "Understanding Rape." A woman with a rape recovery blog had linked to my post and when I went to check out her blog, I read that some of her friends blamed her for being raped. Yes, her own friends blamed her for being the victim of a violent crime! There are also supposed friends who are stupid enough to have the nerve to ask the rape victim if she enjoyed it. Who enjoys being violated?! Talk about revictimization.

Yet another type of friend was exposed when a woman was going through recovery and healing for being raped and abused by her husband whom she eventually divorced. The friend didn't simply say, "It's over. Move on," as another callously insensitive friend did, this one spent hours and hours over several days badgering the victim to abandon her recovery and healing process.

With friends like that, who needs enemies?

What kind of friend are you, a true friend like Roxie, or a foe in disguise like the others I described?


Saturday, August 14, 2010

Go to Now


Today, I'm finally getting back to what I thought I'd be doing before I was so rudely interrupted by the revelation that spammers have been using one of my domain name email addresses to forge their headers.

Such is life: God's will, God's way, God's timing.

Or, as I've heard it said in this part of the country, "...Lord willing and the creeks don't rise."


James 4:

13. Go to now, ye that say, To day or to morrow we will go into such a city, and continue there a year, and buy and sell, and get gain:
14. Whereas ye know not what shall be on the morrow. For what is your life? It is even a vapour, that appeareth for a little time, and then vanisheth away.
15. For that ye ought to say, If the Lord will, we shall live, and do this, or that.


Friday, August 6, 2010

D*@%! Spammers


Some low-down, no-good, dirty, slimy, frickin spammer(s) stole one of my domain names and an associated email address to forge email headers to escape detection and being shut down as they've done to so many other netizens.

As a result, I'm busy with damage control and what can be done to protect my other domain names.

Fortunately, the last few years have seen the acceptance of the Sender Policy Framework (SPF) record to help authenticate legitimate email. Had I known about and used it in time, it might have saved me from jumping through hoops getting up to speed this week trying to protect my domain from being blacklisted.

So far, I've set up and published SPF TXT records for my DNS to authenticate my outgoing email with the help of the SPF Setup Wizard. One thing I don't like about the wizard is that it doesn't give the option of -all which means the email is to be treated as spam if it doesn't match the passing criteria, although changing the softfail ~all to the hardfail -all is easy enough by manually editing it.

For the domain names that I'm not using for email, my SPF record is simply:

v=spf1 -all

because any and all email from those domains should be considered forgeries by spammers. Should I decide to use one for email later, it's easy enough to modify the record and republish it through my DNS.

I'm also transferring my domain name registration to another registrar, that I've been using since 1999, because it offers free privacy protection.

(I'd provide a link, except I can't find one for only domain registrations and the current website is all about packages. Using the same company for both domain name registration and web hosting is a really bad idea because you could lose both in one fell swoop. For an idea of how bad a situation can be, read some of the complaints at NoDaddy.)

Some registrars charge for the privacy service and my former registrar of the forged domain name doesn't offer it at all. I'm sure that's how the spammers got it because the email addy that I've seen in spam had to have been harvested from the public Whois listing since I use it exclusively as my contact email address for domain name registration and web hosting.

Just to make sure, I've also changed my contact email address on my website from a simple disguise that some might now be able to decrypt to an image that can't be read by computers. Visitors won't be able to click a mailto link anymore, but I don't get enough emails through my website to warrant my setting up an email form.

Maybe the slight inconvenience of having to read, manually call up their email client and enter my addy will discourage the weirdoes from emailing me like the guy who complained about my dissing pencils on one of my pen pages. (Please see the last paragraph for what I wrote about using a pencil and remember that I didn't make the rules; I was merely reporting them for my visitors' convenience.)

My next step is to set up a webpage to let any recipients of spam purporting to be from me know that I did NOT have anything to do with it. I've already created the page, but must wait for the registration transfer to be completed before I can set it up with my web host.

GRrrrrr...



Luke 6:28b ...pray for them which despitefully use you.


Friday, July 23, 2010

Wal-Mart to Put Radio Tags on Clothes


"Wal-Mart Stores Inc. plans to roll out sophisticated electronic ID tags to track individual pairs of jeans and underwear, the first step in a system that advocates say better controls inventory but some critics say raises privacy concerns."

For the rest of the article, please see the Wall Street Journal.

I remember there being a huge squawk several years ago because of privacy concerns when Wal-Mart embedded e-tags into other, non-clothing, soft goods.

These sound better because they're removable, if they're removed at the checkout counter.

If Wal-Mart refuses to remove them before we leave the store, I think shoppers should remove them at their cars and toss them into Wal-Mart trash cans to avoid taking them home.

A keychain knife or multitool such as the 2.25 inches long (closed) Classic model of Swiss Army Knife and Leatherman Micra, Squirt, or Style include a pair of scissors that might be ideal for this purpose.

The Classic SAK is available in several colors and designs from Amazon from US$9.50 and in red at Wal-Mart (US$9.97). The Leatherman keychain multitools which have more tools and, as a result, weigh more than the Classic SAK, start at about US$21.

Definitely get an RFID-blocking wallet if you have a driver's license, credit cards, or other personal information with RFID chips attached to protect yourself from snoops and the bad guys.


Thursday, May 20, 2010

Contemplating Boobquake


Over the past month, I've been contemplating the concept that women's immodest attire contributes to earthquakes and wondering how Muslim women got such power. Evidently, Western women don't have it as shown by the results of Boobquake.

The Iranian senior cleric, Kazem Sedighi, who first preached, "Many women who do not dress modestly ... lead young men astray, corrupt their chastity and spread adultery in society, which (consequently) increases earthquakes," later explained in a lame attempt to wipe out any notion of observable cause and effect for this first Boobquake that earthquakes didn't hit the immorality-filled Western world because God may be waiting for us to sin more so He can send us "to the bottom of Hell."

I'm laughing because Sedighi leaped from immodest attire to promiscuity to earthquakes, but is blind to how the promiscuity of the Western culture is the same as his Shia Islam religion's allowing polygamous marriage with up to four permanent wives PLUS multiple temporary wives.

The only differences between our version of promiscuity and Iran's Shia version, called Nikah al-Mut'ah in Arabic or sigheh in Persian, are the contract and that the concubines are paid an agreed-upon price, mahr, without which payment, the contract for a temporary marriage is void (Civil Code of the Islamic Republic of Iran, Articles 1075, 1076, and 1095).

At best, their promiscuity is legalized which doesn't make it less ungodly.

At worst, the temporary wives are legal prostitutes albeit for longer periods of time than the illegal prostitutes.

Talk about the pot calling the kettle black! At least, Western culture isn't so hypocritical as to go through the sham of instituting a legal code to support fornication.

The sad part is that the immodest attire to which Sedighi was referring is about the women who are letting some of their hair show by wearing a scarf instead of a hijab.

Yes, he calls them immodest because of their HAIR, that millions of women around the world for thousands of years have, without recrimination much less earthquakes, worn uncovered or partially covered as some Iranian women have started to do. How do extremists get so perverted?!

Ignoring Sedighi's later explanation of the reason Boobquake didn't have the expected result because I don't want to thump the Bible over his statement's gross inaccuracies, my question is, "Does the Qur'an say Muslim women must cover themselves completely when in public or is that something the extremist Islamic religious leaders made up?"

I'm asking because I read somewhere that the burqa and hijab are cultural, not religious, and that the veil applied only to Muhammad's wives because they were in close view of many strangers who visited the mosque next to their home; it was to provide privacy from prying eyes as they held a degree of celebrity status being wives of Muhammad like celebrities today wear hats, scarves, and sunglasses.

Also, I don't recall Hebrew women ever having to cover their faces nor completely hide their hair in the books I've read.

While I don't know the Qur'an, it's logical that if their god is the same God of the Jews and Christians as some people believe, the Qur'an would teach the same things as the Old and New Testaments: that we are imperfect, unable to follow each and every point in God's Law, sinners who need a Savior, and that Savior comes from the house of David.

What's scary is that the U.N. has given Iran a four-year (2011-2015) seat on the Commission on the Status of Women, which is "dedicated exclusively to gender equality and advancement of women."

HAH! Yes, Iran. The country that set a nearly impossible standard for proof of rape and severely punishes women for not being able to meet it with the result that most rapes are not reported.

Iran, the country which legal standards include "the testimony of two women is equal to that of one man" and "a woman has the right to divorce only if her husband signs a contract granting that right" even though a husband is "not required to cite a reason for divorcing his wife" and mandates that a man inherits twice that of a woman's share (Civil Code of the IRI, Articles 1133, 892-1, 899-1, 900-2, 906, 911, 913, 920, 923-925, 931-932, 935, and 938-948).

[NOTE: For the U.N. document at the following link, see page 27, section G, paragraph 82, and section H, paragraph 83. If the link doesn't work, verify that a cookie for un.org is allowed.]

Iran, the country that has a law allowing a father or paternal grandfather to make his 9-year-old girl marry any man he chooses upon payment of a sum of money (Civil Code of the IRI, Article 1041).

Iran, the country that prohibits executing a condemned female virgin but gets around it by having the condemned virgin, too often between the ages of only 9 to 17 years old, "married" to a prison guard on the eve of her execution for the purpose of legally raping her in the outrageous belief started by the Ayatollah Khomeini that rape prevents such a virgin from entering heaven and consigns her to hell.

Execution isn't punishment enough? They have to go to hell, too, as if anyone on earth has the power to designate who goes to hell? Doesn't the Qur'an say that only Allah knows who will go to heaven and who will go to hell?

(Spousal rape is not illegal in Iran because a wife is required by law to service her husband as he desires as long as she is able, i.e. if she's not menstruating, or he may deprive her of her bed, food, clothing, and shelter. It's how a husband can coerce his wife into submitting to rape - Civil Code of the IRI, Article 1108).

The U.N. is letting a hungry wolf guard the lambs.

What I learned from Sedighi is that he believes Islamic men are so weak, so unable to control their impulses and passions, that Islamic women have to cover themselves completely. I know it isn't true because there are many Muslim women in other countries who have adopted Western attire, the men around them are quite stable, and the earth beneath them isn't threatening to rumble with earthquakes like what is threatening Tehran.

Therefore, behind Sedighi's insult to Muslim men about their inability to control themselves is his goal to continue the subjugation, repression, and oppression of Irani women.

Think about it, if women's indecent attire causes earthquakes, it would be a simple matter for Iranian women to go outside, remove their hijabs, roll up their sleeves, raise their skirts to show their calves if they're comfortable going that far, stay clear of the falling walls, and take control after the earthquakes having proved irrefutably that they've got the power Sedighi says they have.

The problem with that idea is if earthquakes don't happen right away as I doubt they would, the participants are likely to be arrested.

Maybe what they could say is, "If you don't treat us right, we'll bring the walls down around your ears and then, you'll answer to us!"

God may do it for them, anyway, if the fault lines threatening Tehran somehow manage to kill the extremist Mullahs since the Bible has an example of an earthquake swallowing up the wicked (Numbers 16:28-33). And it didn't happen because of immodest attire, either!

(I need to report that Muslim men also have a dress code. Not as restricted as women as might be expected for that culture, men are supposed to be covered from their waists to below their knees.)

Indeed, after doing a word search, I can't say that women or men showing skin has any scriptural bearing on earthquakes.

Does that mean God doesn't disapprove of immodest attire?

Were Adam and Eve naked in the Garden of Eden?

Did Isaiah wear a thong?

To be fair to Mr. Sedighi, we need to acknowledge that Boobquake is an incomplete experiment because he said immodest attire leads to the corruption of men's chastity and adultery that then result in increased earthquakes.

Therefore, without a way to evaluate the effect of immodest attire on sexual misconduct and the effect of sexual misconduct on earthquakes, we'll never know which stance is correct, Sedighi's or the participants of Boobquake, if either.

Unfortunately for Mr. Sedighi, his perception of sexual misconduct is idiotic because it means only that the couples didn't bother with the sham of a temporary marriage that is so shallow it need consist merely of the couple agreeing on the length of time they will be together which may be extended or shortened as circumstances or desire dictates, their saying to each other "I marry you," and the payment of the mahr.

In conclusion, please pray for the people of Iran. The women, especially, need our support. Perhaps you'll feel led to additional means of support such as contacting the U.N. to protest Iran having a seat on the Commission on the Status of Women and demand that Iran be removed.



Isaiah 20:

1. In the year that Tartan came unto Ashdod, (when Sargon the king of Assyria sent him,) and fought against Ashdod, and took it;
2. At the same time spake the Lord by Isaiah the son of Amoz, saying, Go and loose the sackcloth from off thy loins, and put off thy shoe from thy foot. And he did so, walking naked and barefoot.
3. And the Lord said, Like as my servant Isaiah hath walked naked and barefoot three years for a sign and wonder upon Egypt and upon Ethiopia;
4. So shall the king of Assyria lead away the Egyptians prisoners, and the Ethiopians captives, young and old, naked and barefoot, even with their buttocks uncovered, to the shame of Egypt.


Sunday, December 20, 2009

Revisiting John 8:2-11


In my last post, I quoted John 8:2-11 of the Bible, a passage about an adulteress, and want to revisit it.

Have you ever wondered why the woman caught in adultery, "in the very act" (John 8:4), was the only person the scribes and the Pharisees brought to Jesus?

Since Leviticus 20:10 says that both the man and the woman are to be put to death for breaking the Seventh Commandment ("Thou shalt not commit adultery" Exodus 20:14), what happened to the man who was with the adulteress? Since he isn't mentioned, the only logical conclusion is that they let him go.

Since John 8:6 says they brought the woman to Jesus in hope of getting something against Him, I'm thinking that if He said that they should not stone her, they could accuse Him of being against the Law.

If, however, He agreed that she should be stoned to death, they could accuse Him of ignoring the part of the Law that says the man is to be stoned as well.

Either answer would have given the Pharisees something against Jesus as they wanted but He saw their double standard, the injustice of their wanting to stone the woman but not the man who had been with her, and had the wisdom to avoid their trap.


Friday, December 11, 2009

A Matter of Balance


The Tiger Woods situation has some people arguing that adultery is a private issue between a husband and his wife. This post takes a look at two scriptures that have been used by those who think the media and everyone else should be quiet about Tiger's infidelities.

One scripture, "...He that is without sin among you, let him first cast a stone..." seems appropriate because Jesus said it in a passage about a woman caught in adultery:

John 8:
2. And early in the morning he came again into the temple, and all the people came unto him; and he sat down, and taught them.
3. And the scribes and Pharisees brought unto him a woman taken in adultery; and when they had set her in the midst,
4. They say unto him, Master, this woman was taken in adultery, in the very act.
5. Now Moses in the law commanded us, that such should be stoned: but what sayest thou?
6. This they said, tempting him, that they might have to accuse him. But Jesus stooped down, and with his finger wrote on the ground, as though he heard them not.
7. So when they continued asking him, he lifted up himself, and said unto them, He that is without sin among you, let him first cast a stone at her.
8. And again he stooped down, and wrote on the ground.
9. And they which heard it, being convicted by their own conscience, went out one by one, beginning at the eldest, even unto the last: and Jesus was left alone, and the woman standing in the midst.
10. When Jesus had lifted up himself, and saw none but the woman, he said unto her, Woman, where are those thine accusers? hath no man condemned thee?
11. She said, No man, Lord. And Jesus said unto her, Neither do I condemn thee: go, and sin no more.

The problem with trying to use it to convince others to leave Tiger alone is that doing so misapplies the verse; no one has condemned Tiger to death. No where does Jesus say that the adulteress shouldn't have been exposed as such, only that he without sin should be the one to begin her execution which has never been an issue in Tiger's situation.

Moreover, the passage shows that public exposure was the path to God's mercy and the woman's repentance just as public exposure was the path to Tiger Woods' reluctant but eventual statement of guilt and intended repentance.

The other scripture is, "Or how wilt thou say to thy brother, Let me pull out the mote out of thine eye; and, behold, a beam is in thine own eye?" (Matthew 7:4).

Frankly, I'm appalled that anyone would trivialize breaking the Seventh Commandment (Exodus 20:14) by equating adultery to a mote (speck). What then, considering that the Commandments aren't ranked by magnitude, might be equated to a beam?

In defense, a more appropriate verse is likely, "Judge not, that ye be not judged," from the same passage in Matthew 7:

1. Judge not, that ye be not judged.
2. For with what judgment ye judge, ye shall be judged: and with what measure ye mete, it shall be measured to you again.
3. And why beholdest thou the mote that is in thy brother's eye, but considerest not the beam that is in thine own eye?
4. Or how wilt thou say to thy brother, Let me pull out the mote out of thine eye; and, behold, a beam is in thine own eye?
5. Thou hypocrite, first cast out the beam out of thine own eye; and then shalt thou see clearly to cast out the mote out of thy brother's eye.

The problem with using this passage is that because God doesn't see any sin as being worse than another as we might see murder as being worse than stealing, and there's a distinct comparison of magnitudes in this passage, this scripture isn't about sins but is about the non-sinful things some may criticize or think they need to help other people fix about themselves.

Also countering the erroneous belief that "Judge not, that ye be not judged," is about sins is that Jesus instructed us to "Judge not according to the appearance, but judge righteous judgment" (John 7:24).

Even so, we weren't given much of an opportunity to judge Tiger because his lovers began confirming his infidelities within a few days and God has already judged adulterers:

1 Corinthians 6:
9. Know ye not that the unrighteous shall not inherit the kingdom of God? Be not deceived: neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate, nor abusers of themselves with mankind,
10. Nor thieves, nor covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor extortioners, shall inherit the kingdom of God.

The fact is that Tiger's philandering has been the worst kept secret and the media has known about it for a long time without printing a word.

What changed?

When Tiger crashed his vehicle, the accident became a matter of public record. The public wants to know how and why accidents happen as well as if people were injured or property damaged and to what extent. It's the media's job to keep the public informed. Reporting accidents also helps keep the public safe because it's the easiest way for us to learn what to do or not do.

After that, it's simple back-tracking from the accident to its underlying cause: Accident -> reckless driving -> upset over argument with Elin -> his texting Rachel Uchitel -> adultery. Thus, Pandora's box was opened.

Another reason adultery shouldn't be a private matter is because such a violation of the Ten Commandments erodes the fabric of society which is everyone's concern. Too often, silence is interpreted as consent and in no way should we ever allow anyone who breaks the interpersonal Commandments the illusion that s/he's behavior has gone unnoticed or will be without consequence. While a person not in the public eye deserves the attention of family, friends, associates, and church; a public figure who travels the world needs the watchful eye of the public to hold him or her accountable especially after years of concealing the behavior from the public has failed to effect a change.

Although we've all heard or read about how intrusive the media can be in regard to the personal lives of celebrities, especially the tabloids - and I do not condone the excess or the fabrications - however uncomfortable it may be, the situation is one that Tiger Woods brought upon himself.

By committing adultery, he proved himself to be immoral.

By texting Rachel where Elin could catch him at it, he displayed poor judgment.

By blaming Elin for ruining their Thanksgiving, he exposed himself as a blame-shifter.

By driving recklessly, he unleashed the media.

While I'm sure those who use the two scriptures examined here think they have the best intentions, taking scripture out of context and picking scriptures to the exclusion of others in the Bible leaves them on the slippery slope of using the Bible to say whatever they want it to say instead of having a balanced outlook of the scripture.

Everyone else needs to be aware that since there is what people say the Bible says versus what the Bible actually says, they need to study the Bible for themselves.

Tiger Woods is a great golfer, but not a good man and it's better for us to see him as he really is than it is to hold an unbalanced view of him as being like the other celebrities who manage their lives without engaging in the scandalous behavior that Tiger has.

If Tiger's lucky, having his adultery exposed publicly, like the adulteress in the Bible, resulted in true repentance rather than mere lip service and the painful memory of his exposure will keep him from behaving badly in the future.


Saturday, September 26, 2009

Strike One!


After the luncheon and fashion show last Saturday, my friend and I went to a park to sit and relax and visit while watching a couple of my kites fly.

At the end of our visit, when we were discussing eliminating unsuitable prospective mates, I said, "Three strikes, he's out."

She said she's proud of me because other women she's known say, "One strike, he's out."

We agreed that isn't fair because nobody's perfect and a good man might be cut because of a single mistake. In the days since, however, I've decided that "One strike, he's out," is a valid and necessary rule:

1. If he hits, kicks, chokes, or compels her to have sex against her will. This would be a no-brainer except for the fact that there are women who make excuses for or accept excuses from men who physically or sexually abuse them.

2. If he does drugs or engages in other illegal activities or tries to persuade her to do the same. This is another supposed no-brainer that some women somehow manage to miss.

3. If he doesn't respect her personal boundaries. The lack of respect shows how little he cares for her and may indicate a controlling and abusive personality.

4. If he steals or borrows money or items and doesn't repay or return as promised or in the same or better condition than they were loaned. Not only is he a thief or a mooch, he is unlikely to stand by bigger promises. Appropriating or damaging her material possessions without reparation may be a sign he's a financial abuser especially if he denies her access to her own property or refuses to return the favor of the loan.

5. If he exhibits cruelty to animals. Not only is it harmful for the poor animal, it is an indication that he's likely to treat her and her children badly when she doesn't do as he wants.

6. If he doesn't like her friends and refuses to spend as much time with them as he expects her to spend with his friends. Such isolation is an aspect of control and abuse.

7. If he uses emotional blackmail or other methods of coercion or intimidation to induce fear, or attempts to "pull rank" in order to get his way. That is, as a self-proclaimed superior male, he presumes to know what's best for a female. These are some of the controlling tactics of an abuser.

8. If he acts badly and denies it or blames her for it. Was she holding a gun to his head or a knife to his throat? No, this type of lack of respect is verbal, psychological, or physical abuse. If he demeans her to others or humiliates her, it is a symptom of his own low self-esteem. Since verbal abuse is often a precursor to physical abuse and since abusers are notoriously low on self-esteem, "One strike, he's out," helps women avoid wasting any more time on abusive men.

9. If he's unduly competitive with her. When a man loves a woman, he helps her be the best she can. Striving to beat her instead of helping her to improve is a sign of his low self-esteem and is only a precursor of the many future power struggles between them. Watch this one, too, because there are critics who claim they're only trying to help when, in fact, they're bruising souls and crushing spirits. Adept criticism will mention positive qualities as much or more than any negative points and will convey how to make something better without putting her or her effort down.

10. For a Christian, if he won't go to church with her and discourages her from attending. This marks a self-centered man who wants a woman in his life but doesn't want to be in hers. If he belittles her belief in God, she may be looking at a power and control freak and an abuser. In any case, a man who isn't yielded to the Lord makes married life harder on the Christian woman, and vice versa, which is one of the reasons why the Bible exhorts us to marry only another believer.

11. When the still, small "voice" of the Holy Spirit of God disturbs her spirit and soul. Since God knows everything, He may warn her away from a bad relationship so she doesn't have to experience any of the above.

So, for behavior like the examples above, it's "Strike one! He's out...Next!" because abuse is never an accident nor is it a one-time occurrence. It is a set of reprehensible methods chosen by abusers to get what they want.

And, yes, there are women who abuse men.


Sunday, August 30, 2009

Understanding Rape


Everyone knows that rape is wrong. Not everyone understands that rape occurs every time a person's "no" isn't respected and one's personal boundary is violated.

For example, a male friend once asked for my advice because his girlfriend was suddenly distant and wouldn't talk to him about what was going on with her.

When he told me the details of the last time they were fine together, I was horrified.

"I didn't rape her!" the pig protested in response to my facial expression. "She wanted it. I know she did. I could tell!"

"She said, 'no,' yet you continued to undress her and had your way with her," I pointed out to the idiot.

He became despondent. "What do I do, now?"

"Hang it up because it's over and there's no way you can fix it. My guess is that she hasn't told you yet because you've been together for awhile and you saved her from her ex-husband. But, really, if a woman can't trust a man with her body, she can't trust him. Period."

A week later, he reported that she had broken up with him and a few months after that, he left the state.

What some people don't understand is that rape isn't limited to violent sexual assault. Any time a person's "no" isn't respected and the person is coerced into something only because someone else wants it, it is rape:

Rape of the soul and spirit.

I'm not talking about discussions and arguments that persuade you to do things that you eventually may or may not come to agree were good to do.

I mean verbal battering that forces you into doing or giving up what another person wants, the way that s/he wants, without consideration or compromise. The issue isn't what's best for you. The issue is the rapist having control and power over you.

The psychological rapist uses verbal assaults that may include such tactics as belittlement, emotional blackmail such as "you'd do it if you love me" or threats of ending the relationship, persistent phone calls, ignoring your need for sleep, and disrupting other typical activities in order to coerce submission that may include submitting to sex.

The rapist doesn't allow the option of not doing what the rapist insists upon.

The victim feels beat-up mentally and emotionally and, as with sexual rape, can never come to agree that it was good.

For a personal example, my fourth grade teacher once took it upon herself to make me eat salad. She never made any other child eat whatever portion of their lunch they left behind, but for some reason, I and the salad left untouched on my lunch tray whenever it was served stuck in her craw.

She seated herself on the other side of my desk and insisted that I eat my salad.

"Salad makes me sick," I objected.

"It's good for you," she said.

"My parents don't make me eat salad. It makes me sick," I tried again.

"I'll feed it to you like a baby if you won't eat it yourself."

I didn't and she did, forkful by forkful, humiliating me in front of my classmates until the salad was gone and my stomach was churning.

"There, that wasn't so bad, was it?" she gloated in triumph.

As if on cue, I vomited onto the lunch tray and the teacher left me in disgust. Cleaning up alone and shaking, I reassured myself that it wasn't my fault because I had warned her. Why didn't she believe me?

It doesn't matter. What matters is that she violated my personal boundary, humiliated me, caused me to be physically ill, destroyed my sense of well-being in the classroom, and shattered my trust in teachers as safe people by abusing her position of authority in the classroom.

If you're trying to make excuses for a psychological rapist, if you're wanting to salvage the relationship and thinking that s/he is basically a decent human being who simply doesn't understand what rape is and how it affects someone, explain it. If you're right, s/he will apologize for causing you anguish and will take care to never do it again.

If no apology is forthcoming, or if you get an apology but it happens again, walk away and stay away.

Nobody deserves to be treated as badly as that.


Sunday, August 16, 2009

Another Obamination


Standing in the grocery store's check out line on Friday, I was surprised to see the Globe's headline reporting that President Obama's birth certificate was forged.

"Good grief," I thought. "Talk about being behind the times. I read that on the Internet before the election and that the State of Hawai`i verified that his birth certificate is legit. Must be a slow news day."

Later that night, I read the ABC News article, "Fear for Obama's Safety Grows as Hate Groups Thrive on Racial Backlash" which has a line on the second page saying that the Secret Service "officials told ABC News that the President's daily threat matrix has yet to reflect a sharp increase in threats," making me wonder if ABC News was experiencing a slow news day, too.

While I didn't vote for Obama and think his stimulus and health care reform ideas are terrible, I get annoyed when he, who spent his formative years with a white mother and white grandmother and was educated at top-notch, private, predominantly white schools, two of which are Ivy League, is categorized as black only because the color of his skin is darker than the typical white person's.

Sure, he identifies himself as an African-American. However, it's only because "that's how I'm treated and that's how I'm viewed." He also calls himself a mutt.

(Technically, Obama is one of the few true African-Americans because his father was a Kenyan and his mother an American, but let's not get into splitting hairs since the term is universally accepted as meaning an American of African descent.)

Although treating people differently solely because of their race is deplorable, thinking of Obama as black is so wrong that it gives another definition to "Obamination," a made-up word I used in an earlier post. Yes, it would be odd to call him white and awkward to call him half-white or half-black. Why does he have to be either/or? Why hasn't Obama been categorized as biracial or Afro-Caucasian, Eurafrican, or mulatto? Are the members of the media purposely fueling the flame of racial hatred to decrease the number of slow news days?

Race shouldn't even be a consideration because it's morals, ethics, ideals, and goals and how they're achieved that matters. The only time race is necessary is for a physical description, as for a fugitive hiding from the police. Since we all learned what Obama looks like before he was elected President, references to his appearance should have ceased by Inauguration Day, but for some reason, people ignorantly perpetuate the racial card when it doesn't mean a thing.

Or maybe not so ignorantly.


Wednesday, April 1, 2009

A Switch


My cell phone rang this morning as it did yesterday about the same time. Not recognizing the phone number yesterday, I didn't answer. After waiting long enough for voice mail that never arrived, I checked the phone book and learned that the number is from an area code in Maryland where I have no friends. This morning, I answered to ask the telemarketer to place me on the company's Do Not Call list and the recording instructed me to press "1" to speak with a person to get a lower interest rate than my current loan.

Jessica answered and asked for my name.

"Gail Rhea," I replied.

She hung up! I never before had a telemarketer hang up on me.

[Note: The FCC prohibits telemarketers from using automated dialers for calling wireless numbers and most telemarketing calls to cell phones have always been illegal whether or not the cell number is on the National Do Not Call Registry.]

If something like this happens to you, please be sure to file a complaint with the FCC and the FTC which operates the National Do Not Call Registry where you may file a complaint if your number has been registered for at least 31 days.

Unfortunately, the FTC page is in an infinite loop with another of its pages apparently since June 9, 2008. (Yes, I reported it to the webmaster.)

Click here to register your personal phone numbers on the National Do Not Call Registry.


Friday, February 6, 2009

Entering Politics


There are currently a whopping 78 tabs open in my Firefox browser. This is because I was researching a couple of things and got sidetracked by the McCollum Memo that supposedly proves that President Franklin D. Roosevelt instigated Japan's attack on Pearl Harbor to give the United States a reason to enter World War II.

I say "supposedly" because I didn't read the memo. I went off on another sidetrack about how and why the several presidents since FDR lied to us to get the U.S. into wars including the former President Bush with the events of 9-11.

From there, I read about how the U.S. meets all of the 14 points of fascism (you may look it up for yourself as well as the McCollum Memo), ending up at a prediction that we'd be under a soft dictatorship by the end of Bush's second term.

Well, we're past that point and everyone can decide for themselves where we stand. What concerns me is the assertion that both the Democratic and Republican parties want the same thing, a fascist state instead of a republic, and that they use the same tactics to move the U.S. closer to that goal. The only thing they're in discord about is which party is in power.

I don't agree with all of the "evidence" the websites present to support that we're turning toward fascism because some are subject to interpretation. However, limiting the First Amendment in regards to free speech, chopping away at the Second Amendment by making it difficult for law-abiding citizens to bear arms, and dispatching with due process as stated in the Fifth Amendment are definite departures from our Bill of Rights and as such are unconstitutional.

Now that Barack Obama is our president, winning the election with his promise for change, what will we see? Will it be more of the same slide away from the ideals that made the United States of America one of the nations to which people most want to emigrate or will we see a return to the foundation that made us a great nation?

You see, no president has ever needed a contract with the people because the Constitution is that contract and the President accepts it when he swears to "...preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States" upon taking office.

I also can't help wondering if people allow bad laws to pass because they're not paying attention to what their lawmakers are doing or if it's because they don't accept responsibility for the consequences of their personal choices, including the decision to follow God or not.

The other question I have is what actor looks enough like President Obama to portray him in the movies?


Friday, February 29, 2008

The Bad, the Great, and the Tedious


Taking me three times as long as I should have to find the half-dozen items on my list because the store is rearranged, I find myself in the electronics department next to the laptops looking at accessories.

"What's the difference between a notebook and a laptop?" a male customer asks a saleswoman.

A few questions later, she falters at his asking about wireless.

"May I answer that?" I ask. At their response, I continue, "All new laptops should come with wireless by now. What you need to watch for is which standard they're using."

"Which standard?" he asks.

"Yes, the draft 802.11n is 80% approved and will be official maybe late this year, surely sometime next year. With such a high percentage of approval, some companies are making compliant products already. If the computer you want doesn't use the 802.11n standard, you should wait, if you can, to buy it when it does because it's so close."

An older saleswoman joins us, then goes and checks their routers. "Here's one," she calls over to us. He and I go over to her while the first saleswoman leaves.

"Yes," I point to the box. "See this? This is the standard you want. Make sure your laptop and router match." I point to another router. "See this box? It uses an older standard. If you get the 802.11n on your laptop, it'll work because it's backwards compatible, but it won't be as fast. As long as you're buying new equipment, you may as well get the latest technology."

"How do you know about this stuff?" he asks. "I took some classes to learn about computers, but they didn't teach anything about this."

"I used to be a programmer; different system, but the principles are the same. If two sides don't use the same standard, they can't communicate or don't communicate as well as they could."

"Oh, no wonder! Say, can you tell me how people are able to steal other people's data when they're using wireless?"

The saleswoman leaves.

"Essentially, it's radio like your cordless and cell phones, just a different frequency, and the sniffers tune in. That's why you'll need to get a VPN, a Virtual Private Network, if you'll be doing anything sensitive like using passwords and doing online shopping or banking. A VPN makes a tunnel for your data to go through so sniffers can't see it. You'll have to google to find one. If you just surf and read, don't worry about it because you won't be submitting any personally sensitive information."

"Thanks a lot! I learned a lot and I think you gave me more help than the salespeople would have."

"It's possible. I just ordered my fourth laptop and I've always known more than the salespeople."

"Fourth laptop?" His eyes are big.

"The first hardly counts because it didn't have the hard drive I wanted. The salesman lied about the size and I had it about two months while going through him, his manager, and up to the district manager before they accepted it back. My third got stolen last July while I was in California and the fourth is to replace it."

It's Monday evening and my new laptop arrives the next morning, more than a week earlier than Dell said to expect it, only five days after I ordered it. Wow! How great is that? Not only did it arrive a lot faster than my last one, it doesn't have all the pre-loaded trial software crap I had to delete off the other. Much better!

I'm ready to go online with it before the new CD from my ISP arrives, so I decide to set up the connection myself since I have my username, password, and the ISP's phone number on my eight-year-old laptop.

First, download and install a firewall from ZoneAlarm to keep the hackers out. Check.

Next, the ShieldsUP! test at the Gibson Research Corp. to ensure the firewall didn't leave any open ports for the hackers to sneak through. Check.

Firefox because it's safer than Internet Explorer. Check.

SpywareBlaster to prevent malware from getting into those little hidden places in the first place, probably why Ad-Aware and Spybot-S&D never found anything after I ran it on my old laptop. Check.

Ad-Aware. Ad-Aware. Ad-Aware. Ad-Aware. In four tries, I can't get more than half a meg of the free version to download. Hmm, it hasn't found any adware, spyware, or other malware since the first time I ran it on my old laptop, so maybe I'll be okay without it for awhile.

Spybot-S&D to catch and kill malware if it gets past SpywareBlaster and its own defensive measures. While it overlaps a lot of what Ad-Aware covers, it also covers what Ad-Aware misses, and vice versa. That's why it's best to have two good antispyware programs. Check.

Avast! antivirus software to handle viruses, trojans, and worms. Check.

System updates - there are 41 of them. (No, I didn't get Vista.) The estimated download time at 49 Kpbs is over seven hours. How tedious. I think about going to the library to use their high-speed connection, but rather stay here watching "Monk," "Without A Trace," and "Law & Order" on TNT and USA. I fall asleep and nap during a couple of episodes of "Walker, Texas Ranger." Check. Finally.

I guess maybe I'll start working on my (ugh) income tax return tomorrow during the "N.C.I.S." marathon on USA.

Or maybe not.


[Note: SUPERAntispyware is another good antispyware program but since it's weak on defensive measures, takes about an hour and a half to run, has a bit of nagware, and doesn't uninstall cleanly, it's best reserved for cleaning up spyware and malware that other antispyware programs can't eradicate.]