All posts by Catherine

About Catherine

I've played around with a lot of blogs over the years and have finally decided to settle down with one that is all me. There will be books, there will be crafts, there will be discussions on current events, past events, and possibly even future events.

Publishers Clearing House Scam

So, I just got a call from a possibly Kingston Jamaica number claiming to be Publisher’s Clearing House. The speaker was probably a computer because the inflections were very wrong. It sounded like it was the scam that wants you to say “Yes” so that they can steal stuff using your information. Unfortunately I said “Alright” to one question, but I don’t think that was enough because the call didn’t immediately end. When I asked who they were and they said Publishers Clearing House, I immediately knew it was a scam and said “No” to the next question they wanted an affirmative answer to. Then they said, “You doubt who I am?” And I just hung up on that one!

I just got my first smartphone and was disappointed to find that I couldn’t report that number as a scam directly from my phone. In a world that wants better ability to trace these people, you’d think reporting it as a scam immediately would be useful information.

Anyway, I then went tothe PCH website to alert them to the scam. Their Customer Service page even has a number designated for telling them there’s a PCH Scam! So, I called it. And I got a recording thanking me for my interest in working with them (?) and a reminder that their office hours are (whatever) M-F. And then the call ended on their end.

AGAIN! If the goal is to put scammers in prison, more information is necessary! I know that they can’t do anything with one report of one number, so I don’t mind that there wasn’t a live person to talk to. BUT THIS IS SUPPOSEDLY THEIR SCAM REPORTING LINE! You’d think they’d take a message!

This isn’t exactly rocket science.

Advertisements

REBUTTAL:’Big Bang Theory’ Spinoff ‘Young Sheldon’ Offers Scientific Explanation for Why God Exists

https://www.christianpost.com/news/big-bang-theory-spinoff-young-sheldon-scientific-explanation-why-god-exists-227884/

“Did you know that if gravity was slightly more powerful the universe would collapse into a ball? Also if gravity was slightly less powerful the universe would fly apart and there’s be no star or planets,” he explained.

Adding, “Gravity is precisely as strong as it needs to be and if the ratio of the electromagnetic force to the strong force wasn’t one percent, life wouldn’t exist, what are the odds that would happen all by itself?”

This assumes that the universe is supposed to be exactly like it is. Yes, the universe as we know it wouldn’t exist if physics were different; it might not even exist in any form if physics were different. But that doesn’t prove God exists. There’s nothing that says that the universe must exist as it is. There’s nothing that says humans must exist.

Humans exist because the universe happens to be conducive to the existence of humans. The universe (probably) wasn’t created so that humans would exist.

Of course, I hate logic because it’s very easy for things to be logically sound while being factually wrong.

“Well there are 5 billion people on this planet and you’re the perfect mom for me. What are the odds of that?” Sheldon concluded.

And there are a hell of a lot of people born to the wrong parents. A good parent is one who accepts their child as an individual and doesn’t try to force their will on that child. It doesn’t offend Mary that Sheldon doesn’t believe; a lot of religious parents are offended by that (and yes, there are nonreligious parents offended by their children’s interest in religion).

Norfolk teen who was pepper sprayed by officer will be charged with a crime, police tell family | Courts & Crime | pilotonline.com

https://pilotonline.com/news/local/crime/article_a221c7b2-ce59-11e8-ad03-1388f5173015.amp.html

“The video starts with the two officers pulling out of the parking lot of the Cook Out on Monticello Avenue and Tariq walking down the street, Muhammad said.

The officer in the passenger seat asks Tariq if they can talk to him, Muhammad said. Tariq tells them he has nothing to say to them and keeps walking.

The cruiser stops, Muhammad continued. The officer in the passenger seat gets out and “snatches” Tariq’s shirt and book bag “in a very aggressive way,” spinning him around.

Tariq pulls away from the officer who’s grabbing him and tells him to get his hands off of him, Muhammad said.

That’s when the second officer, the one who’d been driving the cruiser, pepper-sprays Tariq in the face, Muhammad said.”

The police had no right to grab at him until they investigated why he wasn’t in school! He could easily have a pass for late arrival or any other valid reason for being late on that particular day. I remember getting stopped a few times as I walked late to school usually do to SOL testing or final exams. I was a person with a study hall my senior year for one of my last classes of the day (block scheduling so my last block was 7 on A days and 8 on B days). Rather than get the pass so I could go home early, I got a year long pass to go to the library so that I could surf the internet (since we had dial-up at home).

Literally my encounters with the police were: “Why are you late for school?” Me: “SOL testing.” Or “Final Exams” and the cop would say something along the lines of “Okay. Good luck.” And they’d drive away.

Being a cop doesn’t give anyone  the right to put their hands on anyone! How do I know this? First responder training. In search and rescue, if we find someone and they are conscious, we have to ASK  if they want us to check out and treat their injuries before we can put our hands on them. If they say no, they’re happy where they are, we can’t just manhandle them to get them to safety! That’d be assault!

When you go to a hospital, if you are conscious, you MUST give consent to treatment! Even though consent is technically implied because you drove yourself there, if you are conscious when you get triaged, you must give explicit consent. It’s one of the forms you sign before anything more than blood pressure and temperature get done (if that much).

The only legal implied consent in the medical field is when the patient is unconscious. THEN you are safe to assume that they would want you to do everything in your power (that you are cleared to do within the scope of your training) to save them. But, first you must determine the extent of the unconsciousness! You must speak loudly and clearly to them to see if they wake up. You must still ask for consent before touching them! If they don’t answer, you can assume implied consent, but if they were merely napping and wake up, that’s assault if you touched them without attempting to wake them up verbally first.

On a related note, you should never attempt to awaken a potentially injured person by shaking them. Jarring a spinal injury can cause serious damage. Always assume there is a spinal injury unless it’s extremely unlikely (or the surrounding area is more dangerous than the risk of spinal damage); it’s better to be safe than sorry!

The medical profession has extensive protocols and training about consent and informing the patient about exactly what will be done to them before anyone lays a finger on them (for anything more than routine blood pressure and temperature). 

I’m curious about informed consent and assault training for police officers. When it comes to “routine” stops where there’s no time to get a warrant (personally, I think there is ALWAYS time to get a warrant!), at what point are cops legally allowed to commit assault?

I think policing would go a lot smoother for everyone if the rules were more clear cut:

  • Officers cannot put their hands on (or point their weapons at) anyone until they determine that a significant type of law has been broken. This can include assault on the police officer, in those cases where the suspect swings first.
  • Arrests can’t be made without a warrant. This includes putting someone in handcuffs “for their own safety” while they sit in the back of a cruiser. Unless, of course, a significant type of law was determined to be broken as described above.
  • Before touching and/or arresting someone, the officer must clearly describe exactly why they are touching and/or arresting the person. This is where implied vs. explicit consent come in most clearly. Asking to search a person or vehicle is obtaining explicit consent. Having “probable cause” to search a vehicle is implied consent, but it’s like giving CPR to someone taking a nap. Rather than determining whether the person is truly unconscious the “rescuer” has decided on their own that they’re dying. In truth, taking an extra few moments to determine that they’re just sleeping isn’t going to hurt anything, as is waiting a few moments for a warrant or other confirmation from a reputable source that a search is valid.

The rules must be consistently enforced! A white girl and a black boy should not have such completely different interactions with police when rhey are both equally late for school! And honestly, when it comes to truancy, the police should be given a list of names of kids not in school on a particular day (only those kids with a confirmed history of truancy; so essentially a warrant has been issued on these particular kids) and they can only stop kids who match the description (photo??) of kids on that list.

Though, really, how involved should police be with truancy? I think this is a problem best solved by the school, parents, and courts. Rather that worrying about the bandaid issue of one kid skipping one day of school, there should be a stricter structure for the kids skipping multiple upon multiple days of school without just cause.

Britain’s Supreme Court rules bakery didn’t discriminate in ‘gay cake’ case | Fox News

https://www.foxnews.com/world/britains-supreme-court-rules-bakery-didnt-discriminate-in-gay-cake-case.amp

Ashers Baking Co. in Northern Ireland refused to make the cake iced with the characters after the owners argued they shouldn’t’ be forced to put messages on their products at odds with their Christian beliefs. The high court agreed with the owners. The five justices on the court were “unanimous in their judgment,” the BBC reported.

“In a nutshell, the objection was to the message and not to any particular person or persons,” Judge Brenda Hale wrote in the decision. “It is deeply humiliating, and an affront to human dignity, to deny someone a service because of that person’s race, gender, disability, sexual orientation or any of the other protected personal characteristics. But that is not what happened in this case.”

The message was Bert and Ernie characters “Support Gay Marriage”.
I’m not of the camp that thinks Bert and Ernie are a secretly gay couple, but I have watched enough Sesame Street that I know for certain that Bert and Ernie DO support gay marriage, so that characterization is correct.

As for discrimination, yeah, I think that the bakery discriminated against the message rather than the couple. But I find it difficult to believe that a bakery that wouldn’t make a Support Gay Marriage cake would make a wedding cake for a gay couple. Is gay marriage even legal in Northern Ireland yet? A commitment ceremony cake, then. Would the bakery make it? Probably not.

Or if they did make it, they’d bitch the whole time about government oversight and lack of religious liberty. They’d do the bare minimum and customer service would probably suck.

 I still think discrimination should be legal with the caviot that a sign be displayed saying exactly who isn’t welcome so that the people who are served can make an informed choice and shame anyone who shops somewhere where some people aren’t welcome. Unfortunately, antidiscrimination laws don’t change people’s hearts or minds. Just because people are served, it doesn’t mean that they are served well and people who are given good service have a hard time believing discrimination exists because they don’t experience it.

Walmart planning ‘net-connected trolley’ – BBC News

https://www.bbc.com/news/technology-45809924

US retail giant Walmart has applied for a patent for a smart shopping trolley that can track a shopper’s heart rate, temperature, grip and walking speed.

Such a system would provide valuable information about how shoppers respond to different stores, it said.

 

I think this would go down better with shoppers if it automatically scanned items and had a running total of the expense so that checking out was just a matter of pushing a button, swiping a card, or stopping by a cashier for paying cash.

REBUTTAL: A black student refused to recite the Pledge of Allegiance — challenging Texas law requiring it

https://www.washingtonpost.com/amphtml/nation/2018/09/26/black-student-refused-recite-pledge-allegiance-challenging-texas-law-requiring-it/

This is indoctrination.

“Requiring the pledge to be recited at the start of every school day has the laudable result of fostering respect for our flag and a patriotic love of our country,” Attorney General Ken Paxton said Tuesday. Twenty-six other states have similar statutes, Paxton said.

REBUTTAL: Prepare for the Wrath of the Pro-Abortion Militants

https://www.christianpost.com/voice/prepare-for-the-wrath-of-the-pro-abortion-militants.html

“To be clear, I recognize that for many women, having an abortion is an intensely difficult moral choice. I’m thinking of a woman in her 20’s, reared in a religious home, already raising two little children without a father. Her boyfriend takes advantage of her, she discovers she’s pregnant, and she is devastated by the news.

She cannot imagine adding one more child to her household, she struggles with depression and fear, finally deciding to abort her baby after four months.

Her decision was still morally wrong. But this woman is unlikely to join the “Shout Your Abortion” movement or, even less, to hurl feces at a church building.”

Dr. Michael Brown

Notice this: in his scenario the woman was raised in a religious home and her boyfriend took advantage of her. Would it matter if she was raised in a secular home and she was an active participant (rather than a victim of rape)? For Brown, yes. I think he’d be much less sympathetic if she’d been the one in control of her life.

Because here’s the thing, he cares less about what she did than the fact that she’s most likely to keep quiet about it. She exists as an example solely to show the proper way to act when one is immoral (in his eyes). We’re supposed to be angry with people who talk openly about how their life wasn’t ruined by having an abortion and be angry with people who think reproductive rights matter. He’s incapable of believing that a woman can support the right of all women to have easy access to an abortion even while being against the procedure for her own body. In his world, such a being can’t possibly exist because to be Pro-Choice means being Pro-Abortion.

Hi asshole! My name is Cathy and I’m Pro-Choice and Anti-Abortion. How is this possible? Easy, I support the idea that women are completely capable of making the right decision for themselves; my opinion doesn’t matter one iota. Similarly, I support All The Things that make abortion less likely: education (in ALL areas), economic reforms (so that people aren’t living paycheck to paycheck), social reforms (so that guys don’t think that women owe them sex and women don’t feel pressured to have sex), money for reproductive research (so that genetic abnormalities incompatible with life are a thing of the past), etc, etc,etc.

I hope to live in a world where abortion isn’t necessary, but until then, hurl your feces, ladies!

Needing 2-3 witnesses to make a rape alligation viable.

​What the serious F! Rhe whole email is shared below, but here’s the most disgusting bit:

One great perspective on these reprehensible tactics came from our own Bryan Fischer. He believes that, unless the biblical standard of two or three witnesses is met, an accusation should not be considered credible. I couldn’t agree more and think you will too.

Please send the American Family Association a message saying how disgusting they are!

American Family Association

Thursday, September 20, 2018

Dear Cathy,

If you’ve kept up with the news, you know that President Trump’s Supreme Court nominee, Brett Kavanaugh, has been accused of one incident of sexual misconduct dating back some 36 years ago. The accuser is a woman named Dr. Christine Blasey Ford.

We’ve seen this game played before. Clarence Thomas. Herman Cain. Roy Moore. Do these names sound familiar? In some shape or form, each of those men had charges of sexual misconduct lodged against them, during seasons of political rancor, when it was impossible to prove – or disprove – the charges. In some cases, the fallout negatively affected their careers. Each of them are rock-solid conservatives who love our country and respect the Constitution.

It is no surprise that the Democrats have resorted to the same tactic with Judge Brett Kavanaugh. This is all about one thing – stopping a judge who is a constitutionalist from being confirmed to the Supreme Court. The Democrats will do anything and everything to stop a Trump nominee, and they should be ashamed of themselves.

One great perspective on these reprehensible tactics came from our own Bryan Fischer. He believes that, unless the biblical standard of two or three witnesses is met, an accusation should not be considered credible. I couldn’t agree more and think you will too.

I urge you to read and share Bryan Fischer’s blog on this subject, “What Should Be Done About the Kavanaugh Nomination?

If our mission resonates with you, please consider supporting our work financially with a tax-deductible donation. The easiest way to do that is through online giving. It is easy to use, and most of all, it is secure.

Tim Wildmon, President
American Family Association

P.S. If you’d like to contact your senator regarding this issue you may contact the U.S. Capitol switchboard at (202) 224-3121

 


 

Share this Alert:

Facebook Twitter Google+ Email Addthis

Connect With Us:

FacebookTwitterInstagram

Unsubscribe  |  Update Profile  |  Full Version  |  Contact Us
Make a Donation

American Family Association
P O Drawer 2440  |  Tupelo, MS 38803  |  1-662-844-5036
Copyright ©2018 American Family Association. All Rights Reserved

REBUTTAL: Should Your Past Sins Disqualify You Today?

https://www.christianpost.com/voice/should-your-past-sins-disqualify-you-today-michael-brown.html

First, I want to lay out a couple facts.

1. The US Constitution has no rules for who can and cannot be a Supreme Court Justice. While Articles I and II have age and residency requirements for who can be a Senator, Representative, or President, there are no such rules for the SCOTUS. Article III

2. Thus, there are more than 250 million individuals 18 and over in the US with varying degrees of appropriateness to be a Supreme Court Justice. From the Census Bureau

While I agree that not all sins are equally damning, and I like Mr. Brown’s identification of 4 different scenarios of dealing with a shady past, his examples fairly suck and he approaches the problem from the position that Kavanaugh is the only choice available. Ultimately for Brown, it doe matter if Kavanaugh is lying because like Trump, he’s the lesser evil. People like Brown are afraid that a Democratic Wave in November will cause Trump to have to nominate a less Conservative Justice.

Brown comes across as ironically clueless when he keeps likening Kavanaugh to Obama. Remember those 4 scenarios?

  •  Own it always (it was never a secret)
  • Own it from the minute it was outed
  • Deny it even though all the evidence is against you
  • Keep offending because you were never in the wrong (even though everyone knows otherwise)

Obama has owned his past, even when it was outed. There was nothing to hide even if he wasn’t purchasing billboards. Kavanaugh “categorically denies” even as his accuser has a reputable occupation and therefore might be telling te truth (sarcasm; I believe her).

It’s also important to remember that in Brown’s world, all sins are equal. Attempted rape = marijuana smoking = alcoholism = consensual premarital sex. I’d assume rape and murder would also fit in that equation.

Trump Hosts White House Dinner For Evangelical Supporters : NPR

https://www.npr.org/2018/08/29/642871570/trump-hosts-white-house-dinner-for-evangelical-supporters

MARTIN: When you think about how this president has advanced an evangelical Christian agenda, what are the ways in which evangelical Christians have been treated – or do you believe they have been treated as a persecuted minority in this country?

JEFFRESS: Well, I think there are certainly ways in which they have been marginalized. And I mean, here’s the question you have to ask yourself. I mean, why is it that, for the first 150 years of our nation’s history, prayer in schools, reading the Bible, Nativity displays – all of those things were not only allowed but they were welcomed? But then suddenly, 70 years ago, the Supreme Court decides these things are unconstitutional. I ask liberals all the time, what changed suddenly?

MARTIN: It became more religiously diverse, the country.

JEFFRESS: What did – but did the Constitution change? No. The establishment clause of the First Amendment simply says Congress cannot establish a state religion. That’s what it says. But somehow, that has been perverted and twisted into outlawing prayer and Bible-reading. That’s what I’m talking about. That’s the marginalization of Christianity. And I believe that’s why evangelicals are rallying around this president who recognizes that marginalization.

The question I wanted Martin (or any reporter) to ask was:

 “What do you think about a Jewish or Muslim teacher leading a Jewish or Muslim prayer in schools? If we’re going to put religion back into schools, don’t we have to let all religions in?”

(There’s a big hissy fit going around about Yoga for P.E. Also cue debates about real vs. fake religions.)