Barrister Koffi

Wow! I have a scammer that is directly contacting ME on Ex Boyfriend Jewelry (where I sell some used jewelry that I own).

I feel privileged! This morning I got 4 messages from Koffi, who was initially 'interested' in a necklace I'm selling. He wrote:

GOODDAY,I REALLY LOVE THAT NECKLACE OF YOURS,I WILL LIKE YOU TO GET BACK TO ME WITH YOUR FINAL AMOUNT FOR THE NECKLACE,REALLY LOVE IT SO MUCH ,GUESS MY WIFE WILL LOVE ME MORE IF I GET IT FOR HER,,DONT YOU THINK SO!!!!LOL
please kindly reply me back on my private email address
barrister_koffi36@yahoo.com
Barrister Koffi

Yeah, the "barrister" actually LOLed me. But we're buds now, sharing a joke. Yup! I'm betting your wife will love you more. LOL!

Then he discovered an even higher priced item of mine and got REALLY excited. He wrote:

GOODDAY,PLEASE GET BACK TO ME AS SOON AS POSSIBLE WITH YOU PAYMENT DETAILS,MY WIFE REALLY LOVE IT SO SO MUCH,YOU KNOW AM SO BUSY AS YOU CAN SEE AM A BARRISTER,PLEASE ITS VERY URGENT..THANK YOU

BARRISTER KOFFI

You know, you'd think these Nigerian scammers might come up with a different handle. When you google "Barrister Koffi", you get pages of references to the scams attached to this name. What's wrong with good old "Barrister Smith", for instance?

Anyway, my reply to his first email was basic. But the second one (and his pointing out that he's a barrister) forced my hand. I wrote back:

Of oourse! I am more than happy to hear that you're interested in this item. But let me ask you: How do you have so much money if you work as a barrister at Starbucks? I hear they pay only minimum wage. Maybe I should reconsider working there!

Anyway, if you'll give me your email address, I'll be happy to send you a PayPal bill for the amount. Thanks!

(If I get a reply, I'll update this post.)

My first question (which is really rhetorical): Do these Nigerian scams really work anymore? Aren't they tired of being scammed in return?

And my second one: How can I really stick it to him? Any ideas?

Pork & Beans

For your weekend viewing pleasure, here's a wonderful YouTube parody by Weezer:

John McCain's Pastoral Scandals

John McCain is running against... John McCain, apparently. Repeatedly we have seen McCain shooting himself in the foot. His latest misfire: First courting and then rejecting two Malignant Ministers.

(Wait a minute: I'm confused. Isn't there supposed to be a separation of church and state? And, isn't it true that the IRS can revoke a church's tax-exempt status when it becomes politicized?

Tell that to Jeremiah Wright, John Hagee, and Rod Parsley. Apparently they're either unconcerned about their tax-exempt status, or we've been misinformed.)

I never liked Pastor John Hagee. In fact, I do not like any TV evangelist and I disapprove of any pastor who puts congregation and building size before caring for his flock. Since that eliminates any of the "Big Box" churches, you can safely say that many of John Hagee's philosophies would also be repugnant to me.

John Hagee has fallen from grace because he apparently made the statement that God caused Hitler to persecute the Jews in order to get them over to the Promised Land. Now THERE is an interesting philosophy: God does evil to create good. And, to add insult to injury, God is apparently happy to persecute his own people!

After John Hagee's interesting interpretation of God's nature, we come to Rod Parsley. I had never heard of him until now, and I could have gone my entire life without hearing about him!

Parsley apparently made the startling statement that America was formed to defeat the Islamic faith. Hmmm, I can't seem to find that little tidbit in any of the founding fathers' documents and it seems to have been left out of the Constitution, too. You'd think something of THAT importance would've made it in there.

(Thanks, Parsley. That won't increase our tensions with the Islamic terrorists or anything.)

And yet, McCain's pastoral scandals can hardly rival the case of Barack Obama and a prejudiced black supremacist like Jeremiah Wright.

For one thing, the guys that McCain is repudiating were never pastors in his church. He never sat in their pews for 20 years, nodding his head as they ranted and raved from the pulpit. In his defense, he knew little of what they actually believed. However, this is also to his detriment: Is he willing to throw his lot in with people that he has little knowledge of?

To sum it up: McCain is now doing what he feels he needs to do.

I would suggest to McCain that he is up against a man who is preaching about unity. He could have handled his own minor scandals in a better manner. Certainly, he would have been smart to never pander to the religious right by courting such poor examples of "Christianity".

McCain is justified in distancing himself quickly. I believe that McCain thought he would look very good in comparison to Obama, but instead it will dilute the Jermiah Wright scandal and place it at a much lower level than it should be.

The Farm Bill Veto

President Bush vetoed the latest $289 billion U.S. farm bill. It is rare that I am in agreement with the Scion of Big Business, but I agree wholeheartedly with this.

Bush's reasoning is that this bill fails to reform subsidies to multimillionaire farmers at a time of high farm income and rising grocery prices.

Yes, you read that right! The question isn't whether or not Bush actually believes it (I'm sure he doesn't) but that he said it.

Even more shockingly, the leaders of the House and Senate Agriculture committees say they have the votes for an override and they intend to put that into play immediately. By their estimates, the bill could become law within a week.

(Perhaps Bush rests comfortably in the knowledge that his veto will have no impact in the matter).

In a recent article originally published in Harper's Magazine, we are told that the economy is in much worse state than the government statistics reveal. The government statistics have been cleverly positioned and honed to put the national economy in the best light possible. This 'creative' data interpretation started with the Kennedy administration and continues today.

However, the article also points out that revealing the truth can even further impact the economy. We live balanced on a wire stretching from the top of skyscrapers: Which way should we go? How much information does the public have the right to know? How much could ultimately harm us?

Sadly, this article merely confirms what many of us already knew or suspected: The government has mismanaged our funds terribly, Big Business has repeatedly made decisions which are only beneficial for their executives and stockholders, and there is no end in sight.

It is time for the government to reign in this runaway freight train. They can start by tabling The Farm Bill.

Why it's Dangerous to Pass a Law Banning Cyber Harassment

Recently Megan Meier, a disturbed girl in Missouri, killed herself after a situation of 'cyber bullying' that occurred in MySpace.

I do have a profile in MySpace, but I do not believe that children should be allowed to have one. Overall, children are immature (no matter how mature they may seem to be at times) and they are not well-equipped to deal with life on such a large scale.

A friend of mine was very concerned about his 12 year old daughter spending time on MySpace. One day when she had spent some time on MySpace, he went in afterwards and found some things that shocked and surprised him. He came to me about the situation, and asked me to tell him how to set up a fake account to monitor her (as her profile was closed to adults). He had heard that sexual predators did this, and he wanted to prove to her that it was a dangerous environment.

So I told my friend how to set up the account. He posed as a boy only a couple of years older, and was extremely careful about what he said: In fact, he said very little. But what he sent to her were the standard surveys that kids like to send each other asking innocent questions (such as "what's your favorite food?") along with not-so-innocent ones (such as "are your parents still married?" and "where do you sleep?")

Over a matter of months, she inadvertently revealed that she was 12, that she had her own room without a telephone in it, that she was often at home by herself, that her parents were divorced, who was in her family unit, what school she went to, and what her first name was. She also had pictures of herself posted. At one point, another child revealed her last name in a public post.

Eventually, when he had enough information to give him a stroke, all hell broke loose and she was confronted by the evidence. As a result, she has behaved more decorously on the internet, but due to her mom's intervention, she has not removed her profile altogether.

Obviously MySpace presents a great deal of dangers to children.

Megan Meier is a classic case of how things can go wrong without proper parenting and supervision. If her parents had been on top of the situation, they would have known what was going on before it was too late.

Most of you know what happened.

Apparently Megan had a friend who quickly became an enemy. This friend (in conjunction with another friend and possibly her mother) created a MySpace account posing as a boy. She flirted with Megan and became her 'cyber boyfriend'. After a couple months of that, she turned on Megan and began harassing her and encouraging other friends to do so, too.

Megan hung herself one day.

Although my heart goes out to her parents, and the situation is indeed tragic and the result of malicious intent, it is ultimately Megan who made the decision to kill herself when other children in similar circumstances have not made such a choice.

Megan's parents admitted that she was mentally ill. And, it is also obvious that they weren't monitoring her properly.

However, suddenly free speech is being blamed for Megan's suicide.

I am very concerned.

I will grant you that the internet makes free speech a little more than a simple conversation at the drug store: On the internet you can be nameless and faceless. Many of us are very grateful for that, as we would not be able to speak frankly on a wide variety of issues without that protection. We have become a politically correct nation, where your beliefs and views can damn you utterly, even though we technically prize free speech.

But now, Missouri lawmakers have passed a law in a knee-jerk reaction to Megan's suicide. It's an anti-cyber harassment law, which sounds good on paper and looks good at election time. But how do you define harassment?

And, is it necessary?

After all, most of us hardier and older adults grew up before it was politically incorrect to make fun of fat kids, nerds, unpopular kids, and handicapped kids. Those of us who can spell are most likely the ones that were a target for bullying and teasing at one time or another.

*I* certainly was!

But we cried about it, we ranted about it, we were angry about it, and we learned to deal with it. We are now taking away that possibility from our young people, who are bound to face such things at some point in life. Do we really want to raise a nation of pansies who are ill-equipped to live in the Big World?

And, on a bigger scale, do we really wish to begin to make rules about what can be said and should not be said on the internet?

There is an additional legal concern rising from this case, which is discussed here. The author points out that MySpace's prosecution of the bullying mom in Missouri could also put most of us in jail if it's succesful.

This case bears watching. And unlike the lawmakers in Missouri, we need to think this over very carefully as any decisions made will affect each of us on a much larger scale than these small-minded legislators and prosecutors can imagine.

The Problems With Gay Marriage

Gay Marriage was just legalized in California. This follows the legalization of gay marriage in Massachusetts and Canada.

Everyone knows the religious arguments against gay marriage, so I won't expound upon them here. But as I wrote in June 2005:

From a secular point of view, I can't see anything that bars the legalization of gay marriage except for the fact (as reported in The World and I) that they go through as many as 12 or more sexual partners a year on average (even if they're in a 'committed' relationship). Not my business, right? Unless their marriages are almost as frequent as their sex partners. Then it is my business. We would be looking at the potential for a major increase in divorces and the system would be overwhelmed.

'Easy', you say,' hire more people to handle all the divorces! That shouldn't bar their right to get married.' Well, it's not that easy. Because then we're talking about more taxpayer's dollars to hire these people and build (or expand) the courthouses and administrative offices across the country so that we can house them.

'Ah, but what price liberty?' you ask. I would reply that there are times when it is simply not economically feasible to give everyone everything that their hearts desire.

Since gay marriage was legalized in Massachusetts, a host of other problems have arisen. According to this article, they include:

1. The Possibility of Polygamy: Many of the problems stem from the fact that Massachusetts is the only state to recognize same-sex marriage. Massachusetts state law allows residents to file for divorce, but it does not allow out-of-state residents to do so, unless the cause of the divorce-an act of infidelity, for example-occurred here.

Lawyers say this restriction could create some truly knotty legal situations. Say an out-of-state couple wants to divorce, but their state doesn't recognize that they were married in Massachusetts. Could one of them legally marry a heterosexual partner, without divorcing the gay partner? What if that person died and both legal spouses claimed the assets? ''Are you getting the sense it's a mess?" asked Lisa M. Wilson, a Newton lawyer who handles gay divorces.

2. The IRS & Federal Government: Then there's the federal government. For federal tax purposes, alimony is normally deductible for the person paying and counted as income for the person on the receiving end. But same-sex marriages have no standing in the eyes of the IRS. ''We don't recognize gay marriages," said IRS spokeswoman Peggy Riley. Same-sex couples need to file as single people, rather than as a couple, she said, and they can't enjoy the alimony deduction.

3. Alimony and Distribution of Assets: Even seemingly basic aspects of a divorce are more complicated for same-sex couples. A major problem, for instance, arises in calculating the length of relationships, an important factor in a court's decision on how to divide assets. How will a divorce court view a gay couple who lived together for 20 years but were married for only one year? ''Technically, the court could say it's a short-term marriage, but it really is a long-term marriage because they couldn't get married before," said Kauffman. ''There's very little case law and nothing in the statutes that addresses that."

According to this FAQ in the gay site "Love And Pride", I was correct in my initial assesment:

Many gay couples who married shortly after same sex marriage was legalized in their country waited years for their chance. Such couples might be thought to have a higher than usual level of commitment and stability. Yet gay and lesbian couples were divorcing just months after they married – or less.

...As gay marriage is a relatively recent phenomenon, the gay divorce rate will not stabilize for a long time.

In fact, gay divorces in Massachusetts began within 7 months of gay marriage being legalized, according to Fox News.

Gay marriage has been legalized in Sweden, so European demographers Gunnar Andersson and Turid Noack did a study on their divorce rates, reporting that gay male couples were 50% more likely to divorce within an eight-year period than were heterosexuals. Lesbian couples were 167% more likely to divorce than heterosexual couples.

"Even among childless households, same-sex male partnerships experienced almost a 50% higher likelihood (1.49 times as likely) of divorce during the study period, while childless lesbian couples were three times as likely (200% higher likelihood) to break up as a married couple without children."

If this pattern is reflected in California, their taxpayers are about to enter a world of hurt. It also affects taxpayers throughout the USA, who must pay taxes to help upkeep Federal courts and Federal laws, which will undoubtedly be drawn into the drama.

Aren't we already taxed enough?

This is becoming a very serious issue that will ultimately require the Federal Government to intervene. It is beginning to look as if a constitutional amendment will, after all, be needed to stem this potential threat to our pocketbooks.

Brooke and Nick Hogan: Paragons of Virtue?

Brooke Hogan, a.k.a. Brooke Bollea, is busy ranting about her brother Nick Bollea and his injured friend, John Graziano.

According to a St. Pete Times blog:

"I know most of the public thinks my brother is some rich little selfish kid, but NO ONE knows the real story and I'm really pissed that the truth didn't come out from either side," she wrote. "A LOT of lies were told in that trial. Believe me. And it wasn't from us. John (Graziano) was NEVER home. He was at our house. ALL THE TIME."

She also ripped on how you idiots who watch Hogan Knows Best and for some reason give a damn about them had better get up off it, because reality TV is anything but. Who knew?

"And by the way, before you judge anybody, make sure you really know them. I promise you if you were to meet my brother he would give you the shirt off his back. He's not "NICK HOGAN." AND hes not the person he plays on tv. People are so gullible now a days…"

Well gee, I wonder why the public would think that Nick was a rich, selfish kid? Brooke should take comfort that Nick is not alone in this: We see her as one, too.

I was at the candlelight vigil. I wrote about how the Hogans were trying to remake Nick's image. (I think it's time for them to put a little effort in Brooke's direction, also). I saw the trial.

Here's the real scoop: Nick IS a rich, selfish kid. And from the moment he wrapped his car around a tree, his family's been in a rush to make him seem to be something that he is not.

The Hogans lavished money on the gullible Grazianos. They held tearful press conferences, they conned John Graziano's mom into making idiotic statements in which she said that the Hogans were taking good care of the Grazianos and treated John like another son. All these things were added to the Hogans' arsenal, as anyone could see that lawsuits and trials were coming.

The Hogans also started up some sort of charitable fund in which Nick made an attempt to raise money for John's ongoing care. When this was brought up in court before the judge, the Graziano attorney (George Tragos) stated that this was the first that any of them had heard about it. Gosh, what a surprise. And here we thought the Grazianos and Hogans were so tight-knit, right?

The judge who presided over Nick Hogan's case has a dire reputation of being no one to mess with. There are local attorneys who will ask you who your judge is, and when you say "It's Judge Federico," they decline your case. He lived up to his reputation on the day he sentenced Nick.

Nick was sentenced according to guidelines. Some could argue that the judge had been too lenient, others that he was too harsh. In my opinion, the sentence was fair, and Nick was lucky. Too bad that John Graziano, who has now had part of his frontal lobe removed and remains in an unresponsive state, was equally unlucky.

Even if, as Brooke alleges, John was constantly at the Hogans' house, does that give them free license to use him as a meat puppet? Perhaps he was a groupie, perhaps he was a genuine friend. But whatever John's motivations were, they did not give Nick Hogan the right to repeatedly drive recklessly and make rash decisions (while encouraged by his family members to do so).

The Hogan parents raised both of their children badly. This was shown repeatedly in court, and it's evidenced in their actions.

Brooke's ridiculous, trite little chidings cannot hide the truth. The truth is plain to everyone. Everyone, that is, except for poor John Graziano, who will spend the rest of his life in a vegetative state while the Hogans go on to enjoy their freedom, their fame, and their lives.

Below is what John Graziano looks like today, and will look like for the rest of his life: