This summary is not available. Please click here to view the post.

Hello- I am excited to tell you that, as of today, the member's area of the site is now open!!!!! After much work it is fully operational. Just click on "JOIN TANYA'S PLAYHOUSE!"
One thing though: the billing platform is not yet equipped to accommodate Mac users. If you are on a Mac computer the billing system will not work for you- you can't join yet using a Mac. You can view the entire site from a Mac once you've joined, but our billing company can't process sign-up information from a Mac. We did not realize this until yesterday and we're working on a solution. Sorry about this! Ironically, I have an iMac myself.
Thanks so much to all of you who have returned to this site year after year, (even back when it never used to change!) I really hope you all enjoy the new member's section. Please let me know what types of things you'd like to see in there- I'm open to all requests!!

Hi again! I have received numerous e-mails about my post on 2/16. Many thanks to all of you who took the time to write. It appears that many of my former opinions were very naive, but it still was interesting to have them refuted by so many people who made some very good points. Almost no one thought the war was about oil. Most stated their belief that Saddam Hussein is a dangerous despot who has repeatedly thumbed his nose at the UN and needs to be removed from power before he starts using weapons of mass destruction. A number of people also supplied documentation showing that the US does NOT import most of our oil from the Mideast. One of the best e-mails came from my website designer. She referred me to www.snopes2.com. If you go to that site and type in "gas stations" in the search engine you will end up on a page with related articles. Scroll down the entries and you will find a succinct but detailed rebuttal to the "Gasoline Solution" e-mail I posted in my last entry. I had to smile ruefully when I read it because it so THOROUGHLY decimated the significance of that e-mail. I'm smiling again right now. Even my cat is shaking his head. He likes to read over my shoulder.
I'm still not a war supporter, but I do see that there are many more angles to this issue than I took into account. At the same time I'm not an avowed peace advocate either. One of the reasons we in the US can express our opinions and criticize the government is because the men and women in our military have been willing to fight to preserve our right to do so.

Hello- I received the following e-mail last night and found it interesting. Of course I'm no political expert but it seems clear that we are on the brink of war with Iraq so we can either claim or have some degree of control over the oil reserves in that country and those surrounding it. As the gasoline prices continue to rise it does also seem as if our government is jacking them up purposely to financially pressure the American people into supporting the war efforts. As we all know, Bush claims the thrust of the war effort is to disarm Iraq, but who believes that's his real motive? Let me repeat, though, that I don't pretend to have the last word on current events so maybe the US/Iraq war issue has more angles than I'm seeing. (But if our government IS so concerned about weapons of warfare why aren't we declaring war on North Korea?)
All that aside, the e-mail below doesn't refer at all to the potential war but it does list a number of gasoline companies who do not import Middle Eastern oil. That surprised me because I thought our gasoline companies were all dependent on Middle Eastern oil. Is it possible that we really don't even NEED their oil? I don't know the answer. At any rate, maybe I'll retire my Chevron card and start gassing up at Citgo, Sunoco, or some of the others listed. I don't think we should go to war in the Middle East, but there's a huge amount of anti-American sentiment in that region so why should we help support their countries' economies? If anyone sees a flaw in my rationale, please e-mail me. Seriously, please do. The points made below seem valid to me, but I could be missing something.


>Date: Sun, 16 Feb 2003 11:55:16 -0500
>
>GASOLINE SOLUTION!
>
>We CAN buy gasoline that's not from the Middle East. Why didn't
>George W. think of this? Gas rationing in the 80's worked even though
>we grumbled about it. It might even be good for us!
>
>The Saudis are boycotting American goods. We should return the
>favor. An interesting thought is to boycott their GAS. Every time you
>fill up the car, you can avoid putting more money into the coffers of
>Saudi Arabia.
>
>Just buy from gas companies that don't import their oil from the
>Saudis. Nothing is more frustrating than the feeling that every time I
>fill-up the tank, I am sending my money to people who are trying to
kill
>
>me, my family, and my friends. I thought it might be interesting for
you
>
>to know which oil companies are the best to buy
>gas from.
>
>Which major companies import Middle Eastern oil (for the period
>9/1/00 -8/31/01)
>
>Shell............................205,742,000 barrels
>Chevron/Texaco.........144,332,000 barrels
>Exxon /Mobil................130,082,000 barrels
>Marathon/Speedway...117,740,000 barrels
>Amoco.........................62,231,000 barrels
>
>If you do the math at $30/barrel, these imports amount to over $18
>BILLION!
>
>Here are some large companies that do not import Middle Eastern oil:
>Citgo....................0 barrels
>Sunoco............. . 0 barrels
>Conoco............. ..0 barrels
>Sinclair............... 0 barrels
>BP/Phillips.......... 0 barrels
>Hess...................0 barrels
>
>All of this information is available from the Department of Energy and
>each is required to state where they get their oil and how much they
>are importing. They report on a monthly basis. Keep this list in your
>car; share it with friends. Stop paying for terrorism.............
>
>But to have an impact, we need to reach literally millions of gas
>buyers. It's really simple to do!! Now, don't wimp out at this
>point...keep reading and I'll explain how simple it is to reach
millions
>of
>people!!
>
>I'm sending this note to about thirty people. If each of you send it
to
>at
>least ten more (30 x 10 = 300)... and those 300 send it to at least
ten
>more (300 x 10=3,000) and so on, by the time the message reaches
>the sixth generation of people, we will have reached over THREE
>MILLION consumers! If those three million get excited and pass this
>on to ten friends each, then 30 million people will have been
contacted!
>
>If it goes one level further, you guessed it...... THREE HUNDRED
>MILLION PEOPLE!!!
>
>Again, all you have to do is send this to 10 people. How much would
>all that take? If each of us sends this e-mail out to ten more people
>within one day all 300 MILLION people could conceivably be contacted

With Valentine's Day only a week or so away it is impossible to ignore the obligatory, obnoxious advertising that appears each year around this time. There's one billboard pushing diamonds that seems to be everywhere. The text reads: "She knows how much you love her. Now show the rest of the world." How sad.
Men shouldn't be pressured into buying expensive gifts for their wives and girlfriends to "prove" their love. It's pathetic that our culture has produced so many women who genuinely feel it's their due to receive material tokens of affection. Were they influenced by the advertising, or does the advertising just reflect the ethos of our society? I suspect it's the latter. It's a carryover from the days when women were expected to stay at home and be taken care of financially by men.
Today a surprising number of women have a strange, self-indulgent sense of entitlement when it comes to the dynamics of romantic involvement. They evaluate a prospective suitor on the basis of his material possessions and finances, expect the man to pay for all meals and entertainment when they are on a date, and then want their "love" to be rewarded with lavish presents periodically if they are in a commited relationship. This is particularly odd because women have equal opportunity in almost all education and career options in the United States. Women have demanded and earned the right to earn equal pay in this country so they should not be expecting men to literally buy their affection when they are dating or are in a relationship.
Certainly some couples mutually desire a relationship where the man is the financial provider and that is their prerogative. There is, however, a lot of inappropriate pressure placed on most men to provide monetarily for the women in their lives, even women they don't know that well. Women should be paying half the dating expenses. Even more importantly, maybe they should be viewing their boyfriends and husbands as emotional and spiritual partners rather than as meal tickets.
All the advertising I see and all the sentiments I hear many women expressing around Valentine's Day reaffirm my opinions within me each year. The ads attempt to remind men it's their duty to ply their women with flowers, jewelry, vacations, etc., and the women state openly what treatment they expect from their men on February 14. It's really sickening.
Sometimes I ponder why so many men have such anger at women in general. It seems that the money issue may be a huge factor. If I were a man it would piss me off too. More women need to step up to the plate and take care of themselves. We don't deserve to "be treated like princesses" as I often hear. We all have the means and opportunity to provide for ourselves financially, and men should not be expected to carry an unfair share of the burden unless they want to.

P.S. I don't hate Valentine's day. Sure, it's all a crass marketing ploy on the part of the retail industry, but it still can be a nice opportunity to give a loved one a special present. A poem, a flower, a card, or any gift from the heart is always wonderful. It just saddens me when I hear so many people who believe love should be expressed in a monetary or material fashion.