Turn on the television and you hear nothing but a litany of false cries from the GOP about how Obama "lied" because he promised prior to the passing of the ACA that folks would be able to keep their current policies if they wished but now insurance companies are cancelling individual policies. The reason for this is because such policies do not comply with the minimum requirements of the new health care law. These policies were cheap, high deductible policies which covered very little. The ACA requires that a baseline of health care services are covered by health insurance policies. The reason for this is to ensure that all people receive preventative health care services and that a minimum standard of care is guaranteed for all citizens. The ACA protects against individual policies which formerly cost little but provided little and were essentially worthless. These policies needed to be abolished anyway because they were essentially ripping consumers off.
But instead of sharing this information in a truthful manner, opponents of the new law are using it as an opportunity to attack the president and the new law. This is just as much of a lie as anything the president has told, however, because they are failing to mention that the cancellation of these policies will essentially be good for consumers because they will be able to get new policies through the health care exchanges which cover more and are a better value anyway.
Turn on the Obama Hate Channel (aka Fox News), and you hear nothing but how the healthcare.gov website has been a debacle and how Kathleen Sebelius must resign. While the roll out of the website has been flawed, the attempt to get Sebelius to resign is designed to help derail the ACA by then causing several months of contentious confirmation hearings and attempts to delay implementation of the law.
It is unbelievable how stingy and backward this nation is compared with other industrialized nations. The current GOP opposition is exactly the same nonsense they pulled when Social Security was passed during the Roosevelt Administration and during the Great Society legislation passed by LBJ. The notion that as a society we must all contribute a little bit and share so that all people can receive life sustaining medical care isn't complicated. It's patently obvious. As I mentioned in prior articles, the real issue is the fear of uptight whites that blacks, immigrants, and "lazy" whites might get something for nothing. They'd rather watch this country burn then see that happen. If a few million innocent children, disabled, elderly, or very sick people die in the process, so be it.
As a society, we cannot afford to have people continuing to use the emergency room as their primary care provider. This is terribly expensive, inefficient, and harmful to people who have real medical emergencies. Demanding that all people buy health insurance or pay a penalty is a way to avoid mooching by those who might otherwise go to the ER where they cannot be turned away for financial reasons. If you don't want to buy health insurance, too bad. You always run the risk of getting hurt in a car crash or having a heart attack. These events will cause you to use the medical system and you won't be able to afford the cost of paying the hospital and doctor bills yourself. This means everyone else must pay your way. This is the true injustice that naysayers of the ACA refuse to acknowledge.
Despite the pathetic attempts of the GOP to derail the ACA, it is going to be implemented, whether they like it or not. I just hope that during the next election, voters hammer their asses for being so obstructionist. The sooner there are less members of the Tea Party in Congress, the better.
Good riddens.
Wednesday, October 30, 2013
Monday, September 30, 2013
Why the GOP Wants to Defund Obamacare
Despite being passed into law and surviving a Supreme Court challenge, the Affordable Care Act, sarcastically called "Obamacare" by the GOP, is still facing challenges from Tea Party enthusiasts and other members of the House GOP. Tonight the federal government will shut down as the House refuses to allow the debt limit to be raised without Obamacare being delayed.
It's hard to believe that a group of people can be so contemptuous of a bill that allows everyone to have health insurance and helps reduce the long term costs of health care. They would rather tank the economy than allow those whom they believe to be undeserving to receive health care subsidies. This smug, self-righteous attitude is what fobs itself off as modern day "conservativism." If this means fucking over the elderly and disabled who won't receive their Social Security money, or troops serving overseas, then so be it.
You would think that most Americans would be tired of the brinksmanship and game playing. But because the Congressional districts have been gerrymandered to suit Republicans, they will keep getting elected and holding this nation hostage. It's embarrassing. Other nations see these antics as ridiculous and backward. America looks like a puritanical wasteland, filled with uptight whites who can't stand the notion of a bunch of blacks, Mexicans, and white rednecks whom they see as being lazy trying to get "free stuff." They would rather be damned than allow that to happen.
I do blame some of this on America's excessive whiteness. It is terribly uptight when it comes to sex and work--the two areas that show America's puritanical beginnings. We love to get upset when Miley Cyrus twerks on TV or when Ronald Reagan tells his stories about welfare queens driving Cadillacs. Your average uptight suburban white has a heart attack if you don't mow your lawn once a week. Uptight whites are obsessed with nosing into the business of their neighbors and telling them how to live. When they aren't doing this, they are busy supporting politicians who support intruding on other countries, forcing them to follow the "American Way." This is the basis of American Exceptionalism--we are righteous white Christians who have the truth and we are going to impose it on others whether they like it or not.
The good news is that America is changing. The uptight white stranglehold is being loosened. Whites aren't multiplying fast enough to keep up with those of other races, which will hurt them at election time. Many of these rising minorities grew up with different values, and these values rarely reflect those of white, suburban and rural America. The day of reckoning for the GOP is coming.
The sooner the better, I say.
Saturday, September 14, 2013
Should We Bomb Syria?
Despite attempts at obfuscation, it is clear that the chemical attacks in Syria killing 1400 men, women and children were performed by the Syrian government run by Bashar Al Assad. Medical personnel treating the victims described the attacks--victims had blisters in their lungs which caused them to drown in their own fluids. Rows of body bags with dead children bearing glassy eyes is not something you forget soon. Any person who would order such attacks has lost his or her humanity. From a moral perspective, such behavior cannot go unpunished because it sets a precedent that such attacks are okay. War is gruesome enough. But there needs to be lines which cannot be crossed. Members of the global community have to draw lines and say that as human beings, there are certain forms of violence we simply won't accept, and gassing human innocent people like you are exterminating cockroaches or rats is totally unacceptable.
In his op-ed in the New York Times, Vladimir Putin makes the argument that if the U.S. decides to attack Syria on its own, against the wishes of the U.N. Security Council, then this promotes future lawlessness which will ultimately result in increased global violence. As a general notion this is true. However, there are some occasions on which we have to look beyond the letter of the law. What if we were back during WWII and we knew that the Germans were killing millions on an industrial scale but the Security Council voted to do nothing about it? While it would technically be a violation of international law to act unilaterally, from a moral perspective a strike which would end the mass killing would be required. The only caveat to this would be if doing something unilaterally wasn't likely to work or if it might make things worse. As it stands now, limited strikes by the U.S. to destroy chemical weapon stockpiles and strikes to damage Assad's ability to use them in the future is limited and not a means of widening the conflict. The Obama administration had no plans to put American boots on the ground. The plan was not for an Iraq style invasion.
There have been many criticisms of the Obama administration over his handling of this crisis. While some may argue that Obama's turning over of the decision to attack Syria to Congress was a means of political coverage by leaving the fault with Congress, in fact this decision was, from a practical point of view, correct. This set a precedent for future presidents to allow Congress to weigh in before military power is used. For American democracy, this is a good thing given the last 30 years of unchecked presidential power. Further, the debate is good for the country. Now some are criticizing Obama by saying he appears weak by going along with Russian plans to have Syria turn over its chemical stockpiles and avoid a strike. Innocent lives are at stake here. An attack on Syria would involve the death of at least some innocent people. At the end of the day, if this solution leads to Syria being chemically disarmed, this is a good outcome for everyone. Worrying about "saving face" should not be the primary goal of U.S. military policy. We don't live in feudal Japan.
In his op-ed piece, Vladimir Putin criticizes the notion of American Exceptionalism, the concept that America is some sort of unique country among all others. He is right about this. America, like any other country, has its strengths and its weaknesses. It is one of the freest countries in the world with respect to free speech and religious freedoms. Unlike Russia, you don't go to jail for criticizing the government. But America is also one of the most harsh when it comes to criminal punishment. It has more people incarcerated and for longer periods than any other modern industrial nation. It has some of the worst health outcomes and most inefficient health care systems. Other nations also believed they were special--Ancient Rome and the former British Empire also believed the same thing. It is called ethnocentrism. Religious folks call it "pride." The danger of American Exceptionalism is that it leads to self-righteous and predatory behavior. If you are the good guys and everyone else is the bad guy, then you can do anything and be justified.
While Putin is right about the dangers of American Exceptionalism, he is wrong about whether the U.S. would be justified in attacking Syria or not. We must look beyond pure legalism as embodied in U.N. law. An attack by the U.S. would not be American Exceptionalism, but the equivalent of the police sending in the SWAT team to stop a crazed madman from continuing a shooting spree. Putin's ad hominem attack against the U.S. is a diversion. The truth of the matter is that beyond his arguments is a strategic alliance to Syria that serves the economic interests of the Russian Federation. He will say anything to protect that alliance. If he can find moral grounds to make this defense, then so be it.
While Bashar Al Assad is a bastard and evil, the rebels fighting against him are the same or worse. Many of them are members of Al Quaeda. They have been known to commit atrocities themselves. Some of them have brutally murdered priests and other religious. The moron John McCain is hell bent on arming them. If the rebels win the war in Syria, things could be worse than they are now. History shows that arming the Taliban when they opposed the Soviets in Afghanistan was a terrible idea. It caused blowback and terrible consequences for the U.S. In the long run, it would be better for everyone if Assad remains in power. Giving the rebels weapons which will later be used against us is not a good idea. Further, by giving them weapons, we change the balance of power and cause the conflict to continue longer than if we just let Assad win and restore a sense of order. But this does not mean that if he refuses to disarm his chemical weapons, we shouldn't strike at these capabilities.
Obama has played this one out just fine. There are many reasons to bust his balls, but his handling of this matter is not one of them.
In his op-ed in the New York Times, Vladimir Putin makes the argument that if the U.S. decides to attack Syria on its own, against the wishes of the U.N. Security Council, then this promotes future lawlessness which will ultimately result in increased global violence. As a general notion this is true. However, there are some occasions on which we have to look beyond the letter of the law. What if we were back during WWII and we knew that the Germans were killing millions on an industrial scale but the Security Council voted to do nothing about it? While it would technically be a violation of international law to act unilaterally, from a moral perspective a strike which would end the mass killing would be required. The only caveat to this would be if doing something unilaterally wasn't likely to work or if it might make things worse. As it stands now, limited strikes by the U.S. to destroy chemical weapon stockpiles and strikes to damage Assad's ability to use them in the future is limited and not a means of widening the conflict. The Obama administration had no plans to put American boots on the ground. The plan was not for an Iraq style invasion.
There have been many criticisms of the Obama administration over his handling of this crisis. While some may argue that Obama's turning over of the decision to attack Syria to Congress was a means of political coverage by leaving the fault with Congress, in fact this decision was, from a practical point of view, correct. This set a precedent for future presidents to allow Congress to weigh in before military power is used. For American democracy, this is a good thing given the last 30 years of unchecked presidential power. Further, the debate is good for the country. Now some are criticizing Obama by saying he appears weak by going along with Russian plans to have Syria turn over its chemical stockpiles and avoid a strike. Innocent lives are at stake here. An attack on Syria would involve the death of at least some innocent people. At the end of the day, if this solution leads to Syria being chemically disarmed, this is a good outcome for everyone. Worrying about "saving face" should not be the primary goal of U.S. military policy. We don't live in feudal Japan.
In his op-ed piece, Vladimir Putin criticizes the notion of American Exceptionalism, the concept that America is some sort of unique country among all others. He is right about this. America, like any other country, has its strengths and its weaknesses. It is one of the freest countries in the world with respect to free speech and religious freedoms. Unlike Russia, you don't go to jail for criticizing the government. But America is also one of the most harsh when it comes to criminal punishment. It has more people incarcerated and for longer periods than any other modern industrial nation. It has some of the worst health outcomes and most inefficient health care systems. Other nations also believed they were special--Ancient Rome and the former British Empire also believed the same thing. It is called ethnocentrism. Religious folks call it "pride." The danger of American Exceptionalism is that it leads to self-righteous and predatory behavior. If you are the good guys and everyone else is the bad guy, then you can do anything and be justified.
While Putin is right about the dangers of American Exceptionalism, he is wrong about whether the U.S. would be justified in attacking Syria or not. We must look beyond pure legalism as embodied in U.N. law. An attack by the U.S. would not be American Exceptionalism, but the equivalent of the police sending in the SWAT team to stop a crazed madman from continuing a shooting spree. Putin's ad hominem attack against the U.S. is a diversion. The truth of the matter is that beyond his arguments is a strategic alliance to Syria that serves the economic interests of the Russian Federation. He will say anything to protect that alliance. If he can find moral grounds to make this defense, then so be it.
While Bashar Al Assad is a bastard and evil, the rebels fighting against him are the same or worse. Many of them are members of Al Quaeda. They have been known to commit atrocities themselves. Some of them have brutally murdered priests and other religious. The moron John McCain is hell bent on arming them. If the rebels win the war in Syria, things could be worse than they are now. History shows that arming the Taliban when they opposed the Soviets in Afghanistan was a terrible idea. It caused blowback and terrible consequences for the U.S. In the long run, it would be better for everyone if Assad remains in power. Giving the rebels weapons which will later be used against us is not a good idea. Further, by giving them weapons, we change the balance of power and cause the conflict to continue longer than if we just let Assad win and restore a sense of order. But this does not mean that if he refuses to disarm his chemical weapons, we shouldn't strike at these capabilities.
Obama has played this one out just fine. There are many reasons to bust his balls, but his handling of this matter is not one of them.
Thursday, August 29, 2013
On Miley Cyrus and Her Twerk
"As long as Miley Cyrus is a slut I don't care...about anything"
--Troy Seman
Once again, America is shocked by another VMA show. This year, the flavor du jour was little Hannah Montana twerking on Robin Thicke while he performed "Blurred Lines." I guess she's "all grows up." The performance by Miley Cyrus shouldn't have been a surprise. History never fails to repeat itself: female child stars attempting to make the transition to adult pop star generally follow a predictable path:
1. As a child star, cultivate a wholesome image. You probably worked for Disney. Sell a ton of albums and remain cute looking. You got the job because you are cute looking and somewhat talented.
2. In the later teen years, start to do some solo work apart from Disney. This material is usually popish and light. Keep the wholesome image thing going.
3. Around the age of 18 or so, cut off your hair, swear, get caught using drugs, drink heavily, and perform racy lyrics and songs. Garner as much media attention and shock for yourself as possible. The more sexually suggestive, the better. Tattoos are a bonus but not required.
4. After a few years of getting shock attention and putting out racy albums, you have the option of calming down a bit. Either way, in your late 20's and early 30's, the world isn't going to be shocked by your behavior anymore.
This formula has worked for Britney Spears and Christina Aguilera. Failing to follow the formula risks you falling into irrelevance as you move away from being a child star to an adult performer.
As for Miley's performance at the 2013 VMA Award Show, even Robin Thicke himself said the entire thing was no surprise--his wife wasn't angered because the entire thing had been rehearsed for weeks before. Like everything else, it was carefully scripted. Television producers don't like surprises.
America is shocked by these things because of its puritanical roots. We aren't shocked by extreme violence on television or the images of drone strikes. Parents let their children see violent movies way before they are allowed to see sexually explicit material. This is part of the cultural ethos of America and performers like Miley Cyrus know to to take this ethos all the way to the bank.
What shocked me about the performance was how incredibly ridiculous it was. There were dancing teddy bears with giant asses. Cyrus wore a skin tight, see through outfit with a teddy bear on it. Ever since she decided to emulate Pink and go for the punk rock hairstyle, her hair looks like shit. She kept sticking out her tongue to add to the shock value. The entire thing was totally banal. Unlike sexually suggestive performances by Lady GaGa that are at least somewhat artistic, this one just sucked.
Miley Cyrus can do whatever she wants, but I refuse to be shocked when I already know the formula. It's just too canned to be believable. My wallet is staying closed.
--Troy Seman
Once again, America is shocked by another VMA show. This year, the flavor du jour was little Hannah Montana twerking on Robin Thicke while he performed "Blurred Lines." I guess she's "all grows up." The performance by Miley Cyrus shouldn't have been a surprise. History never fails to repeat itself: female child stars attempting to make the transition to adult pop star generally follow a predictable path:
1. As a child star, cultivate a wholesome image. You probably worked for Disney. Sell a ton of albums and remain cute looking. You got the job because you are cute looking and somewhat talented.
2. In the later teen years, start to do some solo work apart from Disney. This material is usually popish and light. Keep the wholesome image thing going.
3. Around the age of 18 or so, cut off your hair, swear, get caught using drugs, drink heavily, and perform racy lyrics and songs. Garner as much media attention and shock for yourself as possible. The more sexually suggestive, the better. Tattoos are a bonus but not required.
4. After a few years of getting shock attention and putting out racy albums, you have the option of calming down a bit. Either way, in your late 20's and early 30's, the world isn't going to be shocked by your behavior anymore.
This formula has worked for Britney Spears and Christina Aguilera. Failing to follow the formula risks you falling into irrelevance as you move away from being a child star to an adult performer.
As for Miley's performance at the 2013 VMA Award Show, even Robin Thicke himself said the entire thing was no surprise--his wife wasn't angered because the entire thing had been rehearsed for weeks before. Like everything else, it was carefully scripted. Television producers don't like surprises.
America is shocked by these things because of its puritanical roots. We aren't shocked by extreme violence on television or the images of drone strikes. Parents let their children see violent movies way before they are allowed to see sexually explicit material. This is part of the cultural ethos of America and performers like Miley Cyrus know to to take this ethos all the way to the bank.
What shocked me about the performance was how incredibly ridiculous it was. There were dancing teddy bears with giant asses. Cyrus wore a skin tight, see through outfit with a teddy bear on it. Ever since she decided to emulate Pink and go for the punk rock hairstyle, her hair looks like shit. She kept sticking out her tongue to add to the shock value. The entire thing was totally banal. Unlike sexually suggestive performances by Lady GaGa that are at least somewhat artistic, this one just sucked.
Miley Cyrus can do whatever she wants, but I refuse to be shocked when I already know the formula. It's just too canned to be believable. My wallet is staying closed.
Wednesday, August 21, 2013
"I Voted for the Black Guy and Got the White Guy"
Today a military judge sentenced Bradley Manning to 35 years in prison for whistleblowing. Manley turned over thousands of documents to the journalism website Wikileaks. One of the revelations was of a U.S. helicopter attack slaughtering over a dozen innocent people, including an attack upon first responders and children. At the end of the video, one of the pilots says to the other after seeing children were shot "that's what you get for bringing children to a firefight." These were the children of a man taking his kids to school and stopped his van to help the injured get a ride to the emergency room.
We live in a fucked up world when the Nobel Peace Prize winning president is a war criminal who has killed almost one thousand people in drone strikes. A man who oversees a vast spying apparatus that records the communications of all Americans, a man who uses the resources of the government to crush whisteblowers and bully foreign governments into grounding the planes of foreign presidents in violation of international law.
Manning should be the one with the Nobel Peace Prize. Obama should be impeached and sentenced for war crimes. Most people are too brain dead to even care. They are too busy pressing buttons on their smartphones and twittering about Kanye and Kim Kardashian's baby.
Manning's lawyers now report that he plans on asking Obama for a pardon. The chances of this being successful is about 0%. At the end of the day, the government monolith has crushed a man of incredible conscience and destroyed his life to make an example out of him. The message is "We are the U.S. government. We do whatever we want. If you question us, we will crush you, so don't even think about it."
But people of good conscience like Edward Snowden flip their fingers at such fascism. They refuse to bow down before the self-appointed masters of the universe. The smug arrogance of the Obama administration and his pack of minions is disgusting. In his earlier days, Obama was a community organizer who attempted to help the poor and downtrodden. Now he uses his power to kiss rich white ass and outdo those who formerly looked down upon him. He grovels before Mitch McConnell and John Boehner while cowardly playing videogame wars, ordering strikes to those whom he can't see and won't confront. He's no man. He's a coward. If he had one hundredth the character of Bradley Manning, he would pardon him. But he never will.
These days, any intrusion by the government against our civil liberties is justified in the name of "security." All our rights can be taken away so long as they try to scare us into becoming a police state. These are not the values that America was founded upon. These are not the values embodied in the Bill of Rights.
As a liberal, in my ideal world Bernie Sanders would be president or Elizabeth Warren. But in the next election it will likely be Hillary Clinton vs Chris Christie or Rand Paul. Hillary has already shown that she approves of spying, foreign wars, drone strikes, and coddling Wall Street. Christie is the same. As much as I disagree with Rand Paul about social welfare programs (I fully support them) and healthcare reform, I will probably vote for Rand Paul anyway. Why? Because he believes in maintaining civil liberties. He is opposed to drone strikes despite the huge force of the military-industrial complex being behind it. He is against the unhealthy marriage of large corporations with the government. And he is opposed to foreign wars which only cost huge amounts of money and American blood. Most of all, Rand Paul is less full of shit than others. Unlike the liar Obama, you at least know what you are getting.
This is a sad day in America. Look at the actions of a country to decide whether it is righteous or not. We can talk all we want about liberty, freedom, and free speech. But when this government crushes whistleblowers, harasses journalists and members of their families, and bullies other governments to chase down whistleblowers, we are no better than Stalinist Russia or Syria. We must expect and demand more from our leaders and our government.
The entire Bradley Manning trial was a farce. It was a show trial reminiscent of Stalin's purges, right up to the part where Manning gave his "confession" for hurting the United States. Total bullshit.
Edward Snowden was smart to leave the U.S. He would never get a fair trial here. Never. Snowden would be well advised to never return to the U.S. or one of its colonies, aka Britain.
Today the Constitution was used as toilet paper and it fucking stinks.
Today the Constitution was used as toilet paper and it fucking stinks.
Monday, August 19, 2013
Fix It Yourself
In an age of economic insecurity, one has to develop self-reliance to survive. Food costs going up at the supermarket? Time to start planting your own garden. Mechanic asking too much for that tune up? Time to go to the library and find yourself a copy of the technical repair manual and get yourself some basic tools.
When my computer stops working, I have no problem troubleshooting and solving both hardware and software problems. This is mostly because I've always been interested in computers. I don't mind fixing my broken computer. When some problem confounds me, I look up the answers on the Internet. Google is the greatest repair tool ever made. Somehow, somewhere, someone else has encountered the same problem as you, and more likely than not there is a solution somewhere. For me, perseverance is key. Don't give up and eventually you will solve the problem.
I've always been intimidated by cars. Opening the hood, I see a tangle of tubes, wires and blobs that make no sense to me. I've tried to repair my car in the past to no avail. I don't have a car lift and painful arthritis limits my physical abilities. Unfortunately, however, my vehicles don't seem to be considerate of my mechanical limitations. Both my Ford Escape and my Toyota Avalon are currently experiencing issues. After looking up the repair costs for both vehicles, it become apparent that without a little self-help and yankee ingenuity, I wasn't going to be driving them anytime soon.
"Necessity is the mother of invention," or so goes the saying. I found myself stuck without answers. So I decided to tackle the repairs as I would a computer problem--using Google and Youtube, along with using the Haynes Repair Manuals for my vehicles as a guide. What do you know, the amount of information available to DIYers is amazing in the information age! My Escape needed a tune up but half the spark plugs are buried underneath a labyrinth of tubes and components. Youtube rescued me. There turned out to be a video which showed me exactly how to change the spark plugs. After watching the video two or three times, I was able to take on the job myself and complete it successfully. What a tremendous sense of relief I had when it was completed and everything seemed to work fine. And unlike my previous experiences, there weren't several "bonus" pieces left after I put everything back together.
With my new found confidence, I decided to tackle my electric dryer. It sounded like a cat was being drowned whenever it would run. After watching a Youtube video in which a repairman takes apart the same model dryer and replaces the blower wheel and the belt, I decided to give it a shot. Judging by the sounds my dryer was making and consistent with the video, I was able to diagnose the problem, order new parts for $50, and put the thing back together again. Now, instead of wanting to put it out of its misery, it quietly hums along as my clothes dry. I just saved myself about $450. Now that is a payday.
I'm not coordinated--dare I say "geeky." If I can make some basic repairs on my own, I know you can too. And who knows, you might save yourself a fortune and build your confidence in the process. Half the time the broken thing is worthless in its current state so you have nothing to lose. A broken dryer remains a broken dryer.
Good luck!
When my computer stops working, I have no problem troubleshooting and solving both hardware and software problems. This is mostly because I've always been interested in computers. I don't mind fixing my broken computer. When some problem confounds me, I look up the answers on the Internet. Google is the greatest repair tool ever made. Somehow, somewhere, someone else has encountered the same problem as you, and more likely than not there is a solution somewhere. For me, perseverance is key. Don't give up and eventually you will solve the problem.
I've always been intimidated by cars. Opening the hood, I see a tangle of tubes, wires and blobs that make no sense to me. I've tried to repair my car in the past to no avail. I don't have a car lift and painful arthritis limits my physical abilities. Unfortunately, however, my vehicles don't seem to be considerate of my mechanical limitations. Both my Ford Escape and my Toyota Avalon are currently experiencing issues. After looking up the repair costs for both vehicles, it become apparent that without a little self-help and yankee ingenuity, I wasn't going to be driving them anytime soon.
"Necessity is the mother of invention," or so goes the saying. I found myself stuck without answers. So I decided to tackle the repairs as I would a computer problem--using Google and Youtube, along with using the Haynes Repair Manuals for my vehicles as a guide. What do you know, the amount of information available to DIYers is amazing in the information age! My Escape needed a tune up but half the spark plugs are buried underneath a labyrinth of tubes and components. Youtube rescued me. There turned out to be a video which showed me exactly how to change the spark plugs. After watching the video two or three times, I was able to take on the job myself and complete it successfully. What a tremendous sense of relief I had when it was completed and everything seemed to work fine. And unlike my previous experiences, there weren't several "bonus" pieces left after I put everything back together.
With my new found confidence, I decided to tackle my electric dryer. It sounded like a cat was being drowned whenever it would run. After watching a Youtube video in which a repairman takes apart the same model dryer and replaces the blower wheel and the belt, I decided to give it a shot. Judging by the sounds my dryer was making and consistent with the video, I was able to diagnose the problem, order new parts for $50, and put the thing back together again. Now, instead of wanting to put it out of its misery, it quietly hums along as my clothes dry. I just saved myself about $450. Now that is a payday.
I'm not coordinated--dare I say "geeky." If I can make some basic repairs on my own, I know you can too. And who knows, you might save yourself a fortune and build your confidence in the process. Half the time the broken thing is worthless in its current state so you have nothing to lose. A broken dryer remains a broken dryer.
Good luck!
Monday, July 15, 2013
Making Sense of the Trayvon Martin Murder Case
One thing we can all agree on is that this case was a tragedy. At the end of the day, a young man is dead and another man's life is ruined as he will live as a social outcast for the rest of his life. The lives of the victim's family has been torn apart forever. None of this should have happened. If George Zimmerman hadn't been a wannabe cop, racial profiler and busy body, all of this could have been avoided. It's telling how people who knew Zimmerman said he would call the police up to 20-30 times per day. He's the kind of white (or at least half white) guy you would absolutely hate to live near--uptight as fuck, never minding his own business, and likely giving you shit about the state of your lawn. If I were Trayvon Martin and this guy was giving me shit for no reason, I would have wanted to give him a good throttling, too. Zimmerman had it coming to him.
The problem is that while Zimmerman deserved a beating, he didn't deserve to die, and Martin didn't have the right to kill him. A witness at trial and the pathologist both testified that based on eyewitness testimony and the nature of the bullet entry wounds to Trayvon Martin, he was on top of Zimmerman and pounding him in the head and wouldn't stop. The injuries to the back of Zimmerman's head confirm this. Getting your head slammed against concrete will kill you. Based on Florida's "stand your ground" law, you can defend yourself with lethal force if you believe your life is threatened. The facts of this case are clear here that Zimmerman could have reasonably believed this given the circumstances.
Initially, this case wasn't even going to be filed. Prosecutors are charged with only bringing cases when the facts warrant them. They have discretion to decide when something is worth pursuing or not. Given how weak the case was against Zimmerman, the prosecutor wasn't going to bring this case. It was only after the Obama administration weighed in on the matter publicly and political pressure was brought to bear that the case was brought against Zimmerman. The problem with this is that the rule of law is inconsistent with playing political games. As Obama has little respect for the rule of law given his disregard for the Fourth Amendment with respect to privacy rights and surveillance, this isn't surprising.
It wasn't right for Zimmerman to racially profile Martin. It wasn't right for him to engage him, which led to a fight. But under Florida law, this doesn't make Zimmerman a murderer. A certified dickhead? Definitely, but not a murderer.
There are folks like Al Sharpton who are saying that this verdict is an "atrocity" and that this case is reminiscent of the type of racial injustice served up by the Old South. This inflammatory rhetoric doesn't apply to the circumstances of this case. If people are unhappy with the expansive "stand your ground" legislation, they need to work on getting the law changed, but using the court system to punish Zimmerman for being racist is inconsistent with the rule of law. When we violate that, then eventually we all lose because eventually every one of us is on the wrong side of politics.
The problem is that while Zimmerman deserved a beating, he didn't deserve to die, and Martin didn't have the right to kill him. A witness at trial and the pathologist both testified that based on eyewitness testimony and the nature of the bullet entry wounds to Trayvon Martin, he was on top of Zimmerman and pounding him in the head and wouldn't stop. The injuries to the back of Zimmerman's head confirm this. Getting your head slammed against concrete will kill you. Based on Florida's "stand your ground" law, you can defend yourself with lethal force if you believe your life is threatened. The facts of this case are clear here that Zimmerman could have reasonably believed this given the circumstances.
Initially, this case wasn't even going to be filed. Prosecutors are charged with only bringing cases when the facts warrant them. They have discretion to decide when something is worth pursuing or not. Given how weak the case was against Zimmerman, the prosecutor wasn't going to bring this case. It was only after the Obama administration weighed in on the matter publicly and political pressure was brought to bear that the case was brought against Zimmerman. The problem with this is that the rule of law is inconsistent with playing political games. As Obama has little respect for the rule of law given his disregard for the Fourth Amendment with respect to privacy rights and surveillance, this isn't surprising.
It wasn't right for Zimmerman to racially profile Martin. It wasn't right for him to engage him, which led to a fight. But under Florida law, this doesn't make Zimmerman a murderer. A certified dickhead? Definitely, but not a murderer.
There are folks like Al Sharpton who are saying that this verdict is an "atrocity" and that this case is reminiscent of the type of racial injustice served up by the Old South. This inflammatory rhetoric doesn't apply to the circumstances of this case. If people are unhappy with the expansive "stand your ground" legislation, they need to work on getting the law changed, but using the court system to punish Zimmerman for being racist is inconsistent with the rule of law. When we violate that, then eventually we all lose because eventually every one of us is on the wrong side of politics.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)