Tom's Views

On   Kentucky’s House Bill #208   that denies public assistance benefits to those who test positive for drugs: So how will these people afford to eat?  I can understand mandatory drug testing to determine eligibility for the cash payments.  Well, maybe a little anyhow.  But   food stamps?  Come on.  Though you might be able to exchange them for cash in certain situations, you can’t generally buy drugs with food stamps as easily as with cash.  In fact, all you can get is food, which all of us need to survive, including the drug-addicted.  Even those addicted to drugs should be allowed to survive.  No?  This would seem to be the latest in a long string of ways that the well-to-do demonize the poor.  Would these self-righteous lawmakers have these folks just die off?   So in my opinion, states should not bar those sick with drug addiction their means of survival.   

Let me say also that when you deprive a person of his primary means of sustenance (his food stamps), now you’re trifling with the survival instinct, which can be quite dangerous.  That is to say: Starve a man, and he’ll likely take desperate measures to get food, including committing crimes of hunger-driven passion.  High moral codes matter little next to an empty belly.  Decency and civilization take a back seat.  Indeed, most will beg, borrow, steal, and in some cases, kill, in order to keep living.  So we may not want to cut too many life lines to the drug-addicted poor, lest we have to cope with the raw fury of their hunger, not to mention that of their addictions.  If we get too greedy, we hurt ourselves in the end. 

Yes, there are many programs that   attempt   to cure addiction and many appear to work. But typically, their success rates are dubious at best, unless you pay tens or hundreds of thousands of dollars to participate in one of the very good ones. Therefore, high quality addiction treatment is by no means available to all; especially not to the poor. So I think it’s wrong to expect the poor addict to successfully complete said treatments when they can’t afford them in the first place.

Drug addictions are highly subject to relapse, and I’m not convinced that all anyone who is addicted really needs to do to break the addiction is to simply stop needing. Altering an addiction (or any desire really), is tough business.  People spend years in therapy making the attempt, and often failing.

Another point to consider is that lots of these drugs permanently alter the brain (LSD is but one example that can permanently change perceptions and otherwise injure a healthy brain). Such drugs can leave one needing more because of the permanent chemical changes they bring about. This is especially true when a kid is exposed to these medications while his brain is still developing. The drugs alter the ‘normal’ course of development, which at this point in time, we cannot repair. The signature of the drug then remains with that brain forever. So in many of these cases, it’s not a simple matter of the addict just willing himself to get over it. All the positive mental energy he can muster will not repar the cell damage that some of these more powerful potions can do.

I applaud the reformed addict for being able to break his addiction. But, he was one of the lucky ones. Consider that the experience of addiction differs for each of us, as our brains react in different ways to these drugs. It’s easier for some, due to individual bio chemistries. to break addictions than it is for others. So just because one addict was able to manage a clean break by no means implies that all other addicts would have as easy a time doing it.

Who’s to say how TRUE the need for help for the addicted is? I’d say they truly need help. Addictions can result in life and death situations just as grave as starvation.

Also, some appear to believe that people who work hard more deserve society’s help than these addicts because they worked so hard for so many years. While in some cases, that may be true, on the whole, I disagree because there was lots of good fortune that went anyone’s  way who’s succeeded, and that enabled them to be so productive for so long; good fortune that many never see in their life times. Perhaps these workers have genes for high achievement or tenacity. Maybe their brain chemistry helped them avoid addiction traps, simply because they never desired the bad drugs. My point: A person is worth far mar than just the amount of their work. That is: We’re all human, regardless of how much or how little we work. As such, we’re all worthy   to survive and not be downtrodden by society. In this vein, I’d suggest that the drug addict deserves proper food and health care just as much as anyone who works a lot; not more, and not less.

Some people say we should juet “get tough” on addicts and remove all the safety nets; too bad for those would would not survive such an arrangement. These folks think that   tough love   is the best way to rid society of its drug addiction problem.  Please see my   Tough Love For Addicts?   piece for a discussion of this imperfect solution. 

One final point: People often make statements like, “I’m not giving an addict my money for free.”  But technically, what they call   their   money is not really theirs; at least not fully anyhow. Indeed, they can make that money to begin with, precisely because others have made that possible. They drink government-regulated water that’s safe to consume because of the regulation. They eat food that probably won’t kill them because government and private watchdog groups are keeping a keen eye on the companies making it. They drive their cars on government-built roads and make their telephone calls on a phone system that in the beginning at least, was largely subsidized by the government. So let’s not get too possessive of or take too much credit for the money we earn because regardless of the effort we put forth, we’re still only partially responsible for the  fortune that results.

Tom Hesley

Related Posts

• Tough Love For Addicts?

When guns are too readily available, people use them too readily, with nary a regard for the consequences. Ultimately, it’s true that humans are the ones to blame for their actions; not the guns. But when society makes an action too easy to execute (such as using guns to kill people by making them too easy to get), then it bears some responsibility for what happens too.

Humans are typically not very good at controlling their passions (like anger or vengeance for example). So the degree of gun control employed should, at least, take this fact into account. We should not give them to just anybody; particularly to those with “short fuses” and radical leanings. Further, many humans routinely get stoned or drunk, and so, are not thinking clearly much of the time, and also tend to be prone to emotional meltdowns. I don’t think they should have guns either.

Again, while I agree that humans (not guns) are the real killers, guns clearly simplify killing for someone predisposed to kill, and the easier an action is to accomplish, the more people end up accomplishing it. So, if we make guns easier to obtain, then more people will obtain and then use them.  Is this really what we want as a society — more people using guns?

Indeed, many more of us   would kill   if we   could kill   easily.  In fact, a gun will kill if placed in the wrong hands (the hands of a would-be killer), and given how angry so much of society seems to be these days, I’m just not comfortable with everyone toting a gun around.  So I’d ask our congress for more (not less) gun control, please.

Related Posts

• Against The Death Penalty
• Security Paranoia

I’ve laundered six loads in my new Maytag Bravos washing macine already since they delivered it this past Thursday, and I’m lovin’ it. I’m ripping curtains off the windows and doilies from tables, just to get some items to wash in it. This high efficiency style Maytag washer differs vastly from older ones; it’s much quieter and uses much less water. I know, because I watched it for an entire cycle yesterday through its glass window in its lid. It was like watching a good movie, actually. Nice!

This is a high efficiency top load machine; a Maytag Bravos MVWB750WQ clothes washer. It has no agitator, but does include what they call an impeller (a little agitator). The machine apparently agitates the clothes primarily via the circulation of water, the back-and-forth rotation of the impeller, and the movement of the surrounding tub as well. The stainless steel tub and plastic impeller move separately. So between the three forces inside, the clothes move around a lot surprisingly. A front loader might have been better. But those are more expensive than what I bought, and their cycle times are generally longer. But if I could have afforded one of those industrial grade front loader machines found in Laundromats, I would have. Ah but this Maytag Bravos top loader will do fine.

They dubbed this a high efficiency washer because it can wash bigger loads than a traditional top loading machine of the same size, due to the absence of the agitator. Plus, it draws less water and electricity, has less wasted motion in the direct drive motor since there’s no clutch to slip, runs much quieter, and seems to better compensate for off-balance loads so that the spin cycle extracts generally more water from the laundry. The Maytag Bravos MVWB750WQ well deserves the high efficiency label therefore.

The Maytag Bravos MVWB750WQ Washing Machine

• It’s the technology that gets me all gaga. For better or for worse, just about every aspect of this machine is now under software control.
• Plus, they’ve eliminated the transmission and clutch systems; a major improvement. This machine incorporates a direct drive drum motor, and the on-board computer controls the forward and backward agitations as well as how fast it spins, and when. So there’s less friction, and that translates into higher energy efficiency, way less noise, and fewer parts to wear and break. I just love modern stuff.
• Admittedly all these “bells and whistles” scared me at first. After all, the more features, the more parts there are to break down. But because this Maytag washer constitutes such a vast improvement over the traditional, electromechanical, timer-sequenced washers, I can live with the computerization. I do hope that it’s reasonably durable and that the computer modules inside last a decade or more before failing. Computer modules make for great appliances but can be costly to replace, which in some cases, can completely offset their advantages. Hopefully, Maytag put a lot of thought into designing a highly durable computer module for its Maytag Bravos washing machine.
• This Maytag Bravos clothes washer, is very much quieter than any of our previous machines.  Even the fast spin cycle makes very little hum, vibration, or other noises as compared to older units. I can’t hear it upstairs unless I really listen.
• Further, there seems to be no minimum size for the loads that this washer can correctly process, because the Maytag Bravos automatically adjusts the amount of water it uses based on the amount of laundry in its tub. It gathers information about load size and weight during the first-fill portion of the wash cycle, and applies the appropriate levels of water, washing, and spinning, to get the clothes clean without subjecting them to needless stresses in the process. So you can wash any size load from a single pair of socks to fifteen pairs of blue jeans, and be assured that the washer will not use any more water, force, or energy than is necessary to gently but fully clean the particular load at hand.
• Customers have also complained that the Maytag Bravos costs a lot. While this machine did set me back nearly twice what I paid for our last washer in 2004, it seems to be priced competitively with other high efficiency models, and it’s rated among the top five performers this year in Consumer Reports  magazine. In fact, I got my Maytag Bravos at Home Depot for $980 total (including tax, delivery, and removal of our old washer).
• I like that this washer tightly controls the water temperature in the tub, even when you’ve set it to hot.  In the Maytag Bravos, HOT does not mean as-hot-as-you-can-get.  This system maintains the water for its hot and warm settings within specified ranges.  So even if your water heater is set to the VERY HOT position, the Bravos washer will dilute that very hot water with a little bit of cold, to bring the temperature down to the standard hot value.  So yes, even when you’ve set the machine to use hot water, the Maytag Bravos will still draw some cold water.
• While this washing machine indeed costs more, it does more as well and saves money. The energy label that came with mine says that you can wash eight loads a week for a year, and only pay $18 in energy costs to operate it if you’re using a gas water heater, which we are. At that rate, I’m hoping to recover the additional money paid for this washer while I own it. We’ll see.

What I Dislike About The Maytag Bravos MVWB750WQ Washing Machine

• This machine loudly thumps the water supply pipes several or more times during each cycle, much more loudly and more often than our old Amana washer did. Since the Maytag high efficiency washing machine draws water many more times per cycle than a more traditional machine, the resulting numerous thumping  noises can grow quite distracting. Maytag might have used less abrupt, higher grade water valves, which do exist by the way. We had these much quieter valves in our old Amana.
• I am concerned that, particularly with bigger laundry loads, the clothes do not move around as much in the tub during the wash cycle as they did in washers past. But whether this means that they’ll get less clean remains to be seen in my opinion. So far though, the loads I’ve done seem very clean despite this lack of apparent in-tub clothes motion. You can get reasonable movement of the garments as long as you don’t pile too many of them in the tub.
• You must use detergents designated as being for High Efficiency (HE) washers. Seems like they could have designed the mechanisms inside to accommodate all laundry soaps, including those for the traditional agitator-style washing machines.
• For a major appliance as expensive as the Maytag Bravos washing machine, I found the manufacturer’s warranty a bit skimpy; one year for the whole machine and ten years for the main motor. With all the advances in computerization in this model, and with  the elimination of the transmission and clutch systems found in older machines, I expected Maytag to stand more firmly behind this product by providing at least a five year, whole-machine warranty. But they didn’t. So handle this washer with extreme care, lest you must either replace it earlier than expected, or pay hefty repair bills.
• Other owners say that this washer tangles and wads up clothes around the impeller.  Indeed I have observed some wadding and tight bunching near the tub’s outer edges, that results from the extraordinarily fast spinning of the load.
• During the “wash” and “rinse” parts of the cycle, as the impeller moves to and fro, the Maytag Bravos washer, at times, makes a rhythmic  knocking sound that corresponds with each change in rotational direction of the impeller.  This knocking can be unnerving from an appliance I’ve just paid nearly a thousand dollars for. But whatever causes this knocking noise appears to not interfere with normal operation of this high efficiency Maytag Bravos washer.
• In my opinion, the  Maytag Bravos washing machine has trouble completely removing strong odors (like old urine) from the laundry, even when you use hot water on the “Sheets” setting. I’ve found this to occur much more frequently in the Maytag Bravos than in our old Amana, and sometimes I’ve washed the same load one or two additional times to remove the smells.

Conclusion

Over all, my impressions of the Maytag Bravos MVWB750WQ clothes washing machine are highly favorable. I’m hoping that this machine lasts at least ten years, and think that there’s a good chance that it will, given how solidly-built it appears to be. I’d therefore recommend the Maytag Bravos to anyone looking to buy a mid-priced yet technologically state-of-the-art high efficiency clothes washer.  Make sure however, to put a surge protector on it.  After all, unlike the older electro-mechanical washing machines, the Maytag Bravos contains sensitive electronics (the computer).  So safeguard it, just as you would an expensive piece of hi-fi audio video equipment.

Tom Hesley

Related Posts

• Washing Toms In Washing Machine