Justice served in Zimmerman trial's verdict
When George Zimmerman was doing his duty as a volunteer watchman in an area that was plagued with crime, he saw a suspicious person. The person was wearing a hoodie, and it was dark with some distance between them. There was no way of knowing the person's skin color, so race was not a factor and no one was being "singled out" or profiled.
As things progressed Trayvon Martin chose to physically confront Zimmerman. He was a strong youthful teen and physically superior to Zimmerman. He was getting the best of the encounter as evidenced by the injury on the back of Zimmerman's head. A possible concussion, permanent brain damage or death may have happened. Zimmerman had to protect himself from further injury. The jury listened carefully to all the testimony and heroically issued the correct verdict. They did not cave in to the biased media and faulty public opinion. The jury is on record that they believe Martin was partly to blame. His indiscreet actions contributed to his demise.
United States can't afford ObamaCare
The Sunday SRVT article by Steve Butler makes an argument that ObamaCare will lessen personal bankruptcies due to the negligent few who fail to buy insurance.
In considering bankruptcy, Butler seems to totally ignore that we are bankrupting the entire United States. We have to borrow or print $46 out of every $100 the feds spend! ObamaCare, according to the Congressional Budget Office, will cost an additional $100 billion per year. To suggest adding another vast entitlement to such a desperate situation is unbelievable.
A great way to bankrupt private insurers is to require coverage of "pre-existing conditions." Should we require insurers to insure the house that has already burned? How about requiring issuing auto liability coverage even after an accident? Lastly, who actually believes adding a layer of government will do anything but cause the cost of insurance to skyrocket (like it has since ObamaCare)?
ObamaCare in violation of Constitution
ObamaCare is a tax bill (the Supreme Court said so) that originated in the Senate (using the fraud called "gut and replace") and as such is un-Constitutional (Article 1, Section 7, first sentence).
Send it back to the Supreme Court, have "gut and replace" and the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act declared un-Constitutional and, like dominoes, all the follow-on laws, rules, regulations and executive orders implementing it rendered null and void. For the Senate to fraudulently replace a House bill with a tax bill is unethical, immoral, un-Constitutional and has as much validity as replacing the contents of a box of Cheerios with lawn clippings, resealing the box and then trying to sell it as genuine Cheerios! Defend the Constitution!
Carl E. Serkland
Pressing for highest price how it works
I believe the writer has just awakened to reality. In the state of California, all real estate agents, regardless of who contacts them for service, work for the seller. That fact is in every contract and offer they have a buyer sign. Since the seller pays both real estate agents and the real estate agents work on commission, that has to be the case.
"Your" real estate agent wants you to find the house you want and to buy it, but also wants the sale to be for the highest price possible. This is not "shady". It's reality (or realty). As to the idea that I should have to take the first offer that meets my asking price, that is not the way bargaining works.
If you have only a single interested party, you must sell for less (assuming the buyer is a good bargainer). If there is a line of people who want what you own, you have every right to take the best offer. I own something. You want it. As the owner, I decide whether and to whom I want to sell. This has always been the case. the "asking" price is nothing but a starting point for the negotiation.
R. Kevin Oberman
GOP, tea party want a failure of government
I believe that you do the country a great disservice by posting letters that don't consider the facts. The most recent example is the letter that claims that the tea party is the only hope against Obama.
As I understand it, the desires of the GOP/tea party include the willingness to diminish the country's financial standing by forcing us to default on the bills we've already accumulated, The desire to further diminish the middle-class by shifting even more money to the top, the desire that we continue to allow those who can afford health care to have access without paying their share to maintain that system, the unwillingness to see that domestic energy is at an all-time high and finally that our "pathetic skinny socialist" president is at fault for the tea party folks' actions and desires that we fail at everything because they hope to benefit from that failure.
Let's hope that they don't succeed because we've already seen what they stand for and the extreme desires that drive them and their primary news source.
Nuking Japan was necessary
A recent letter about the use of atomic bombs on Japan during World War II is nonsense. The Japanese Empire invaded Manchuria in 1932, China in 1939, French-Indo China in 1941 and attacked the United States in December 1941 because we did not support their war in Asia.
Imperial Army troops were war criminals who murdered 10 to 20 million civilians including 750,000 Chinese killed by bioweapons. These bioweapons were developed by the Japanese Army and tested on 10,000 prisoners, many of whom were dissected without anesthesia. Allied prisoners of war were used as slave labor and worked until they died; hundreds of thousands of women were raped and many of them forced into sexual slavery.
I believe that the United States was morally obligated to end the war as quickly as possible and that using atomic bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki saved the lives of civilians and American troops. Every Aug. 6 we should remember the innocent lives lost or ruined and not those of the nation that started the war and committed countless war crimes.
Michael L. Atkinson