ATT SERVICE DOWN TUESDAY NIGHT: And guess where the problem was at?
From the Herald:
The trouble began about 6 p.m., AT&T spokeswoman Kelly Starling said. As of 8:30 p.m., technicians were working to identify and fix the voice service problem, which was due to “an issue with a switch in Broward County,” Starling said.
Broward. Figures.
Congresswoman Michele Bachman is an idiot. And we are doomed as a country if this simpleton is considered a credible candidate for president.
8 comments:
Rumpole, what do you think of the fact that some of these Tea Partiers claim Ayn Rand as a source for their philosophy?
Not being snide here, just honestly curious. You seem to detest the Tea Party, but at the same time you and they seem to share a favorite political philosopher.
Inquiring minds want to know.
Best beef BBQ ribs in Miami - the church stand on NW 22nd Avenue just south of 95th Street. They used to have a stand on 183rd street, too, and may still do.
Take it from a white boy who knows good ribs.
I don't understand the quote about Judge Tunis from a previous post.
What did she have thrust upon her that she did not ask for? I assume she wanted to be a judge?
I just don't think but I know that Ms. Rand's ideas and philosophy not to mention her principles have been both co-opted and corrupted by the current "right". Certainly Senator Rand Paul comes close in many ways to espousing many of the ideas of objectivism. For instance his criticism of the 1964 Civil Rights bill and the use of the commerace clause to fight racism was correct. Ms. Rand held that all rights flowed from property rights. If one did not have the right to their property- both physical and intellectual, then one was a slave working for others. Thus, a person who owned a restaurant, a store or any other establishment had the absolute right not to serve people of color or particular religion or partiular height or weight or hair color if they so desired. Because the store, retstaurant, etc, was theirs. Thety built it or bought it and owned it. That is NOT a defense of racism. That is a defense of private property.
This is a concept and a distinction that most people of limited intellect cannot make. The emotional response that racism in this country evokes is such that any criticism of HOW we combated racism automatically makes you a racist, which both Mr. Paul and Ms. Rand are not.
Most tea Party members are collectivist statists, they just want the government to act on matters other than social welfare. For instance most Tea party members would probably support the teaching of creationism in school.
So to answer your question- a very few members of the tea party movment, and people like Rand Paul owe a lot to Ms. Rand and clearly espouse elements of objectivist thought. Most others, having not really read and understood what Ms. Rand was teaching, have latched on to the obvious and not sophisticated branches of objectivism for their own personal political ideals. But I am glad she is being discussed. She was not always right. But she deserves a spot at the table as one of the brightest thinkers of the 20th century.
Rumpole that was a brilliant and succinct discussion of Rand and the idiots who coopt her. Her hero and yor moniker Howard Roark was an atheist, the tea party could never accept that, Reagan and Nixons positions are akin to Stalin for these ignorant facsists. They love Reagan but don't have the slightest clue af what his policies were. These people are a scourge and proof that we are in decline.
8:03:00 here. Thanks, Rumpole, for your thoughtful answer. I can't say that I've studied Rand closely enough to say anything meaningful (merely read FH and AS in college), but the Tea Party's latching on to Rand has seemed to me, at a gut level, to be imperfect.
Rand has been criticized widely for being elitist and oligarchical in that Objectivism might be read as espousing the notion that the masses are hindering the elite. Whether one agrees with this categorization, at the very least I would think that Tea Partiers would be leery of associating with something "elitist," given their penchant for a more populist orientation. So, that's just always struck me as odd.
You probably already know that several prominent (or at least well known) federal judges require their clerks to read/ watch Rand: Jce. Clarence Thomas, Judge Alex Kozinski.
http://www.csmonitor.com/Commentary/Opinion/2010/1014/How-is-elitist-Ayn-Rand-a-tea-party-hero-The-contradiction-should-concern-America/(page)/2
Anyway, thanks for your thoughts.
I have always had a problem with this concept here.
"Thus, a person who owned a restaurant, a store or any other establishment had the absolute right not to serve people of color or particular religion or partiular height or weight or hair color if they so desired. Because the store, retstaurant, etc, was theirs."
And thus when we reach the "[t]his is a concept and a distinction that most people of limited intellect cannot make." I can make the distinction, not that I agree with it.
The Objectivist ethics holds that the actor must always be the beneficiary of his action and that man must act for his own rational self-interest. But his right to do so is derived from his nature as man and from the function of moral values in human life—and, therefore, is applicable only in the context of a rational, objectively demonstrated and validated code of moral principles which define and determine his actual self-interest.
I don't like it. But I understand the concept.
"Shortys- Dadeland. The original and one of the best. Always serves consistently good ribs with a pink interior and excellent sauces which go well on the french fires."
I can state - unequivocally - that you are as knowledgeable about political economy as you are about barbecue
Seriously, Shorty's BOILS their shitty ribs. That's what gives them that nice rubbery texture.
Post a Comment