SherryTX

Well they go by BB&T - and have for years. I believe it is just an acronym for Branch Banking and Trust Company. However, they refer to the company as BB&T (much like AT&T does the past several years). Here is a history of the bank here: http://bbt.mediaroom.com/index.php?s=18&cat=8

Oh no worries! =)

Ahhh NH! That is my home state you know! I will have to keep checking the local papers up there to see what happens from the local level. I doubt very much NH would be able to secede. Though, the state motto is "Live Free or Die" there are way to many liberals in the southern part of NH, since it borders Mass. But I cannot wait to see what happens. Here is the resolution http://www.gencourt.state.nh.us/legislatio...09/HCR0006.html NH is not as conservative minded - or should I say liberty minded - as it used to be, despite all the people that have gone there for the Free State Project. In fact - I am hard pressed to find much coverage on this resolution in the press up in NH at all. Here is one column by someone at The Union Leader (who used to always pick conservative politicians by the way), and while he mentions many things - like NH once again considering a mandatory seat belt law, the only mention of this proposed resolution is in the comments from readers: http://www.unionleader.com/columns.aspx/Op...e7-a01f2b796103 I couldn't find anything online for my home town paper, Fosters.com (they were kinda of a sucky paper anyway), nor on WMUR.com, one of the major (and few) stations in NH. There are only 24 people in the NH senate - and it appears that currently there are more dems than republicans. And let me tell you this: A NH Dem is usually just as liberal (in my experience) as a Mass Dem. So NH - while I admire what you are trying to do - I doubt you will go through with it. (On a side note: you find that NH has the best ice cream.)

I belong to the Society of Human Resource Management, and as an organization it is opposed to this act. Here are their reasons: http://www.shrm.org/Advocacy/Issues/CivilR...orationAct.aspx On January 29, 2009, in a White House signing ceremony, President Barack Obama signed into law the "Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Act." The bill, S. 181, was earlier approved in the House by a vote of 250 to 177, and in the Senate by a vote of 61 to 36. The new law is designed to change the decades-old timeframe for filing employment discrimination claims, now awaits final action in the House which could occur by the end of January. Title VII of the 1964 Civil Rights Act gives employees either 180 or 300 days (depending on the state of residence) of an alleged unlawful practice to file an employment discrimination charge with the U.S. Equal Opportunity Commission. If enacted into law, Ledbetter bill would have changed the statute of limitations on pay discrimination claims and instituted the "paycheck rule" -- affording an employee the right to bring a discrimination claim within a minimum of 180 days from the receipt of a paycheck (and even a pension check). After receiving thousands of letters from SHRM members objecting to the Ledbetter bill, the Senate voted not to proceed with its consideration, which effectively killed the bill for the 110th Congress. SHRM objected to the Ledbetter legislation on three main grounds: The Ledbetter bill would do away with the uniform statute of limitations and allow individuals to bring discrimination claims potentially many years after an alleged act of discrimination. The bill would even allow the receipt of a pension payment to re-start the period for filing a claim, which could be decades after an employee left a company. The Ledbetter bill would have allowed not only an employee, but other individuals who were "affected" by an act of pay discrimination, to file claims. The legislation also allowed family members, including spouses and children, and potentially others to become plaintiffs in discrimination suits over a worker's pay (even after the worker was deceased). The Ledbetter bill would apply to all protected employment classes (age, disability, gender, color, race, religion and national origin). The Ledbetter bill was originally introduced in as a legislative response to the Supreme Court's decision in Ledbetter v. Goodyear Tire & Rubber Co. on May 29, 2007. The problem is that the employee would be able to go back extremely far - and suing over deceased workers' pays for all those years? Kinda silly. However, I think the REAL problem is that the government should NOT be regulating how much a company pays their employees. Now, it is in a company's best interest to have reasonable pay ranges for people that are in the same job and have the same duties and level of experience. However, the government should not be involved in stating - hey you paid Joe x amount and Sally has the same job so you should be her the same, etc. Do I think it is "fair" that the employee holding the same position, with the same duties and performs at the same level get paid much less than another? No it isn't "fair". However, this law takes away a company's ability to fairly trade with its employees. I have recruited for a great many companies - large, medium and small. The smartest companies were ones that utilized pay scales, but they always had room within the scale for exceptional candidates they wanted to hire, or exception employees that were getting raises or promotions. I have also worked for an employer that paid me substantially less in base pay for the same work as a few male counterparts - even though I was more productive and proved it. I complained, and asked for a raise. I did not get it. After I have learned what I needed to learn, I moved on. Was that "fair"? Maybe not, but I can tell you that their policies hurt their productivity, and they would constantly get beat out by competition because they didn't know how to keep good employees.

Ah, the last time I saw Kinky Friedman was at a small night club in Houston, Texas, probably about 5 years ago. A real pleasure. Bill P When he ran, back in 2006, I wasn't as well read as I am now in Objectivist (not to say I am well read in Objectivism, but just more so now). I tried finding my specific reasons back then for why I could not support him, but cannot. I don't remember all the specifics, but I do remember I was concerned regarding his health care plan, as well as the fact that he wanted to make slaughter houses for horses illegal. I am not for slaughtering horses for meat, but at the time, I felt that perhaps it wasn't something the government should be involved in. So I should probably clarify that I couldn't vote for him THEN. Would I now? I really don't know. I would have to re-examine his policies, etc. http://www.kinkyfriedman.com/issues/healthcare.pdf Again, I am not a huge fan of Rick Perry. One thing, though, that I have come to better understand is that Libertarians are NOT evil (not that I thought he was because of that then - but I was leery because of what I had read Rand and others stating about the party at the time), I have also come to realize that changing things in this great country to make them better is going to be a slow process, and that we need to take small steps. And while those small steps may not be 100% what be considered purely capitalist, if they are in the RIGHT direction, then I need to consider them. On a side note: during the last election I voted for every Libertarian local politicians, because even though the party has its issues, I know at least they are for small government and lower taxes. I wrote in John Galt for my presidential pick.

Oh I have no doubts it is ARI-ish. But I am quite happy to go. I certainly do not view them as a perfect organization, but I am open to attending lectures by their speakers and have been to several the past few years and enjoyed them immensely. Probably the only ones I would decline going to would be if they were political in nature. I don't really care for those so much, and I can always watch Yaron and others online, or read the ARI OpEd pieces, or TOS if I have the urge to see what's going on with them and politics. I suspect Smith will be there - isn't she a major recipient of a BBT grant, if not a chair? Bill P I think so. Though I could be wrong on that.

Kinky is a very funny guy. However, while I would have a cup of coffee with the guy, I could never vote for him. Rick Perry isn't the greatest, but he is more of a conservative than Kinky. It is a shame, I was really REALLY hoping I could vote for him because he is such a funny guy.

Disturbing, and yet at least he is consistent. He has always be a socialist and always will be.

Oh I have no doubts it is ARI-ish. But I am quite happy to go. I certainly do not view them as a perfect organization, but I am open to attending lectures by their speakers and have been to several the past few years and enjoyed them immensely. Probably the only ones I would decline going to would be if they were political in nature. I don't really care for those so much, and I can always watch Yaron and others online, or read the ARI OpEd pieces, or TOS if I have the urge to see what's going on with them and politics.

Are we limiting this specifically to books about Ayn Rand's fiction? If not there are a few other books: Ayn Rand For Beginners by Andrew Bernstein and Owen Brozman (Paperback - Jul 14, 2009) Objectivism in One Lesson: An Introduction to the Philosophy of Ayn Rand by Andrew Bernstein - this book is already out - I just ordered my copy yesterday, as a few of my friends enjoyed it. Thank you for the update on the other books. I am way behind on my reading in many subjects, but will add them on my long term reading list. (At this point I will have enough books I plan on reading through the next two years haha!)

Is there someone in authority at TAS that could possibly confirm whether they are retooling - maybe shutting the bookstore to use an alternative method to sell books/cds - or if they are indeed shutting down? Forgive me if I am being presumptuous in asking here; however, I think it would be good if someone that can speak for TAS could confirm this so we don't lose a lot of energy speculating.

I would be interested in this, although I too have a service, and not product I am selling. However, it isn't specifically an Objectivist service - I write resumes when not on a recruiting project. However, I do my best to apply Objectivist philosophy in my career and business.

Does this mean that The New Individualist Magazine won't be published any longer? I tried subscribing the other night and it didn't work - I thought perhaps technology was just mocking me. I haven't agreed with everything I have read online over there, but was interested in getting the mag, since there isn't really a non academic-ish regular print publication about Objectivism, at least that I have found.

I thought Rick Santelli made some wonderful points during his original rant on CNN last week. I signed up to recieved up dates a few days ago from the Chicago Tea Party site. Not sure where they are going to end up, but at least interesting to watch.

My thoughts are inline with what everyone has posted here. It doesn't make sense to me to not take care of the Earth so that we can get the most from it. I do agree that PETA and Greenpeace go waaayyy too far. My friends and I often joke that we belong to a different PETA - that is People for Eating Tasty Animals. I have come very VERY close to making a t-shirt on Cafepress that says it, haha. All my kids mostly get the over the top lectures in school regarding how man is damning the planet. It can take a lot of time to get them to understand that their teachers are not always presenting a balanced view. My 9 year old in particular (the Aspie kid) sometimes has a hard time with this - but I think that has a lot to do with the fact that she feels she can relate more to cats and other animals than humans.

It's sponsored by the BB&T Chair for the Study of Objectivism and the Anthem Fellowship for the Study of Objectivism. ARI does have it on their event list under "other events". Honestly, I don't offer check the ARI site for events because usually they are out in California. However, one of my local Objectivist friends is much better keeping an eye on local appearances than I am, so fortunately he let myself and several mutual friends know about it.

This will hopefully be my last post of the night (er - or morning) and I am not sure where to place it, so I apologize if I put it in the wrong sub-forum. One thing that I am a bit troubled by is many of the views I have read on environmentalism that many Objectivists have stated - not here specifically, (I apologize I haven't had the time to drill down to what has been stated here), but on other forums, as well as pieces written over at ARI specifically (my intention is not to trash ARI here, just noting where I have read some of these pieces). I do agree that most people that go by the term environmentalist do have things wrong - that we should not destroy mankind, say for the sake of saving a species, or that man should be forced to go to extreme measures to protect the environment. However, as I understand Objectivism so far, and the fact that we are to respect one another's property rights, I see no conflict with reasonable limits even by law on things like pollution. For example, my neighbor may own his land, but I do not think that it would be right for him to be doing things on his property that could like on to mine, and say, pollute my land through him dumping toxic waste on his which can leak over to mine, or having wild pit bulls run around and possibly pose a danger to myself and my family. I do not agree that people should not be allowed to build on their own property because it may be rated wet lands if doing so will cause no harm to another's property, for example. I do not agree that a person shouldn't be allowed to cut down a tree in their yard just because there may be some rare yellow bellied booby bird living in it. I also think that some of the pesticides that have been used in the past to wipe out malaria spreading bugs should not have been outlawed (I believe much of the information regarding DDT for example was flawed in the 70s.) That being said, I am curious as to what the thoughts of others are here? Edited to correct errors from my tired mind.

It is my favorite Ayn Rand novel as well. Her characters were so HUMAN. I am not sure I would have enjoyed the ending as much if I hadn't already read her other fiction works and several of her essays, because I may not have "gotten it". I recommend it to anyone I meet that has read any of her other novels. My husband and I will buy up copies of her non fiction book of essays or her novels when we see them at HalfPrice Books and lend or give them out to people that have not read her works. I get a lot of satisfaction out of that.

I know this is an old post - but I wanted to make the comment that I watched the video when it was available on ARI for free - and I thoroughly enjoyed it. I was very new to Objectivism at the time (about a year in I believe - not that I am not still "new" now, haha), and I actually learned a lot from this one lecture alone. In fact, it really got me thinking about how I treating my kids. In terms of justice, I remember she specifically pointed out that an important part of justice is giving some their due (as in positive comments) when they deserve it. It got me thinking? Is this something I am doing enough? After much introspection, I realized that with one child in particular (who kinda had a "big head" about her accomplishments at the time) I was not, because I was so worried about her ever expanding ego. That one lecture literally helped me realize what was something I considered a major flaw in my parenting.

This link has all the details on the speakers, directions, etc. http://www.utbbtchairobjectivism.com/ This event is at the University of Texas in Austin, and my husband and I are hoping to go - if we can get a babysitter for all the minions. If not, since that day is my birthday, the husband has graciously agreed that if one of us gets to go, I will - and he will manage the offspring. =) Anyway, I am VERY excited about this! And, although I am looking forward to the lectures, I really hope Tara Smith will be there and I will get to meet her. I am a huge fan of her book Ayn Rand's Normative Ethics and hoping if I do get to meet her she won't think I am lame if I ask for her autograph. I seriously enjoyed the book that much. Any way - anyone else planning on attending? I have a group of friends that plan on going as well, but if there are any peeps here that are going, I would love to meet you in person. If you are going, please consider sending me a PM so that I can look out for you and say "hey!"

I just wanted to make a comment regarding CRC - I have had the pleasure of attending CRC twice so far (unfortunately only once when Barbara's lectures were being offered) and I have enjoyed them very much. My husband has attended one lecture so far, and found it very enjoyable and well worth our time as well. I just wanted to pipe up and say that Donovan is doing an amazing job of promoting Objectivism in the Dallas TX area.

I have only had a chance to listen to the lecture Emotions As Tools of Cognition (Part 1) back in November, but I really enjoyed it.

HOLY COW!!!! That is IMPRESSIVE!!! I use Upromise as well - but haven't really found any coupons on their recently. I wish I could load coupons on one of my store loyalty cards. I shop at Walmart, Sam's Club and Kroger's depending on what I am getting and how the sales are going. However, I have to admit I am not as much as a coupon shopper as I could be. For bread, I do my best to hit the Mrs. Baird's Outlet store once or twice a week - where we can buy good bread for cheap squishy white bread prices. By the way - here is an excellent blog I read at least once a week: getrichslowly.org/blog I usually find some good information every time I visit the site. One thing that my husband and I have been working on for the past few years is getting better at managing money, and cutting spending and maximizing how we can save money on every day things is such a key - but one I am working on more.

I learned about Objectivism by attending a local Objectivist social group - I got there through an Humanist group I was attending at the time (long story) - and I had never read any of Ayn Rand's works. The second event we attended, I cornered one of the organizers, and talked to her for a long time about different things. She told me that I needed to start reading Rand's works, and suggested I started with Anthem, which I did, and then read The Founntainhead and Atlas Shrugged. I read We The Living last. I wished I had started with We The Living first - mostly because that is how I like to read authors in chronological order. This is my favorite piece of fiction by Ayn Rand. While I was angry at Kira for many of her choices through out the novel, I thought the ending - the final paragraph was extremely moving, and summed up really - for me anyhow-what Kira's struggle was all about.

I love Anthem. I have read it only once, but have listened to on on CD with my three youngest daughters. I will NEVER forget, when we were riding in the car listening to it, and when it came to the part where the main character was talking about the word they couldn't say, my daughter (who was 9 at the time) leaned forward in her seat, and looked at me and said:" Oh - I bet it is I!!" and was so excited she was right. To me, this was a great novel because it accomplished what Animal Farm and 1984 did, but with a better ending. (Though I love those two novels as well.)