Two days ago, I lost power early in the afternoon. It was out for about two hours. It could have been worse, since the original estimate for resumption was 3-4 hours. It was maybe slightly drizzling that afternoon, there were no noticeable winds, I was unaware of any branch that fell, and it was a mystery as to why the power went out. I did see an FPL truck drive by at some point, and the power later came back on.
Yesterday, I lost power again. This time, it was late afternoon/early evening, and this time, it was raining. It wasn't pouring, and there were no other obvious factors, and I needed to eat dinner. So I went out. By the time I got home, the power was back on. I have no idea how long it was out. Or why.
And both times, FPL communicated by e-mail and text message, to let me know that, you know, the power was out (um, yeah, I can tell), and they included a fact that wouldn't generally appear to have any meaning for an individual homeowner: the power was out at 43 properties. Both days. Hmm.
Do you want to know if the power is going to go out today some time? Ask me tonight, and I'll tell you if it did.
Early this morning, FPL sent an e-survey asking about my experience, and how, you know, satisfied I was with FPL's handling of this mystery problem (never explained), and with FPL.
Well, you know, not very. I'd like the power not to go out. If it does, I'd like to know why it did. And whatever is the reason, I'd like it not to happen to (the same?) 43 properties two days in a row. And besides all that, I'd like FPL not to rip me off by charging me for electricity I don't use, and suddenly and inexplicably tripling their "minimum" monthly charge so their brass and investors can continue to pick my pocket, and so that FPL won't be under any pressure to modernize and innovate. "Heaven" forbid they should have to compete. There's a limit to how far capitalism should have to go.
Then, there's the matter of Clarence Thomas. Thomas was nominated to the Supreme Court by GHWB. Over the 30 years since then, it has been maddening to see how Thomas executes his responsibility. He more or less never asks any questions during hearings, and he used to vote along with his uncle Tony Scalia, unless he could find a position even further to the right than that. (I know. There's a position further to the right than Tony Scalia's? Rarely, but sometimes. And Thomas could find it.) So I'm sorry to say that I concluded that Thomas was stupid. I thought he was an unthinking and disinterested (except in which direction is furthest to the right) dimwit.
But it has recently been coming out that Thomas has a sponsor. His sponsor (possibly apart from the late Scalia) is a Texas real estate mogul named Harlan Crow. Crow, who is himself very far right, lavishes on Thomas and Thomas' wife imaginable and unimaginable luxuries. Or, to put it slightly differently, Crow pays Thomas to represent an ideology. And I have every confidence that Crow pays Thomas more than we do.
Is it in some sense unfair, or even wrong, for Thomas, or anyone, to take pay from two sources that want potentially opposite things, and satisfy one of them, and frustrate the other? Yeah, it sort of is. What would prevent that would be something like rules of ethics on the Supreme Court. Except we don't have any -- never really thought we needed them, presumably -- and the moral "compass" for someone like Thomas can be whichever direction is furthest right, or whoever pays more.
But the point is that I was wrong about Thomas. He's not (necessarily) a dimwit. He's a craftsman. He has a clear understanding of what his customer wants, which is not unlikely what he, too, wants, and he delivers as perfect a finished product as he can. That's not good for the Court, or for the country, but it's good for Thomas and his patron.
No comments:
Post a Comment