[geeks] KVM for Sun Sparc Servers with USB keyboards

[Jonathan C. Patschke]

On Wed, 6 May 2009, Lionel Peterson wrote:

> You can "shop around", you can leave or reform Gov't, that either is
> hard does not make them impossible choices.

And that's the problem.  If I want a different service, I have to pack up
and leave?  Why?  Why can't I just fire the ineffective one (and stop
paying it) and begin paying a competitor?

>> Not necessarily.  "We're going to look out for each other" is a worlds
>> apart from what we have now.
>
> Collective security is a primary responsibility of government (and La Cosa 
> Nostra).

But the US Supreme Court have ruled over and over again that no state,
federal, or local government agency has any responsibility (ie:
accountability) to defend or protect any individual or collective not
already in their custody.

>> But, if you don't agree with it, why should you be forced to fund it?
>> If they feel -so strongly- for those sorts of things, surely they would
>> be willing to fund them, right?
>
> Tax obligations are not a chinese menu,

"Things aren't that way" isn't an answer to "why aren't things this way".

> if it were there'd be no need for the Congress (or other government
> representatives), policy decions would be made based on the funding (or
> lack of funding) from the citizens.

Which is a lot closer to representation that we have now.

> Based on my sketchy education, that sounds like a true democracy, as
> opposed to the republic form of government we currently enjoy here in
> the US of A.

A republic form of government inherently involves representation.  When
there are huge numbers of people against things (bailouts, wars overseas)
and huge number of people divided on others (drug prohibition,
climate-change legislation), and the "representatives" still see the only
way as a one-size-fits-all-but-really-doesn't way, that's not
representation.  That's just being arbitrary.

>> How's that working for us?  Really?
>
> I believe in the electoral process as it is currently is implemented
> here in the US of A, apparently you want more frequent
> sampling(election).

No, I really don't.  I want to be able to decide what's best for my life
without some asshat a few thousand miles away deciding that it has to be
the same thing that's right for someone in Montana or Arizona or even next
door.

>> All the laws Bush broke ceased to become his problem when Obama got
>> into office.  Suddenly, the Democrats were talking about amnesty for
>> Bush's wiretapping because it was their guy who was in the hot seat for
>> it.
>
> The actions of one leader, or a handfull of leaders, only proves the
> values of those leaders at the time of their leadership.

What the hell sort of justification is that?  It's okay to break laws
because they conflict with one's values, but only if you're elected into
power to create and enforce those laws??

> For every US President you would consider a failure, I could probably
> find another you thought got it right - what would that prove?

I'll take that challenge.  Even Washington showed how oppressive he could
be through quelling the "Whiskey Rebellion".  Lincoln stomped on freedom
of the press and was approximately as instrumental in the war between the
states (which Lincoln said he would end without freeing a single black
slave, if he could) as the Confederacy for firing on Fort Sumter.

> If 90% of the people that spoke to Al Gore told him Global Warming was
> wrong, would he change his position? Leaders lead, and take
> responsibility for their actions - they don't simply follow popularity
> polls.

Elected.  Representatives.  Are.  Not.  Leaders.

You cannot represent my interests/opinions at the very same time you're
telling me that I need to put them aside for something else.

> Remember the dust-up when George W. wouldn't answer the question what
> mistakes have you made (in his first term?), and his answer was I made
> the best decision I could, at the time, based on the information
> available to me at the time. That is leadership.

You confuse hubris with leadership.

> We got the government we deserve, don't like it change it - your greatest 
> hurdles will likely be the victims of public education and general apathy on 
> the part of the citizenry.

Why do a minority of responsible people deserve the same government that
the majority of irresponsible people deserve?  Doesn't that go against the
very core of "deserving" something?

-- 
Jonathan Patschke ( "They don't have the right to read a book out loud."
Elgin, TX         (                  --Paul Aiken
USA               (                    Executive Director, Authors Guild