[geeks] FYI: CompUSA is offering OS X 10.5 for $99 (after rebate)

[Shannon Hendrix]

On Oct 29, 2007, at 3:35 PM, Lionel Peterson wrote:

>>> I certainly don't deserve the government I got.
>
> I wasn't speaking about YOU PERSONALLY, I was speaking in the  
> general case - if only a minority of citizens vote, and they make  
> bad choices (taking your point below and assuming they have a  
> choice), then I contend they got what they deserve based on apathy.
>
> I wouldn't expect them to like it, and I would hope they would  
> change it, but my exp. points to that not happening...

Understood, but even when we have high voter turnout, I still don't  
get what I want or deserve, dammit!

Take a look at what the most popular TV shows, movies, and music are.

Then realize that the majority like that crap.

Then realize that with high voter turnout, that same majority will  
also be deciding your fate.

Egads.

> Agreed, see above - the lack of meaningful choice doesn't mean the  
> system is bad, it means it isn't staffed properly ;^)

The question is how to change the staff.  One big thing that would  
help is one of my suggestions to make most of the candidates come  
from non-legal professions.

>> "Yea - vote for me, suck less!"

"I don't inhale!"

>> Then elections would never end - if people would lose their  
>> voyeristic interest into everything in a politician's life, maybe  
>> some better candidates would step forward...

Why?

Other countries have used systems like that with great success, and  
so do some local US governments.  It seems to work pretty well from  
what I've read.

It isn't a system without limits.

Besides, I see it as more likely that people would learn to use this  
properly than I do that they'll lose interest in voyerism.

Rats...

> Personally, I turn off the TV/Radio when I hear a reporter argue  
> that "the people have a right to know" - it is ALWAYS something I  
> have no interest in... (of course few in the public eye are swayed  
> by the statement "I'm really curious about..." - and my favorite  
> was when the American Citizens had a right to know where the next  
> day's invasion into Kuwait was to be...)

What ticks me off about those statements is that people DO NOT HAVE A  
RIGHT to know.

There is no inherent right to know about 90% of what is in the "news"  
today.

Most of it is pure BS.

I remember years ago a man had reporters camped out in his yard for  
days.  He finally came out and turned a dog loose, and opened fire on  
them, after giving them a verbal warning fifteen minutes ahead of time.

A woman I worked with said, "My God, that's horrible."

I said, "I know, they put the poor guy in jail instead of the  
survivors."

>> Until we reject the crap we are fed about the candidates that want  
>> to make a change, we'll never get a reasonable choice.

I don't think that's true.

There are places I've been where the people *DID* reject the crap,  
and nothing changed.

It takes more than just that.  We need some pretty deep changes in  
the system and restrictions on who can run for office and for how long.

I'm telling you, a lot can be fixed by the elimination of long-term  
positions, and the reduction in the number of candidates from the  
legal profession.

>> The first step is to get the majority of citizens to vote, then  
>> you have a chance, as long as the self-interested are the only  
>> ones voting, it will never change.

I don't want the majority to vote.  I personally don't believe that's  
a good idea.

Thomas Jefferson had the right idea: get the majority of the natural  
aristocracy to vote, and most everything else falls into place.

The majority will never give you anything intelligent.

The US system is actually designed to suppress the mouth breathing  
majority, and for good reason.

> Great, when do we start prosecuting judges? ;^)

Unfortunately, it's hard to get two made men to kill each other...

Ahem.

Seriously, there is this problem with bring a corrupt judge before  
yet another corrupt judge.

What do you think the odds are that the benched judged will be too  
hard on the one sitting in defense?

The big thing is to never let them get office in the first place.

Having said that, there is some movement here and there to start  
watchdogging them on issues of jurisprudence, which at least gets the  
ball rolling.

Around here our major weapon is old age: the most corrupt of them are  
dying off faster than the corrupt government can install their  
friends into place.

One good guy managed to slip into a high ranking judge's position and  
boy are the good old boys ticked off... :)

>>
>>> Many decisions the Supreme Court makes are bad, esp. when they look
>>> to foreign countries for guidance, rather than oour own documents...
>>
>> Ah, you've seen that too.
>
> Yep.

Something else to ponder: Ronald Reagan was the last US president who  
knew that we were a republic.

-- 
"Where some they sell their dreams for small desires."