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

[Lionel Peterson]

>From: Shannon Hendrix <shannon at widomaker.com>
>Date: 2007/10/29 Mon PM 02:05:49 CDT
>To: The Geeks List <geeks at sunhelp.org>
>Subject: Re: [geeks] FYI: CompUSA is offering OS X 10.5 for $99 (after rebate)

>On Oct 29, 2007, at 9:46 AM, Lionel Peterson wrote:
>
>> You and your neighbors voted in the spineless twit politician that  
>> caved to Wal-Mart and picked up their gun (in your example), that's  
>> a big difference - you could have voted in politicians with spines...
>>
>> People tend to get the government they deserve here in America, not  
>> the government they want.
>
>I disagree with that rather strongly.

OK...

>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...
 
>The problem with your idea on voting is that voting only works if  
>there are valid choices to vote on.

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

>I can't remember the last election where I had the chance to vote on  
>a politician with a spine.  Most of the time it is very difficult to  
>tell any real differences between them.

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

>What *would* allow us to change things is to be able to vote no  
>confidence, or vote that none were acceptable.

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...

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...)

>Until we can reject the choices, we will be limited to choosing the  
>least crappy one, which is not going to yield good results.

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

>In the last 20 years, I've been able to vote about 6 times for a  
>candidate that I thought was a good one.  I almost always vote, but  
>most of the time my vote doesn't mean a damned thing, because they  
>are all the same.

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.

>>> Activist Judges are bad, period.
>
>It's also illegal.

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

>Then again, so is violation of jurisprudence, which federal judges  
>get away with all the time.
>
>No one is guarding the guardians...
>
>> 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.

Lionel