If McCain had won and we were talking about the governor of Arizona you all, as well as the media, would be falling all over yourselves to pin the whole thing on McCain and/or Bush. Kucinich would have already drafted impeachment papers, Pelosi would have already called for multiple congressional investigations, and slashdotters would be posting +5 Insightful comments about how republican corruption knows no bounds. But when a piece of shit Chicago Democrat is being impeached for selling a senate seat, not to mention the federal fraud and bribery charges, it's unthinkable that he should face problems? Problems!
Do me a favor. Walk to the nearest mirror. Look at yourself, and repeat after me ten times, "I am not a victim."
I thought the US was all about "the government can't tell me what to do".
You're advocating forcing people to eat and live a certain way else they'll be denied there supposedly "universal" care.
If it's alright for the government to force me to pay for health insurance for all the fatbodied land-monsters out there, then it's just as alright for the government to force all of those fatbodies to get their asses in gear.
You're making the mistake of assuming that I care about your situation. I don't, even a little bit. And apparently, neither did you, or you wouldn't have acted so irresponsibly. If you're mature enough to have a child, you're mature enough to slap on a rubber if you know you can't afford it. Don't expect society to pay for your poor decision making.
I couldn't agree more. I have no interest in paying for health insurance for the same land monsters that have destroyed the public school system, without some kind of assurance that they'll be forced to take care of themselves.
I propose the following physical standards:
Must be able to run 5 miles in under 40 minutes. Must be able to perform 3 sets of 10 pull ups, spaced no more than 60 seconds apart. Must be able to perform 3 sets of 8 dumbbell bench presses at 100% of body weight, spaced no more than 3 minutes apart. Must be able to perform 3 sets of 8 squats at 150% of body weight, spaced no more than 3 minutes apart.
I can quite easily perform all of these tasks, which greatly reduces the cost of my health insurance. Why should my costs double so that I can take care of a bunch of worthless fatbodies? If you can't perform these exercises, how do you feel about the government forcing you to exercise? Without mandatory physical standards, you'll run into the same issues you run into with the public school system; parent's don't care about their children and don't emphasize education or discipline. I live a couple of miles away from a public high school that's in the top 5% nationally, yet all 5 of the private high schools within 15 miles rank substantially higher. If you want your children to have a quality education in the United States, you have to pay for public schools for everyone else's children, and private schools for your own. The same will be true of health care.
That's the same situation that Obama ran into with Iraq. The fact of the matter is he made a bunch of baseless, impractical promises to appease the left and get elected.
Because if you're making $40k/year after taxes and you don't have health insurance, you deserve what you get? Poor planning on your part doesn't constitute crisis on mine.
And it will backfire. The kind of people that you want to hire are those that are generally happy and socially well adjusted, because they're better able to work with others effectively. A facebook profile that shows them regularly socializing with friends would support that.
The REPUBLICANS weren't behind the "affordable housing mission". Democrats blocked regulation in 2004, attacking the regulator, and defeated the Federal Housing Enterprise Regulatory Reform Act of 2005, cosponsored by John McCain. Democrats like Barney Frank cried racism whenever the republicans suggested regulating Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, and had control of the house financial services committee which oversees the GSEs.
"I worry, frankly, that there's a tension here. The more people, in my judgment, exaggerate a threat of safety and soundness, the more people conjure up the possibility of serious financial losses to the Treasury, which I do not see. I think we see entities that are fundamentally sound financially and withstand some of the disastrous scenarios. And even if there were a problem, the Federal Government doesn't bail them out. But the more pressure there is there, then the less I think we see in terms of affordable housing."
Rep. Barney Frank (D., Mass.) House Financial Services Committee hearing Sept. 10, 2003
"I think this is a case where Fannie and Freddie are fundamentally sound, that they are not in danger of going under. They're not the best investments these days from the long- term standpoint going back. I think they are in good shape going forward. They're in a housing market. I do think their prospects going forward are very solid. And in fact, we're going to do some things that are going to improve them."
Rep. Barney Frank (D., Mass.) July 14, 2008
"I join as a cosponsor of the Federal Housing Enterprise Regulatory Reform Act of 2005, S. 190, to underscore my support for quick passage of GSE regulatory reform legislation. If Congress does not act, American taxpayers will continue to be exposed to the enormous risk that Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac pose to the housing market, the overall financial system, and the economy as a whole.
I urge my colleagues to support swift action on this GSE reform legislation."
John McCain May 26, 2006
Here are some additional quotes from the Fannie/Freddie Fraud Investigation in 2004
BAKER (R-LA): It is indeed a very troubling report, but it is a report of extraordinary importance not only to those who wish to own a home, but as to the taxpayers of this country who would pay the cost of the clean up of an enterprise failure.
WATERS (D-CA): Through nearly a dozen hearings where, frankly, we were trying to fix something that wasn't broke, Mr. Chairman, we do not have a crisis at Freddie Mac, and particularly at Fannie Mae, under the outstanding leadership of Mr. Frank Raines.
MEEKS (D-NY): As well as the fact that I'm just pissed off at OFHEO, because if it wasn't for you, I don't think that we'd be here in the first place, and now the problem that we have and that we're faced with is: maybe some individuals who wanted to do away with GSEs in the first place, you've given them an excuse to try to have this forum so that we can talk about it and maybe change the, uh, the direction and the mission of what the GSEs had, which they've done a tremendous job. There's been nothing that was indicated that's wrong, you know, with Fannie Mae! Freddie Mac has come up on its own. And the question that then presents is the competence that -- that -- that -- that your agency uh, uh, with reference to, uh, uh, deciding and regulating these GSEs. Uh, and so, uh, I wish I could sit here and say that I'm not upset with you, but I am very upset because, you know, what you do is give -- you know, maybe giving any reason to, as Mr. Gonzales said, to give someone a heart surgery when they really don't need it.
ROYCE (R-CA): In addition to our important oversight role in this committee, I hope that we will move swiftly to create a new regulatory structure for Fannie Mae, for Freddie Mac, and the federal home loan banks.
It could come back to haunt you later for a job interview...especially if it is security related.
I think it's going to go the other way once people begin to realize that most people are human and have a life outside of the office. In other words, people will loosen up a bit and realize that having pictures of yourself doing the stuff that everybody else is doing anyway isn't a bad thing, the increased transparency will force standards to relax. Sort of like how Clinton didn't inhale, Bush snorted coke, and Obama smoked pot, yet they were all able to be elected. 50 years ago that likely wouldn't have been the case.
Perhaps we'll finally lighten up a bit about nudity now that porn, and all sorts of weird stuff at that, is so readily available online and viewed in such massive numbers.
Welch cut staff initially, and continued the yearly decimation while hiring at the same time for the duration of his tenure at GE. Welch's strategy and the competitiveness created at GE did wonders for the company. From Wikipedia:
He led the company to massive revenues. In 1980, the year before Welch became CEO, GE recorded revenues of roughly $26.8 billion. In 2000, the year before he left, the revenues increased to nearly $130 billion. When Jack Welch left GE, the company had gone from a market value of $14 billion to one of more than $410 billion at the end of 2004, making it the most valuable and largest company in the world.
The problem that your company probably ran into was not taking the culture far enough. Part of what Welch encouraged was brutal honesty and transparency. "In a transparent system, I really believe everyone has to know where they stand. The top 20% should be rewarded, the middle 70% should be encouraged to try to get into the top 20% and the bottom 10% should be told to move on. That is to say, you tell people constantly if they're in the bottom 10%; you don't just come in one day and sack them." The idea being most people will either make an effort to improve or leave on their own accord.
"People say it's the cruelest, most Darwinian concept in the world," Welch said. " Let me tell you what's cruel: what's cruel is that 'kind' manager who says 'I would never tell someone when they're going wrong because I'm just too kind'. Then a recession turns up and the same kind manager says to Joe or Mary or whoever, 'We're going to have to let you go,' and they reply, 'But I've been here 31 years. Why hasn't anybody told me [that I've been performing badly]?'."
When someone asked Welch "How do you effect change through lower levels of management?", he replied, "By rewarding those who change and shooting those who resist." Welch didn't just apply this philosophy to employees, he applied it to entire businesses within GE, "When I became chairman we were proud of having 157 businesses. Some had lost money for 20 years but they were just part of the mothership. So we drove through a mantra: 'Fix, sell or close.'"
For what it's worth, Welch joined GE as a junior chemical engineer in 1960, and worked his way up through the company. His main goals were efficiency of operation and elimination of bureaucracy. His system definitely won't work everywhere, and certainly doesn't work with every personality type, but with the right people it is very effective.
You're grasping at straws. If not value, what would you suggest measuring by, office space square footage? According to Forbes composite company size scores, GE is the second largest company, further disproving your assertion that GE isn't a market leader. You should really have at least a little bit of knowledge about something before you begin pontificating about it.
And on a basic level, I strongly object to the idea that it's a good business practice to just keep turning up the heat on your employees. I worked for many, many years for a very successful company that thrived because we kept a strong, informed staff that knew how to work together. We were acquired by a "high pressure, gotta deliver now, fire the bottom 10%, no time to do it right just do it!" company,and the result was dismal failure after dismal failure. So to say the least, I'm not impressed.
That's probably because you don't have a strong enough personality for it, and the organization wasn't structured for it. Welch wasn't big on firing the grunts, he fired the bottom-performing 10% of managers. Performance motivated people need to be in place for the system to work. Strong performers loved to work at GE under Welch because they were promoted quickly and paid accordingly, with brutal honesty respected more than gushy crap.
Actually GE is 3rd, according to the Financial Times Global 500 (http://media.ft.com/cms/eee5847a-9085-11dd-8abb-0000779fd18c.pdf). Market capitalization is the current fair market value of the company, General Motors is not in the top 500, and only has a $1.97B market cap, compared to the > $134B of GE.
If you don't think that market capitalization is an indicator of company value, I suggest you read up on the subject.
You're right, they're only the worlds third largest company, after Exxon Mobil and Petrochina, and second in the BrandZ (brand recognition) ranking to Google. Oh wait...
From Wikipedia, "GE, which was a conglomerate long before the term was coined, is arguably the most successful organization of this type."
Welch left GE in 2001, when they were doing significantly better than they are even today.
You might not like it, but it does work. From 1980 to 1985, Jack Welch reduced GE from 411,000 employees, to 299,000 employees, while substantially increasing their market capitalization. Plenty of people thrive in highly competitive, pressured environments. In my experience, the ones that don't are the ones that prefer "group work" as it allows them to more easily pass the buck to the people that actually perform.
The National Park Service produced official estimates until 1995, when they were ordered by congress to stop, after being sued by Louis Farrakhan for estimating only 400,000 attended the Million Man March. They're providing official estimates for the size of the inauguration crowd.
There weren't even close to 2 million people. In fact it's unclear if the Obama inauguration even surpassed the record of 1.2 million previously set by Lyndon Johnson. This smells just like the "Million Man March", more media perpetuated bullshit.
No, it's not. The 58.8% to 40.6% victory of Reagan over Mondale in 1984 was an overwhelming victory, with Reagan winning 49 of the 50 states (525 to 13 electoral votes). Perhaps if the liberal media blowhards didn't favor Obama 3 to 1, the margin would have been significantly less than 7%.
You're being rather disingenuous, aren't you. You seem to imply that the 1.5% difference between the 2004 and 2008 election was massive, while the difference between the 2000 and 2004 election was 4%, from 1992 to 1996 was -6% and from 1988 to 1992 was 5%. 1.5% is significantly lower than 4%, 5% or 6%, yet I don't recall hearing about the massive numbers that turned out to support Bush. Voter turnout was within 2% of this election in 2004, 1992, and 1972. As much as the media would like to portray massive voter turnout and a Obama landslide, the facts don't support it. For an actual landslide, see the 1984 election where Reagan won 49 of the 50 states. Over 63% voter turnout in 1960 makes the Obama turnout of under 57% and the media praise of how record setting it was seem rather transparent.
Whether you voted for the guy or not, one cannot deny the magnitude of Barack Obama's clinching of the U.S. Presidency. This past election has seen a level of participation from a large cross-section of our nation, showing America's concern for it's future, both home and abroad.
This is media-generated crap. 56.8% of the voting-age population voted in 2008, up from 55.3% in 2004, but below 1960, 64, and 68 at 63.1%, 61.9%, and 60.8% respectively. While the media would like you to believe that people turned out in unprecedented numbers solely to support Obama, that's not the case.
That's because for the most part it's the same software with the same interfaces and functions. Having to drop to a shell and edit config files on a desktop system to make minor configuration tweaks is unacceptable.
Slashdot Mirror
If McCain had won and we were talking about the governor of Arizona you all, as well as the media, would be falling all over yourselves to pin the whole thing on McCain and/or Bush. Kucinich would have already drafted impeachment papers, Pelosi would have already called for multiple congressional investigations, and slashdotters would be posting +5 Insightful comments about how republican corruption knows no bounds. But when a piece of shit Chicago Democrat is being impeached for selling a senate seat, not to mention the federal fraud and bribery charges, it's unthinkable that he should face problems? Problems!
Do me a favor. Walk to the nearest mirror. Look at yourself, and repeat after me ten times, "I am not a victim."
I thought the US was all about "the government can't tell me what to do".
You're advocating forcing people to eat and live a certain way else they'll be denied there supposedly "universal" care.
If it's alright for the government to force me to pay for health insurance for all the fatbodied land-monsters out there, then it's just as alright for the government to force all of those fatbodies to get their asses in gear.
You're making the mistake of assuming that I care about your situation. I don't, even a little bit. And apparently, neither did you, or you wouldn't have acted so irresponsibly. If you're mature enough to have a child, you're mature enough to slap on a rubber if you know you can't afford it. Don't expect society to pay for your poor decision making.
I couldn't agree more. I have no interest in paying for health insurance for the same land monsters that have destroyed the public school system, without some kind of assurance that they'll be forced to take care of themselves.
I propose the following physical standards:
Must be able to run 5 miles in under 40 minutes.
Must be able to perform 3 sets of 10 pull ups, spaced no more than 60 seconds apart.
Must be able to perform 3 sets of 8 dumbbell bench presses at 100% of body weight, spaced no more than 3 minutes apart.
Must be able to perform 3 sets of 8 squats at 150% of body weight, spaced no more than 3 minutes apart.
I can quite easily perform all of these tasks, which greatly reduces the cost of my health insurance. Why should my costs double so that I can take care of a bunch of worthless fatbodies? If you can't perform these exercises, how do you feel about the government forcing you to exercise? Without mandatory physical standards, you'll run into the same issues you run into with the public school system; parent's don't care about their children and don't emphasize education or discipline. I live a couple of miles away from a public high school that's in the top 5% nationally, yet all 5 of the private high schools within 15 miles rank substantially higher. If you want your children to have a quality education in the United States, you have to pay for public schools for everyone else's children, and private schools for your own. The same will be true of health care.
That's the same situation that Obama ran into with Iraq. The fact of the matter is he made a bunch of baseless, impractical promises to appease the left and get elected.
Because if you're making $40k/year after taxes and you don't have health insurance, you deserve what you get? Poor planning on your part doesn't constitute crisis on mine.
And it will backfire. The kind of people that you want to hire are those that are generally happy and socially well adjusted, because they're better able to work with others effectively. A facebook profile that shows them regularly socializing with friends would support that.
Finally, change we can believe in!
The REPUBLICANS weren't behind the "affordable housing mission". Democrats blocked regulation in 2004, attacking the regulator, and defeated the Federal Housing Enterprise Regulatory Reform Act of 2005, cosponsored by John McCain. Democrats like Barney Frank cried racism whenever the republicans suggested regulating Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, and had control of the house financial services committee which oversees the GSEs.
"I worry, frankly, that there's a tension here. The more people, in my judgment, exaggerate a
threat of safety and soundness, the more people conjure up the possibility of serious financial losses to the Treasury, which I do not see. I think we see entities that are fundamentally sound financially and withstand some of the disastrous scenarios. And even if there were a problem, the Federal Government doesn't bail them out . But the more pressure there is there, then the less I think we see in terms of affordable housing."
Rep. Barney Frank (D., Mass.)
House Financial Services Committee hearing
Sept. 10, 2003
"I think this is a case where Fannie and Freddie are fundamentally sound, that they are not in danger of going under. They're not the best investments these days from the long- term standpoint going back. I think they are in good shape going forward. They're in a housing market. I do think their prospects going forward are very solid. And in fact, we're going to do some things that are going to improve them."
Rep. Barney Frank (D., Mass.)
July 14, 2008
"I join as a cosponsor of the Federal Housing Enterprise Regulatory Reform Act of 2005, S. 190, to underscore my support for quick passage of GSE regulatory reform legislation. If Congress does not act, American taxpayers will continue to be exposed to the enormous risk that Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac pose to the housing market, the overall financial system, and the economy as a whole.
I urge my colleagues to support swift action on this GSE reform legislation."
John McCain
May 26, 2006
Here are some additional quotes from the Fannie/Freddie Fraud Investigation in 2004
BAKER (R-LA): It is indeed a very troubling report, but it is a report of extraordinary importance not only to those who wish to own a home, but as to the taxpayers of this country who would pay the cost of the clean up of an enterprise failure.
WATERS (D-CA): Through nearly a dozen hearings where, frankly, we were trying to fix something that wasn't broke, Mr. Chairman, we do not have a crisis at Freddie Mac, and particularly at Fannie Mae, under the outstanding leadership of Mr. Frank Raines.
MEEKS (D-NY): As well as the fact that I'm just pissed off at OFHEO, because if it wasn't for you, I don't think that we'd be here in the first place, and now the problem that we have and that we're faced with is: maybe some individuals who wanted to do away with GSEs in the first place, you've given them an excuse to try to have this forum so that we can talk about it and maybe change the, uh, the direction and the mission of what the GSEs had, which they've done a tremendous job. There's been nothing that was indicated that's wrong, you know, with Fannie Mae! Freddie Mac has come up on its own. And the question that then presents is the competence that -- that -- that -- that your agency uh, uh, with reference to, uh, uh, deciding and regulating these GSEs. Uh, and so, uh, I wish I could sit here and say that I'm not upset with you, but I am very upset because, you know, what you do is give -- you know, maybe giving any reason to, as Mr. Gonzales said, to give someone a heart surgery when they really don't need it.
ROYCE (R-CA): In addition to our important oversight role in this committee, I hope that we will move swiftly to create a new regulatory structure for Fannie Mae, for Freddie Mac, and the federal home loan banks.
CLAY (D-MO): This hea
It could come back to haunt you later for a job interview...especially if it is security related.
I think it's going to go the other way once people begin to realize that most people are human and have a life outside of the office. In other words, people will loosen up a bit and realize that having pictures of yourself doing the stuff that everybody else is doing anyway isn't a bad thing, the increased transparency will force standards to relax. Sort of like how Clinton didn't inhale, Bush snorted coke, and Obama smoked pot, yet they were all able to be elected. 50 years ago that likely wouldn't have been the case.
Perhaps we'll finally lighten up a bit about nudity now that porn, and all sorts of weird stuff at that, is so readily available online and viewed in such massive numbers.
This is clearly a double standard applied because they are Democrats.
Welch cut staff initially, and continued the yearly decimation while hiring at the same time for the duration of his tenure at GE. Welch's strategy and the competitiveness created at GE did wonders for the company. From Wikipedia:
He led the company to massive revenues. In 1980, the year before Welch became CEO, GE recorded revenues of roughly $26.8 billion. In 2000, the year before he left, the revenues increased to nearly $130 billion. When Jack Welch left GE, the company had gone from a market value of $14 billion to one of more than $410 billion at the end of 2004, making it the most valuable and largest company in the world.
The problem that your company probably ran into was not taking the culture far enough. Part of what Welch encouraged was brutal honesty and transparency. "In a transparent system, I really believe everyone has to know where they stand. The top 20% should be rewarded, the middle 70% should be encouraged to try to get into the top 20% and the bottom 10% should be told to move on. That is to say, you tell people constantly if they're in the bottom 10%; you don't just come in one day and sack them." The idea being most people will either make an effort to improve or leave on their own accord.
"People say it's the cruelest, most Darwinian concept in the world," Welch said. " Let me tell you what's cruel: what's cruel is that 'kind' manager who says 'I would never tell someone when they're going wrong because I'm just too kind'. Then a recession turns up and the same kind manager says to Joe or Mary or whoever, 'We're going to have to let you go,' and they reply, 'But I've been here 31 years. Why hasn't anybody told me [that I've been performing badly]?'."
When someone asked Welch "How do you effect change through lower levels of management?", he replied, "By rewarding those who change and shooting those who resist." Welch didn't just apply this philosophy to employees, he applied it to entire businesses within GE, "When I became chairman we were proud of having 157 businesses. Some had lost money for 20 years but they were just part of the mothership. So we drove through a mantra: 'Fix, sell or close.'"
For what it's worth, Welch joined GE as a junior chemical engineer in 1960, and worked his way up through the company. His main goals were efficiency of operation and elimination of bureaucracy. His system definitely won't work everywhere, and certainly doesn't work with every personality type, but with the right people it is very effective.
You're grasping at straws. If not value, what would you suggest measuring by, office space square footage? According to Forbes composite company size scores, GE is the second largest company, further disproving your assertion that GE isn't a market leader. You should really have at least a little bit of knowledge about something before you begin pontificating about it.
And on a basic level, I strongly object to the idea that it's a good business practice to just keep turning up the heat on your employees. I worked for many, many years for a very successful company that thrived because we kept a strong, informed staff that knew how to work together. We were acquired by a "high pressure, gotta deliver now, fire the bottom 10%, no time to do it right just do it!" company ,and the result was dismal failure after dismal failure. So to say the least, I'm not impressed.
That's probably because you don't have a strong enough personality for it, and the organization wasn't structured for it. Welch wasn't big on firing the grunts, he fired the bottom-performing 10% of managers. Performance motivated people need to be in place for the system to work. Strong performers loved to work at GE under Welch because they were promoted quickly and paid accordingly, with brutal honesty respected more than gushy crap.
Actually GE is 3rd, according to the Financial Times Global 500 (http://media.ft.com/cms/eee5847a-9085-11dd-8abb-0000779fd18c.pdf). Market capitalization is the current fair market value of the company, General Motors is not in the top 500, and only has a $1.97B market cap, compared to the > $134B of GE.
If you don't think that market capitalization is an indicator of company value, I suggest you read up on the subject.
You're right, they're only the worlds third largest company, after Exxon Mobil and Petrochina, and second in the BrandZ (brand recognition) ranking to Google. Oh wait...
From Wikipedia, "GE, which was a conglomerate long before the term was coined, is arguably the most successful organization of this type."
Welch left GE in 2001, when they were doing significantly better than they are even today.
You might not like it, but it does work. From 1980 to 1985, Jack Welch reduced GE from 411,000 employees, to 299,000 employees, while substantially increasing their market capitalization. Plenty of people thrive in highly competitive, pressured environments. In my experience, the ones that don't are the ones that prefer "group work" as it allows them to more easily pass the buck to the people that actually perform.
The National Park Service produced official estimates until 1995, when they were ordered by congress to stop, after being sued by Louis Farrakhan for estimating only 400,000 attended the Million Man March. They're providing official estimates for the size of the inauguration crowd.
There weren't even close to 2 million people. In fact it's unclear if the Obama inauguration even surpassed the record of 1.2 million previously set by Lyndon Johnson. This smells just like the "Million Man March", more media perpetuated bullshit.
Just because you want it to be an incredible turnout doesn't mean it was. Wish in one hand and shit in the other and see which fills up first.
I'll take Federal Election Commission data over liberal bullshit drivel from the politico any day, http://www.infoplease.com/ipa/A0781453.html.
That is an overwhelming victory?
No, it's not. The 58.8% to 40.6% victory of Reagan over Mondale in 1984 was an overwhelming victory, with Reagan winning 49 of the 50 states (525 to 13 electoral votes). Perhaps if the liberal media blowhards didn't favor Obama 3 to 1, the margin would have been significantly less than 7%.
You're being rather disingenuous, aren't you. You seem to imply that the 1.5% difference between the 2004 and 2008 election was massive, while the difference between the 2000 and 2004 election was 4%, from 1992 to 1996 was -6% and from 1988 to 1992 was 5%. 1.5% is significantly lower than 4%, 5% or 6%, yet I don't recall hearing about the massive numbers that turned out to support Bush. Voter turnout was within 2% of this election in 2004, 1992, and 1972. As much as the media would like to portray massive voter turnout and a Obama landslide, the facts don't support it. For an actual landslide, see the 1984 election where Reagan won 49 of the 50 states. Over 63% voter turnout in 1960 makes the Obama turnout of under 57% and the media praise of how record setting it was seem rather transparent.
Whether you voted for the guy or not, one cannot deny the magnitude of Barack Obama's clinching of the U.S. Presidency. This past election has seen a level of participation from a large cross-section of our nation, showing America's concern for it's future, both home and abroad.
This is media-generated crap. 56.8% of the voting-age population voted in 2008, up from 55.3% in 2004, but below 1960, 64, and 68 at 63.1%, 61.9%, and 60.8% respectively. While the media would like you to believe that people turned out in unprecedented numbers solely to support Obama, that's not the case.
I don't have to edit the registry to get more than one monitor to work with Compiz Fusion.
People seem perfectly capable of adapting to OSX.
That's because for the most part it's the same software with the same interfaces and functions. Having to drop to a shell and edit config files on a desktop system to make minor configuration tweaks is unacceptable.