[jdhayes117]

whitedog, on 26 February 2012 - 05:26 AM, said:

@ PeterDeep: Among the issues with Lion raised by users are Autosave and Versions with the concomitant loss of Save As in the File menu, which imposes a major change in workflow that many people find disruptive; the morbidly ugly interface changes plus the loss of usability in the generic gray Finder sidebar icons; the loss of usability with the narrow window scrollbars; the loss of Spaces and its inadequate (for some) and less functional replacement, Desktops, in Mission Control.

@ jdhayes117: If you are unaware of the problems people have with OS X then you don't read as widely as you think you do. Just because you have had no trouble with Lion does not mean others have not. Few problems are ever universal; that does not mean they are unimportant. The last security update for Snow Leopard broke Rosetta, causing a general panic among the many users who still rely on PPC apps. Apple patched it a few days later. If you no longer use Snow Leopard you would not have encountered this issue. The OS X 10.7.3 update downloaded via Software Update did a great deal of damage to some people's systems, rendering them inoperable. Apple patched this as well. The patches indicate the trouble was not a result of user error but of faulty quality control at Apple. For whatever reason the Combo Update (which I always use for this very reason) did not include the problem - and it is now the only version of 10.7.3 available on the Apple Downloads site. Both of these buggy updates were released on the same day, February 1, 2012. Back in July Apple had to release an update to the buggy OS X 10.6.8 update. There were also several supplemental updates for 10.6.7 to fix serious problems with the original version. You may not share my concern, but I see a persistent and accelerating pattern here.

Of the Lion issues I list in the first paragraph, none are minor or reversible. There are some features that can be reversed, like "natural" scrolling, if you know where to look. You can find Show the Status Bar in the Finder View menu; the bar is hidden by default. You can turn on scroll bars, though they are still too thin and ugly and harder to use than before. You can avoid Launchpad, as most power users do because of its lack of organization and management capabilities. You don't have to use Arrange By if it's too complex and confusing.

Your mistake is a common one: You extrapolate from your own experience to the experience of others. This error of logic is prevalent among those who have problems as well as those who do not. Thus some of the complaints about Lion, like some of the praise, has been overblown. It seems people have such a strong need to be right that they presume their experience is universal; what's worse, in order to buttress their presumption they often feel compelled to belittle or even ignore the experiences of others when those experiences do not validate their point of view.

Certainly there are some usable and even excellent features in Lion. And there will be more in Mountain Lion. But these don't excuse the bummers. How good or bad Lion seems depends on how it affects an individual's workflow. This is a consistent variable and no one's experience, good or bad, is shared by everyone. A fair analysis takes account of the variables and dismisses no one's experience out of hand.

Hubris on your part again. You accuse me of the very thing you have done twice. And, oh by the way, while I don't disagree that SOME users had bugs with the upgrades, I submit that by comparison with those that did not, you are overstating the problems. And I never said I was unaware of the problems, only that they were limited to a small subset of the Mac population. Your post makes it appear as if everyone was having the problems...which is exactly what you are accusing me of...

The "issues" you mention do change workflow a bit, and do take some getting used to. That does not mean they are necessarily bad, just different. I think I understand where Apple is going though. Large numbers of users, both the Apple faithful and new users are now acquiring both iOS devices and Macs. Apple is trying to standardize the user experience across both and further, to integrate cloud services. That is going to require some changes. That you do not like them does not mean they are bad or wrong. I suspect, like many of the other changes Apple has made over the years, in a short period of time these new ways of operating will be second nature and none of us will care...until the next time they make a change. Remind your self that Apple is selling to huge numbers of new users, many of whom (like my mother) are not tech savvy. Apple is trying to build a system for them. For the rest of us, who have been with the platform for decades, some of these changes break our workflow...which developed as it did because of the way the system operated previously, not because it was better or worse, just because that's the way it was.

[WayneJ]

Buzz_Lightyear, on 26 February 2012 - 02:23 AM, said:

Point 1, comparing the suicide rate at Foxconn with that of the Chinese population is a non-sequitur. The sample sizes are just too different such that Foxconn's rate is either going to be much lower or much higher. It's a useless comparison peddled by Foxconn to make themselves look good. Comparing their employee suicide rate to other manufacturers making similar products would be a better marker.

Point 2 that the Macalope (among others) seem to miss. Apple is the target because they are making the most money from their Chinese outsourcers. Cook also made his bones on being able to squeeze the cream from the cannoli of their suppliers. Whether a boycott would be any more successful or make any more sense than the whole Occupy franchise is another thing entirely.

If you're going to point out journalistic laziness don't be journalistically lazy and reach for that convenient bottle of Apple "truisms". You're not Joe Wilcox...are you?

Point 1 of your comment is not true. It would be a valid argument if the Foxxconn suicide rate were higher. But lower just doesn't make sense. You are correct that smaller statistical samples are inherently untrustworthy as indicators. This is true, because influencers have a much greater impact on the smaller population. The only thing you can extrapolate (although such extrapolations are shaky) is that Foxconn is influencing it's workers to commit suicide at a rate less than their fellow countrymen.

[k88dad]

Buzz_Lightyear, on 26 February 2012 - 02:23 AM, said:

Point 1, comparing the suicide rate at Foxconn with that of the Chinese population is a non-sequitur. The sample sizes are just too different such that Foxconn's rate is either going to be much lower or much higher. It's a useless comparison peddled by Foxconn to make themselves look good. Comparing their employee suicide rate to other manufacturers making similar products would be a better marker.

Point 2 that the Macalope (among others) seem to miss. Apple is the target because they are making the most money from their Chinese outsourcers. Cook also made his bones on being able to squeeze the cream from the cannoli of their suppliers. Whether a boycott would be any more successful or make any more sense than the whole Occupy franchise is another thing entirely.

If you're going to point out journalistic laziness don't be journalistically lazy and reach for that convenient bottle of Apple "truisms". You're not Joe Wilcox...are you?

A little shaky on the logic. The entire Foxconn workforce (more accurately, the entire workforce at one plant) is a significant sample size. A little knowledge of statistics helps here. Without jumping through math hoops, it suffices to say that the margin of error is quite small. It is valid to compare the two suicide rates.

Apple is a logical target, as the they are the one with the giant war chest. Unfortunately, this ignores the obvious fact that no corporation (or even the US government) can magically turn China into Japan or South Korea. It will take money and time to make that happen. The time is just as important as the money.

[LenWilliamsrar3]

DanielOwens, on 25 February 2012 - 10:16 AM, said:

MutantPie, on 25 February 2012 - 09:19 AM, said:

"...the Macalope thinks it and the move to a yearly update schedule is just good business."

Yeah, users just love having to update their OS every year, with all the dropping of compatibility with older software and other headaches that come with it (like instability until version X.2-X.4). Just look at all the Mac users who are wanting to drop Snow Leopard for Lion. And now, they'll have to go through it all again for Mountain Lion. Yea!

"Having...?" Mountain Lion has a new auto update feature? You are bing a bit mellow dramatic/untrue don't you think? If you don't want to upgrade then...don't.

"Mellow dramatic" -- sounds slightly schizophrenic; someone that would go from very chilled to very demonstrative. I think the word you meant was "melodramatic" (all one word), define as: characteristic of melodrama, esp. in being exaggerated, sensationalized, or overemotional.

[BrianM]

One of Foxconn's factory complexes has about the same population as the city I live in (Winnipeg, Canada).
The suicide rate in this city is double to triple the Foxconn rate in a typical year.

Comparing to a nation average is actually useful in the country it is for potentially similarities, also useful would be the average rate in the particular area (I believe they are provinces in China)

But yes, also comparing to other manufacturers would be another good stat.

Buzz_Lightyear, on 26 February 2012 - 02:23 AM, said:

Point 1, comparing the suicide rate at Foxconn with that of the Chinese population is a non-sequitur. The sample sizes are just too different such that Foxconn's rate is either going to be much lower or much higher. It's a useless comparison peddled by Foxconn to make themselves look good. Comparing their employee suicide rate to other manufacturers making similar products would be a better marker.

[bretperry]

I am in a corporate environment and have headaches and nightmares because of Lion every day. Further I am forced to upgrade because new Macs can run only Lion (without unseemly modifications). All of our Macs are leased and policy prevents us from leasing Macs without Applecare--so every 3 years, it's new Macs and an unstable OS. Just this morning I had to "hard shutdown" (power key) because my Mac locked up at the friggin LOGIN screen. I could not log in to my own darn mac after awaking from sleep. Every day I have to restart the Finder to access sidebar shortcuts that link to our server and go "bad" after sleep or randomly throughout the day. Lion locks my documents, versions are "needed" since it auto-saves when I don't want it to, but of course the versions don't work on a file server which is where ALL my files live and must do so because of corporate policy. TextEdit's windows often "close up" becoming 0 vertical height and I must open them back up by hand, the grey "Find curtain" with the yellow "Found items" often moves OFF the TextEdit window and half-disappears at the bottom of the screen. Video gamma changes so wildly when changing from dual monitors to the internal monitor on my MPB that I often cannot even read text. The "don't save" buttton no longer has a command-d shortcut so I must CLICK every darn window I want to close without saving. Fireworks has become so unstable as to be nearly unusable. EVERY 32-BIT plugin OSAX and system extension has become un-loadable and in many cases there is NO 34-bit replacement. All applications coded in XCode under Leopard AND Snow Leopard must be partially re-written to function in the new Xcode. Many apps I love and want to keep are available only in the Mac App store now but the Mac App store is blocked by my IT department. InDesign CS5 no longer highlights linked graphic files when one navigates to their folder to re-link them. Windows for many many apps move off the entire screen after changing monitors and must be minimized and then expanded just to see them. Older apps that worked fine in Snow Leopard now crash and freeze several times a day. And of course PPC apps or ANY APP with a PPC installer is dead and many of my favorites do NOT have Intel versions and probably never will. NONE of the new "Features" in Lion help me in any way and most annoy me and slow down my workflows. It takes me several months to re-write and test all the custom applications and Applscripts and Javascripts we use in our environment every time the OS or the Applications they interact with are upgraded, and the thought of this happening every year instead of 2 or 3 years is unnerving to say the least and might be palatable IF the new OS offered ANYTHING useful to me but it does not. iCloud wil be a continuing and worsening problem as the OS stats to require us to use it (and of course it is a glaring security hole in a corporate environment in which we are blocked from accessing it as it is an easy way for disgruntled employees to steal sensitive data. -- So if you are single user and do not work off of a file server, do not write your own custom applications and actually enjoy a touch interface -- well then Lion might make you smile. Mountain Lion looks to be more of the same ONLY WORSE. It makes me Windows 8 look better and better. As a Mac user since 1985, that makes me sad. Yes, living in a corporate Universe has always been a struggle for Apple users. With each new OS it becomes harder to justify the struggle and if these trends continue it may soon be impossible. Sorry this is a long missive but trust me, I've include only about o 1/10th of the trouble tickets I've logged trying to use Lion in an enterprise. This is the most unstable and half-baked release since OSX Jaguar. The sort of horrid video and UI errors I see every day remind me of Windows 3.1 and the days of the Mac being a solid, elegant platform appear to have disappeared into a dark cloud. That is my universe. In Snow, I could go weeks without a restart. with Lion, I must restart every day, often many time s a day. That is progress??

jdhayes117, on 25 February 2012 - 08:21 PM, said:

I'm not sure what Mac universe you are living in, but I've upgraded from Leopard to Snow Leopard to Lion with zero problems and very close to zero compatibility issues. I've also applied all the .X updates when they are released, with no issues. In fact, I noticed that my biggest compatibility issues have come from my Japanese made equipment such as my Epson and Fujitsu scanners and Canon cameras and printers. For some reason, the Japanese manufacturers are very slow to update their software to full compatibility with the newest Mac OSs. That said, Lion released in October and 100% of my hardware is fully compatible in February.

I will grant that there are some changes in Lion that take some getting used to (reversed scrolling being the biggest in my mind) and some that don't work quite the way you'd hope (full screen with dual monitors) but overall, I find the changes minor and reversible if you don't want to make the change. By contrast, some of features such as Recovery mode and full disk encryption with file vault are quite useful.

Finally, I faithfully read the tech journalism/blogs (many of which don't qualify as journalism...!) on a daily basis and I fail to see the wailing, beating of breast, and gnashing of teeth that you claim. The most wailing I find revolves around the various 'gate issues (e.g., antennagate, iPhone-tracking gate, that other one recently (name eludes me) that claimed that Apple, Verizon, and others were reading texts because of the phone diagnostic software) and almost invariably, they are F.U.D. spread by the anti-Apple portion of the media.

I believe Apple does what Apple does because they believe it is what the customer wants (more secure operating system by policing the apps, lack of malware, ease of use, quality control and consistency across apps and OSs). And, as evidenced by their phenomenal sales, I think they've got the right of it. It's not hubris on Apple's part if they are satisfying the customers wants. I also don't think that customers who are genuinely pleased with the product they get from Apple, and therefore express their satisfaction openly, are myopic. If anything reeks hubris, it was your post.

[Panglos]

Buzz_Lightyear, on 26 February 2012 - 02:23 AM, said:

Point 1, comparing the suicide rate at Foxconn with that of the Chinese population is a non-sequitur. The sample sizes are just too different such that Foxconn's rate is either going to be much lower or much higher. It's a useless comparison peddled by Foxconn to make themselves look good. Comparing their employee suicide rate to other manufacturers making similar products would be a better marker.

Point 2 that the Macalope (among others) seem to miss. Apple is the target because they are making the most money from their Chinese outsourcers. Cook also made his bones on being able to squeeze the cream from the cannoli of their suppliers. Whether a boycott would be any more successful or make any more sense than the whole Occupy franchise is another thing entirely.

If you're going to point out journalistic laziness don't be journalistically lazy and reach for that convenient bottle of Apple "truisms". You're not Joe Wilcox...are you?

Others have already pointed out the fallacy of your first point. As to your second, it is indeed true that "Apple is the target because they are making the most money from their Chinese outsourcers." However, that is erroneous reasoning as well. If it was the case that Apple was making its money due to the favorable cost of its Chinese labor, then every company that was taking advantage of that resource would be doing as well as Apple. Apple is making more money than those companies are due to demand considerations, not supply factors. Because Apple makes products that are, and are perceived to be, of higher quality than those of its competitors, Apple can and does sell them in large volume while charging a premium for them. All of this lies strictly within the realm of demand. Foxconn and similar outside suppliers, and their labor forces, lie within the realm of supply.

You should really refrain from hurling cheap rhetorical asides like accusing an author of being a lazy hypocrite journalist who reaches for a "convenient bottle of 'truisms'," especially if you're going to do it while referring to false truisms about why Apple is being targeted. Not to mention supplementing your invalid argumentation with things like a cheap-shot reference to Joe Wilcox.

[DivineShadow]

PeterDeep, on 25 February 2012 - 08:28 PM, said:

Is that just American guilt BS?

Yes and no. Yes, it's the outrage du jour, mostly guilt, partially ignorance of the complementary facts you just posted. No, because it's in the news around the blogosphere as a way to bash Apple. Given that every major Apple undertaking for the last 10 years has turned Apple into a seemingly unstoppable juggernaut, grinding to dust the usual anti-Apple tropes, they can now move on to a way to attack Apple in a fashion that gives them a (supposedly) unassailable moral high ground. But they are in such a rush to use this new cudgel that they forgo all context regarding China's labour issues.

[whitedog]

DivineShadow, on 28 February 2012 - 06:26 PM, said:

PeterDeep, on 25 February 2012 - 08:28 PM, said:

Is that just American guilt BS?

Yes and no. Yes, it's the outrage du jour, mostly guilt, partially ignorance of the complementary facts you just posted. No, because it's in the news around the blogosphere as a way to bash Apple. Given that every major Apple undertaking for the last 10 years has turned Apple into a seemingly unstoppable juggernaut, grinding to dust the usual anti-Apple tropes, they can now move on to a way to attack Apple in a fashion that gives them a (supposedly) unassailable moral high ground. But they are in such a rush to use this new cudgel that they forgo all context regarding China's labour issues.

I second that observation. This tactic plays into the popular new "trope" that Apple is evil. It began gaining currency when Apple excluded Flash from the iOS and has been amplified with overblown concerns over the so-called walled garden for iOS apps and the Mac App Store and Apple's hypothetical plans to "lock down" the Mac. People love conspiracy theories. They keep things simple, depending on fear rather than facts to amp the excitement. And they take advantage of people's apparently unlimited capacity to rationalize even the most irrational things.

[k88dad]

whitedog, on 28 February 2012 - 07:54 PM, said:

DivineShadow, on 28 February 2012 - 06:26 PM, said:

PeterDeep, on 25 February 2012 - 08:28 PM, said:

Is that just American guilt BS?

Yes and no. Yes, it's the outrage du jour, mostly guilt, partially ignorance of the complementary facts you just posted. No, because it's in the news around the blogosphere as a way to bash Apple. Given that every major Apple undertaking for the last 10 years has turned Apple into a seemingly unstoppable juggernaut, grinding to dust the usual anti-Apple tropes, they can now move on to a way to attack Apple in a fashion that gives them a (supposedly) unassailable moral high ground. But they are in such a rush to use this new cudgel that they forgo all context regarding China's labour issues.

I second that observation. This tactic plays into the popular new "trope" that Apple is evil. It began gaining currency when Apple excluded Flash from the iOS and has been amplified with overblown concerns over the so-called walled garden for iOS apps and the Mac App Store and Apple's hypothetical plans to "lock down" the Mac. People love conspiracy theories. They keep things simple, depending on fear rather than facts to amp the excitement. And they take advantage of people's apparently unlimited capacity to rationalize even the most irrational things.

Apple as evil is not new. The Windows IT crowd (and it goes back farther than that) has always feared the lack of job security inherent in Mac operating systems. They spread their fear, uncertainty and doubt to the average Windows user. It's also important to remember that Macs are not as popular outside of the US. Their super-minority status is still alive and well in most of the world.

What is new is Apple's level of success. They're now in the rarified air of the Walmarts of the world. They're in first place and second place is not close. This draws in a hodgepodge of new haters. The generic anti-corporation crowd has an easy target. They'll keep voting for corporatists, while wondering why corporations are becoming more powerful. The liberal-guilt crowd (and their first-world problems) is a large part of the demographic. They'll keep tapping on their iPhones, while beating themselves up over those poor Chinese workers.

[whitedog]

k88dad, on 01 March 2012 - 08:50 AM, said:

Apple as evil is not new. The Windows IT crowd (and it goes back farther than that) has always feared the lack of job security inherent in Mac operating systems. They spread their fear, uncertainty and doubt to the average Windows user. It's also important to remember that Macs are not as popular outside of the US. Their super-minority status is still alive and well in most of the world.

What is new is Apple's level of success. They're now in the rarified air of the Walmarts of the world. They're in first place and second place is not close. This draws in a hodgepodge of new haters. The generic anti-corporation crowd has an easy target. They'll keep voting for corporatists, while wondering why corporations are becoming more powerful. The liberal-guilt crowd (and their first-world problems) is a large part of the demographic. They'll keep tapping on their iPhones, while beating themselves up over those poor Chinese workers.

You were doing all right until you used "liberal-guilt crowd" like a four letter word. I don't need to defend liberals, nor would it be appropriate here, but I think you entirely missed what you actually implied, that conservatives don't care about "poor Chinese workers." While generally true, it's hardly something to brag about. In reality, working conditions in third-world countries are not a liberal or conservative issue, they're a moral issue. It boils down to the question, is human suffering acceptable as long as other humans benefit from it? The usual rationale employed to support such inequity is to dehumanize the people doing the suffering, which has always served to justify slavery, racism and brutality - known in more enlightened circles as man's inhumanity to man.

Whether Apple deserves to be singled out over Foxconn's treatment of their employees, they have had the decency to be shamed by the revelations and are taking steps to improve things. That is the moral thing to do, regardless of the politics of the situation.

This post has been edited by whitedog: 01 March 2012 - 05:06 PM

[k88dad]

whitedog, on 01 March 2012 - 05:04 PM, said:

You were doing all right until you used "liberal-guilt crowd" like a four letter word. I don't need to defend liberals, nor would it be appropriate here, but I think you entirely missed what you actually implied, that conservatives don't care about "poor Chinese workers." While generally true, it's hardly something to brag about. In reality, working conditions in third-world countries are not a liberal or conservative issue, they're a moral issue. It boils down to the question, is human suffering acceptable as long as other humans benefit from it? The usual rationale employed to support such inequity is to dehumanize the people doing the suffering, which has always served to justify slavery, racism and brutality - known in more enlightened circles as man's inhumanity to man.

Whether Apple deserves to be singled out over Foxconn's treatment of their employees, they have had the decency to be shamed by the revelations and are taking steps to improve things. That is the moral thing to do, regardless of the politics of the situation.

You've presumed far too much. I'm quite progressive, and would never brag about what conservatives are proud of. Liberals who feel guilty about their first-world toys--but keep right on using them--should be described with a four-letter word. It's the sheer ineffectiveness of the guilt that I'm against. If you care about Chinese workers then support Apple in their efforts to improve their lives. It might also be helpful to understand that neither Apple nor the US government can magically turn China--overnight--into Japan or South Korea. If you care about American jobs then I have a lengthy post in the article on Apple spinning their American job creation.

You might be surprised to learn that I'm against people voting for corporatists. I'm not anti-corporation, but I am anti-government of, for and by corporations.

[whitedog]

k88dad, on 03 March 2012 - 10:56 AM, said:

whitedog, on 01 March 2012 - 05:04 PM, said:

You were doing all right until you used "liberal-guilt crowd" like a four letter word. I don't need to defend liberals, nor would it be appropriate here, but I think you entirely missed what you actually implied, that conservatives don't care about "poor Chinese workers." While generally true, it's hardly something to brag about. In reality, working conditions in third-world countries are not a liberal or conservative issue, they're a moral issue. It boils down to the question, is human suffering acceptable as long as other humans benefit from it? The usual rationale employed to support such inequity is to dehumanize the people doing the suffering, which has always served to justify slavery, racism and brutality - known in more enlightened circles as man's inhumanity to man.

Whether Apple deserves to be singled out over Foxconn's treatment of their employees, they have had the decency to be shamed by the revelations and are taking steps to improve things. That is the moral thing to do, regardless of the politics of the situation.

You've presumed far too much. I'm quite progressive, and would never brag about what conservatives are proud of. Liberals who feel guilty about their first-world toys--but keep right on using them--should be described with a four-letter word. It's the sheer ineffectiveness of the guilt that I'm against. If you care about Chinese workers then support Apple in their efforts to improve their lives. It might also be helpful to understand that neither Apple nor the US government can magically turn China--overnight--into Japan or South Korea. If you care about American jobs then I have a lengthy post in the article on Apple spinning their American job creation.

You might be surprised to learn that I'm against people voting for corporatists. I'm not anti-corporation, but I am anti-government of, for and by corporations.

It's hard to know what you are for or against because you use so many buzz words and cliches, including "corporatists." And you're incredibly judgmental. What you're talking about, people feeling guilty over using products made by underpaid and overworked laborers, is commonly known as cognitive dissonance - where what we do and what we say are inconsistent. It's an insidious condition that affects most people to some degree, including you, I daresay. One relatively recent manifestation was when Tea Party activists shouted at town hall meetings: "Keep your government hands off my Social Security!" It's also demonstrated by those people you hold in such contempt who vote for "corporatists," in that they generally don't know that's who they're voting for. It's why people so often vote against their own self-interest. Such ignorance is hard to explain but very easy to describe and all to easy to despise. Even so, two wrongs don't make a right.

As for the corporatists themselves, they are the oligarchs of the industrial revolution. Oligarchy is not a new phenomenon. It's a political system wherein the power of the privileged few prevails over the disadvantaged majority, a condition as old as organized society itself. And the problem with struggling against oligarchy is that most successful revolutionaries simply replace one set of oligarchs with another. This was the case, for instance, with the labor movement which, when at its most successful, was often dominated by corrupt and powerful leaders who ultimately betrayed the workers they claimed to represent. This is what George Orwell was describing in Animal Farm, when he wrote the ultimate revolutionary commandment: All animals are equal; but some animals are more equal than others.

Hating "corporatists" is simple. Understanding how and why they exist is something else again. And figuring out how to eliminate them from our political and social life is harder still. That solution has yet to be imagined outside the realm of fantasy and fiction.

[k88dad]

whitedog, on 03 March 2012 - 12:31 PM, said:

It's hard to know what you are for or against because you use so many buzz words and cliches, including "corporatists." And you're incredibly judgmental. What you're talking about, people feeling guilty over using products made by underpaid and overworked laborers, is commonly known as cognitive dissonance - where what we do and what we say are inconsistent. It's an insidious condition that affects most people to some degree, including you, I daresay. One relatively recent manifestation was when Tea Party activists shouted at town hall meetings: "Keep your government hands off my Social Security!" It's also demonstrated by those people you hold in such contempt who vote for "corporatists," in that they generally don't know that's who they're voting for. It's why people so often vote against their own self-interest. Such ignorance is hard to explain but very easy to describe and all to easy to despise. Even so, two wrongs don't make a right.

As for the corporatists themselves, they are the oligarchs of the industrial revolution. Oligarchy is not a new phenomenon. It's a political system wherein the power of the privileged few prevails over the disadvantaged majority, a condition as old as organized society itself. And the problem with struggling against oligarchy is that most successful revolutionaries simply replace one set of oligarchs with another. This was the case, for instance, with the labor movement which, when at its most successful, was often dominated by corrupt and powerful leaders who ultimately betrayed the workers they claimed to represent. This is what George Orwell was describing in Animal Farm, when he wrote the ultimate revolutionary commandment: All animals are equal; but some animals are more equal than others.

Hating "corporatists" is simple. Understanding how and why they exist is something else again. And figuring out how to eliminate them from our political and social life is harder still. That solution has yet to be imagined outside the realm of fantasy and fiction.

It looks to me like you understand what I'm talking about just fine. Corporatist is a buzzword or cliche, and yet you define it with ease. I live in a nation where politics has gone to the extreme (I hope) of allowing for the influence of money. I hope that Citizens United v. the FEC will be overturned. The best shot at that happening is voting for a President who will nominate Supreme Court justices who are likely to do just that. The next best hope is voting for representatives who would support a constitutional amendment to achieve the equivalent result. Citizens United is barely two years old, and 2012 is the first major election in its wake. I have hope that--like the family of an an addict who has hit bottom--the general populace will see the evils of money in politics and start to fight to turn it around. You say judgmental. I prefer cynical or, better, realistic.

People are often irrational and I can accept that. You are, of course, correct that all of us are irrational at times. People vote against their own best interests and I frown upon that. A constitutional republic requires an informed electorate to survive.