I bought my wife an iMac G5 a couple of years ago. It's a beautiful machine, alright. My wife loved it after only one week of use, says the interface is great, loves iTunes, iPhoto, etc.

But right after the warranty ran out it started overheating. 2 or three minutes of YouTube is all it takes to put it to sleep. It is not on any recall list and out of warranty. Because it is a proprietary machine, my options are limited. I reseated the heatsink with the proper amount of thermal grease (what a job that was!), but no dice. The cooling-air circulation inside that thin, beautiful case is marginal, a true triumph of form over function. And there is just no room inside for me to install a bigger, better fan, etc. I'm stuck!

Three years ago I assembled my own PC, from parts I selected myself, and installed SuSE Linux on it. It is not nearly as pretty as her iMac, but this PC has been going non-stop, trouble-free, all this time. When my original power-supply gave out recently, I easily replaced it with a better one for $35. If a fan goes out, I get a commodity replacement. If it should overheat (hasn't yet), I can always buy a bigger CPU heatsink. In short, I have the complete freedom to get exactly what I want.

Though I like the iMac (when it works), I feel I made a mistake with it. I don't like the feeling of being caught with a proprietary machine that is out of warranty and very difficult to service. If you feel you must get this new iMac do strongly consider getting AppleCare with it.

My Linux box runs 24/7, has done so for 3 years now. It just runs runs runs. Far from being a "hodge-podge of h/w and s/w" it is a carefully thought out machine with parts I hand picked to give me a good compromise between cost and benefit. It didn't take me weeks to set up and still, after 3 years, is a great machine, and is just as capable as that iMac G5 I bought for my wife, though it cost half as much. BTW, I didn't have to buy Linux, or any of the great apps I use on it.

That said, I don't recommend this for everyone, of course. You do need to be savvy to make this work. And I can't recommend Windows (either XP or Vista) for people who don't understand computers and especially computer security. I can recommend OS-X for those people. I just am very unhappy at being saddled with a lemon (the iMac G5) that does quite emphatically not run run run, without any recourse with Apple Inc. During my research into my difficulties with the G5 I've found claims that roughly 20% of iMac G5 users have reported problems like mine, which, if true, is simply unacceptable. (Look what this fellow had to do to use his G5: http://www.scienceman.com/pgs/00_imacG5_macmod.html.)

Regrettably, the feeling I've gotten while trying to research my problem is that the Mac community is so infatuated with Apple that they fail to recognize these problems and thus fail to provide support for users of such duds and fail to pressure Apple in a meaningful way to provide relief to such users. In one forum where a fellow was seeking answers to a similar problem, one poster scolded him for writing "Imac" instead of "iMac." Not exactly what someone with a problem wants to hear, I'm sure.

In September, Gen. Petraeus will tell us what our "leaders" in Washington and in the corporate world that runs things want us to hear. Not only that, they will build it up to make the general's report seem like some sort of divine revelation. But why must we accept this? The situation in Iraq is no secret, and Gen. Petraeus has no special insight. But we will dutifully lap this up, as our masters bid us to.

This is nothing new, and is certainly not unique to G. W. Bush's administration. One can plausibly argue that this sad state of affairs really took root after Jimmy Carter's defeat and during the reigns of Mr. Reagan and Bush I. How else can we square our activities in the world with our perceptions of them?

• In 1983, we invaded the harmless Caribbean nation of Grenada. As the world looked on in shock and dismay, we were given a bunch of mealy-mouthed pretexts and excuses by our "leaders" and we lapped it up and cheered our brave men and women in uniform.
• In 1989, we invaded another defenseless country, Panama, killing several thousand Panamanian civilians in the process. Again, there is no legal justification. Again, the world looks on in shock and dismay. Again, our own people cheer and G. H. W. Bush's popularity soars to the 90s as we lap up the lies of our leaders in justifying this clear breach of international law. (The real reason for the invasion? Noriega refused to renegotiate the Panama Canal treaty that was so unpopular amongst the imperialist neo-cons, and was negotiating with the Japanese on the possible construction of a sea-level canal.)
• In 1990 Saddam Hussein, emulating our own actions in Panama only a year earlier, invades another helpless neighbor. This time we see it as a crime against international peace, what do you know.

We as a people either have the moral flexibility of an eel or are utterly devoid of any sense of historical perspective and consistency. Either way, our "leaders" will try to exploit this situation to sell us on more war, despite the well known figures that Glenn has posted here (100,000 Iraqis dead, 8 millions displaced, with no end in sight).

Will it work again?