Prior to Barack Obama’s announcement today outlining the conditions for which government loans will be made to GM and Chrysler, I think both those companies thought they were the ones calling the shots. Well, that was before today’s forced resignation of GM CEO Rick Wagoner by Barack Obama as a condition for funds.

Neither Chrysler, or GM, are in any position to start making ham-fisted demands. This is the time for serious soul-searching and a humble acceptance of responsibility. Yes, it’s true neither Chrysler or GM caused the economic collapse, they are still responsible for not being in a better competitive position when the economy died.

So, please spare us the drama and get back to work, Chrysler. Otherwise, here’s an apple and a map. Don’t let the door hit your behind on the way out.

First, let me start off by saying I really love Macs. I've been using them since the Ottawa Citizen newsroom acquired a Mac Plus in 1985 with fresh copies of MacDraw, MacPaint and Cricket Draw, as well as an Apple PostScript laser printer. Yeah, I'm THAT old, so stop reminding me.

There are a number of reasons why I prefer Macs, including ease of use, everything just works, elegance, simplicity and a variety of subjective things too long to bore you with. Microsoft's Windows have always been so highly derivative of whatever Apple does that I find myself disgusted whenever I have to sit in front of a Windows screen, but I'm going on a bit of a bunny trail here.

The one thing that really bothers me about Macs is that they are, without a doubt, grossly overpriced. Yes, I've read the comparative studies of PC all-in-ones versus the iMac and I've read all the Mac fanboy reviews (trust me, I'm probably geekier than you), but the problem is once you're invested in the Mac platform (i.e. software), you don't have many options. If you are using a Mac professionally as a graphic artist, you either have to spring for the $2,800 CDN Mac Pro, or opt for one of the higher end iMacs.

The problem with the iMac line is that they are truly closed systems, similar to glorified 24" laptops. You can't just rip out the innards, such as the hard drive, or graphics card, like you can a PC. This leaves you with having to consider a forced purchase when your deliberately (by Apple) undersized hard drive on a two-and-a-half-year-old iMac gets filled, as in my case recently. This scheme works great for Apple and its shareholders, but not so good for the lowly media producer.

By far, the best computers I ever owned were the 1998 Mac G3 and a generic PC I bought in 2002 when I switched to Windows. The reason for this was simple: They were both highly upgradable and I could squeeze out an extra couple of years of service by adding an internal hard drive, replacing the graphics card and whatever else my little heart desired. This is why in many respects, PC proponents have a point when they say open systems are better. I couldn't agree more with them on that.

The other issue is that while Dell is offering the new i7 Core in their XPS desktop, starting at $999 CDN, to get equivalent performance in a Mac, I'd have to shell out $2,800 for a Mac Pro. The E8000 series chips in the high end $2,500 iMacs aren't even half as fast. The irony is that a pimple-faced kid, or grandma could buy one of those Dell i7 bad boys just to surf the Internet, while a media professional stuck in Apple's system (like me) has to pay three times the price for the Mac Pro, or be happy with paying twice as much for an iMac that delivers about 40 per cent of the processing power. The other injustice is that many people who run Macs, particularly graphic artists, are stretched to pay $2,000 for a machine that is better afforded by white collar professionals who would, ironically, probably buy the $1,000 Dell.

This scheme worked well for Apple in the happy days of the economy, but it's unconscionable in these times where people are losing their livelihoods at an alarming rate. Apple deliberately removed mid-sized towers in the late '90s as a way of forcing users to all-in-ones. Besides being extremely wasteful, as users have to buy the enclosed monitor with the machine, it is a deliberate money grab.

There are options, of course. Buy a PC would be the first obvious choice, but some of us can't stand the "me-too" derivative nature of Windows; the exposure to viruses, worms, constant security pop-ups, adware, subscriptions to virus checking software that is often worse than a virus, as well as just the plain ugliness of the Windows OS. Vista was supposed to be Microsoft's answer to OS X and it was a good attempt. Windows 7 promises to be better.

The other option is build your own Hackintosh. Trust me, I considered it. Apple doesn't like when people break the OS X EULA agreement that specifically states not to install OS X on anything but a Macintosh, but the benefits are compelling and the Hackintosh community is growing. One product I've looked at is a USB dongle called EFI-X, which seems to be a good solution for tricking a generic PC into thinking it's a Mac. For less than $1,200, you can build your own Mac with OS X that will keep up with the Mac Pro and embarrass the iMac. For a few dollars more, you can buy a ready-build Hackintosh from Psystar. Just remember that Apple is currently engaged in an epic lawsuit over Psystars right to sell PCs with OS X installed.

Frankly, I hope Psystar wins. I never thought I'd say that, but Apple needs a good reality check. At least meet people at their need that have been sucked into the Apple culture, by offering an affordable, user customizable mid-sized case, sans superfluous big screen, like the G3s of the late '90s. Will Apple do this? I wouldn't hold my breath.

I have to say it's a little disheartening to get our financial statements only to discover we've lost 12 years of investment time due to the recent stock market crash. The way I figure it, this cartoonist is going to be working on a "Freedom 85" plan. The average loss for many people with money in 401Ks and RRSPs is probably in the 30 per cent ball park. I have a friend who claims closer to 50 per cent.

In any case, it looks like the retirement plans of many people have been put on hold... indefinitely.

You gotta love Barack Obama's confidence. I don't know if he truly believes half the stuff he says, but he sure makes you think he knows what he's doing. I'd say the confidence borders on arrogance, but that's just me being me. Still, he's a good leader in that he makes people believe. Regardless of whether, or not, his actions will hurt or help the U.S. economy, he makes us all smile as cold water of the Atlantic begins creeping up our legs. Someone forgot to put enough lifeboats on this boat.

Let us not wallow in the valley of despair, I say to you today, my friends. And so even though we face the difficulties of today and tomorrow, I still have a dream. It is a dream deeply rooted in the American dream. I have a dream that one day this nation will rise up and live out the true meaning of its creed: "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal." I have a dream that one day on the red hills of Georgia, the sons of former slaves and the sons of former slave owners will be able to sit down together at the table of brotherhood. I have a dream that one day even the state of Mississippi, a state sweltering with the heat of injustice, sweltering with the heat of oppression, will be transformed into an oasis of freedom and justice. I have a dream that my four little children will one day live in a nation where they will not be judged by the color of their skin but by the content of their character.

You should be familiar with this quote, as it is part of one of the greatest defining speeches ever delivered in America by one of the greatest visionaries of the 20th century, Dr. Martin Luther King Jr.

The last line is the most significant because, interpreted properly, it means that we should treat all people the same, regardless of skin color.

So how is that then, that we in the editorial cartoon field, are to treat Barack Obama differently than other Presidents? Is that not also a form of racism, because are we somehow supposed to be constantly be reminded that he's an African American and he needs special dispensation?

Huh? You mean that we should add to the words of Dr. King's vision to read something like:

I have a dream that my four little children will one day live in a nation where they will not be judged by the color of their skin but by the content of their character, that is, of course, unless they are to appear in an editorial cartoon. In that case, they need to be treated differently. You know... special.

There is no doubt that there have been real historic abuses when it comes to depicting African Americans and these are highly regrettable. Most editorial cartoonists will have a good idea of the history and will probably do all they can to avoid needlessly offending anyone, so certain references should remain taboo. I'm all for that and will be the first to criticize the first offender. There should be no room anywhere in any publication for these kind of references and images.

But there is a segment of society who look for racists under every rock, as in the recent case of the New York Post, where a cartoonist drew an image of two cops shooting a chimp and saying they'll need to find someone else to write the next stimulus bill.

As someone who has been a fan of editorial cartoons for thirty years, who reads them daily and understands them at a level most people probably don't, I have no doubt the cartoonist meant no reference to President Obama. If he did, you can be assured that the editors at the Post would have canned that cartoon and questioned the very credentials of a person who who draw something that vile. The reference to the chimp was an unfortunate one and the cartoonist probably regrets it in hindsight, but the silliness has reached pathetic proportions that would make the Islamic extremists involved in the Danish cartoon fiasco blush.

And, of course, to save face, the people behind the bizarre charges have only one direction and that is to continue the madness. I say, end it. It was, at best, a poor cartoon that didn't communicate what the cartoonist was intending to really say.

I know this. How do I know this? Because I've done it too. Well, not specifically that, but other boneheaded cartoons that I've been fortunately protected from publishing because I have a great team of editors that have always been there for me. Sometimes we get so wrapped up in an idea that we fail to see all the ramifications, or possible interpretations.

That's what a good editor is for. In this case, the Post editors failed, but they should not be completely blamed. When you have the 21st century equivalent of witch hunters in the form of those who call others racists, misogynists and homophobic, then you have little grace to work with.

Next, we'll be throwing people in the water to see if they float. Laughing? You shouldn't be.

Atheists believe that being an atheist makes them intellectually superior to theists and they want you to know they don't believe in God so that you can admire their cerebral prowess. Atheists consider people of faith to be deceived, ignorant, uneducated, unsophisticated and unwilling to be seekers of truth, because, as atheists would have you believe, they found truth and it has set them free. Hallelujah, er, thank goodness.

The problem with atheism is that it is disingenuous. If you're reading this and you're an atheist, then sorry, but it's true. Even hard-core atheists have a doubt that they might be wrong, that somewhere, somehow, someway, there is, in fact, a Creator of all this. Trust me, as a former atheist, I know this. When the proverbial crap hits the fan; when a loved one dies; when they get terminal cancer, or when there is a serious crisis, even atheists plead with the God they don't believe in and the classic prayer goes like "God, if you're really there, whoever you are, please (fill in the blank)".

As for the intellectual superiority, even Albert Einstein was a theist. Sure, he didn't believe in a personal God, but he suspected there was an intelligence behind the design. I'm thinking if the smartest man the 20th century says there's a God, there's a God. I don't know how smart you are, but I'm not going to measure myself to him and if you think you're smarter, then be my guest.

So, next year, when the proverbial crap hits the economic fan and people are in dire straights, the atheists will feel less smug and will have a dwindling audience. I'll even venture a guess one of two of them will fall on their knees.