Yep. I personally hate OSX but the macbook air is the only ultra portable with decent build quality and discrete graphics.
Also the price is decent on them for being ultraportables.
OK, now I get it.
You don't really think the logo is ugly as much as it runs absolutely counter to your political viewpoint and you are irked that every time you open your MBA at Starbucks that you are mistakenly representing yourself as a fanboy of the party you are in a religious war with.
I'm not saying that is such a bad thing; it isn't. You have a point. It sure makes everyone on the Apple bandwagon shake their heads, tho, me included. I think many of the Apple fanboys are probably snickering at the fact that while you are a staunch Windows convert, that you were forced to relent and admit how much more elegant and wonderful by comparison that your mortal enemy's hardware is.
But it's also important to remember that if there were no Mac OS, there would be no Windows for you to salivate over, and we would all still be using the command line.
But just to prove that we are not all snobs, we can put the disagreement behind us and concentrate on the problem.
If it were me in this situation I would just get a large Windows logo sticker and cover the Apple logo up, although every time they do this on TV (sometimes using Final Cut to accomplish that electronically, ironically enough) it looks even stupider than if they had left it alone (Apple does not need to be extorted by the production company calling and saying "pay us $1000 and we will not obliterate your logo on our little TV show").
You could also tear down the unit and put something opaque between the backlight and the translucent logo, but that's a lot of work and a lot of risk just to be politically consistent.
Regardless of the politics, since you put the question out there, is it really ugly?
I sort of lean to the "classy iconic logo" crowd who thinks it makes pretty much the right statement and is the face of the most valued company in the world and never should then be changed, but again, you may have a point. As iconic as it might be, the Apple logo has lots and lots of legacy baggage;
only an amateur bush-league company would name itself after a common fruit, and the logo is a bit too "treehugger" and "in your face", 1st semester freshman art school derived, and even garish for 21st-century tastes.
No company today even rated 300 notches lower than Apple would use such a silly, naive name or such a amateurish logo, at least if they wanted to be taken seriously and/or raise venture capital, certainly not the top listed company in the world.
But if you read the Walter Isaacson book, it makes sense that a company started in a northern California garage still in the afterglow of the "summer of love" by a couple of outlaw hippies (blue box, anyone?), the dominant one who never bathed nor ate meat and lived in a commune might come up with that name, or that logo. Steve even identified with Johnny Appleseed in his evangelical quest to make the world a better place through advanced technology (which may even have more than a little to do with where the company name actually came from). I think that worked out rather well, actually.
It's a little ironic. Too late to change the name, but it's 2012, ferchrissake. Maybe a newer more understated evolution of the logo might actually be in order.
