THE ENTERPRISE
THE PRICE OF BOTTLED WATER
As someone who has been in a lot of places where "you don't drink the water," I genuinely appreciate that we have good quality drinking water nearly everywhere in the US. So then why do we consume 30 billion bottles of bottled water (that is 27 gal. per person per year? Because we like the convenience, and are unconcerned about the consequences? Just the plastic in the bottles uses 1.5 million barrels of crude oil, and billions of bottles end up in landfills, or simply discarded in the landscape or ocean.
The billions of dollars and the huge amount of energy used in transporting bottled water from around the world--from places like Fiji and France--is almost too great to calculate. This transportation is a major source of greenhouse gases. Finally, bottled water costs between 75 cents to $6 per gallon, whereas tap water costs 80 cents to $6.40 per thousand gallons! Worst of all, there is no consistent proof that bottled water is either more pure or better tasting than tap water.
I know it's convenient, but what the hell are we thinking? All that money could go toward so many worthy causes from education to energy independence. Start by refilling bottles. If you are really serious about the environment and global warming, get a nice reusable bottle and use it.
PS: Is it a cruel joke that Evian spelled backward is Naive?
CHINA'S TOXIC EXPORTS & ITS COMING OUT CEREMONY
Amidst the turmoil about toxic toys and tainted food, the Chinese government is struggling to clean up its poisoned air in time for the 2008 Olympics. That will be the coming out party for the new (non) Communist Chinese government--if you can see it through the smog--and if the athletes can perform in that murky atmosphere.
ENTERTAINERS, ATHLETES AND THE MEDIA--HOW DID THEY GET SO SMART?
I am typing this while watching (or not) one of the many awards shows presented by the entertainment industry to honor--THEMSELVES! It is ironic that an industry such as entertainment can "stand so tall, and speak so loudly," in praise of itself. Worse yet, entertainment, if expanded to include professional sports, gets far more credit than it deserves for its opinions on a wide range of topics. (Oh, God, now Al Gore is getting an award too.) Granted, many are truly talented people--at either playing roles of others, or at running fast, jumping high, singing well, or many other great achievements. What they are not, however are two other things:
They are often NOT people of high moral fiber; neither are they uniformly smarter than the average person--if they are that smart. What they have is fame and a large platform from which to "opine" on many topics where their expertise is marginal or worse. They often even win other related awards from the more "serious" reportorial journalists who are their next door neighbors. While serious journalists (whatever that means) are often smart, educated people, many broadcast journalists are just "actors" of a different ilk. When I make this indictment, I realize I could be classified with them because I am writing this...and I am willing to take that risk to expose the pretenders and posers.
I have no idea how to dilute the impact of an Oprah or a Larry King or a Susan Sarandon or Bruce Springteen. All I can say, is remember that they are...at heart..."actors!"
IMMIGRATION & HEALTH CARE--"
POSTPONED PERFECTION IS THE ENEMY OF PLANNED PROGRESS"
I am not even going to attempt to address these two complex issues here. I do want to offer one serious suggestion. How about making a plan and starting to fix parts of the problem, while arguing about how to fix the other parts. There are some ways to get started.
1) Build the damn wall--and if the Corp of Engineers is busy in New Orleans, ask Bechtel to help.
2) If amazon.com knows so much about us and what we like and buy, let's out-source tracking immigrants to them with an assist from UPS.
3) Prohibit pharmaceutical makers from advertising drugs on TV.
4) Mandate a uniform medical data storage format for medical records that all medical care providers and institutions must conform starting right now. (I'd bet a coalition of the 5 largest IT companies would help.)
PERSPECTIVES ON GLOBAL WARMING---
---HONDA GAS MILEAGE-REDUX
Honda average fuel economy: 30.1 mpg.
Industry average fuel economy: 24.8 mpg.
(1996-2005 passenger cars and light trucks CAFE reports)
Tell me again why there are not huge energy saving gains and cleaner sources of energy that can be made with known technology.
---INDIA'S FUNERAL PYRES--AN ENVIRONMENTAL NIGHTMARE
Did you know that the demand for funeral pyres in India is both deforesting India and fouling the Earth's atmosphere? Burning one body requires from 600 to 1000 lbs. of wood, and with 8 million Indians dying each year, the pyres burn 50 million trees each year. These fires produce 500,000 tons of ash, and 8 million tons of carbon dioxide--both dramatically fouling the atmosphere.
---FARM ANIMALS ARE A PROBLEM, TOO
Methane gas emissions from farm animals account for 16% of the worldwide methane gas, which is a greenhouse gas that is 20 times as harmful as carbon dioxide. One cow can pass 130 gallons of methane a day; a human emits 2 pints! What to do? Feed farm animals with garlic-spiked food. Their breath may smell bad, but it will reduce their methane emissions by 50%.
(Now where did I put my garlic?)
The preceding topic is a good segue to the next one.
MOVEON.ORG--THE REAL TRAITORS
The George Soros funded, extreme left leaning political organization sank to a new low in Un-American bad taste, using a crude play on words to label Gen. Petraeus as a "traitor" in a full page NYTimes discounted ad. Moveon.org stinks, and even the Democrats they support, distanced themselves from this reprehensible organization.
------------------
WORLD WAR IV
...is the title of a book by Norman Podhoretz. Here are just a few excerpts from the WSJ review by Christopher Willcox. These gave me pause, and made me think, really hard, about the behavior and words of our current political leaders.
--------------------------------
"In all the grand speeches and requiem tributes today -- commemorating the events of Sept. 11, 2001 -- there are likely to be few references to Whittaker Chambers. But Norman Podhoretz rightly reminds us of Chambers in "World War IV," his bracingly mordant account of the West's battle against Islamofascism. It is a battle that entered a critical phase six years ago with the carnage in New York, Washington and rural Pennsylvania. In the dark days of the Cold War, Mr. Podhoretz notes, Chambers was "sure we lacked the stomach, the heart, the will and the wit to stand effectively against the true believers of the Soviet Union and its allies and sympathizers."... (my emphasis added)
The premise of "World War IV" is that we are in a global conflict that will not end any time soon. To win it, we will have to make radical changes to our military, diplomatic and legal theory and practice. Whereas terrorism was formerly treated as a problem for the police and "first responders," the scale of the threat today -- and the technologies potentially available to evildoers -- demand a long-term, large-scale military commitment. Its purpose: to go after terror networks and, if necessary, the political regimes offering such networks support. By definition, this strategy implies pre-emptive military strikes. ...
Are we really at war against a deadly foe or are we fighting small bands of deluded fanatics whose probability of even minor success is pitifully low? Should we prepare to defend our civilization against an existential threat or engage in a series of improvisations in response to terrorist attacks?....
Mr. Podhoretz handles the swift radicalization of top Democrats with gusto, quoting most of them as ferocious Saddam critics before the invasion and, as the war became difficult, newly ferocious critics of the U.S. invasion. Teddy Kennedy leaves the rails completely when he reacts to the serious abuses at Abu Ghraib prison by declaring on the Senate floor that "the torture chamber of Saddam Hussein has been reopened under new management -- American management."
It is precisely such rhetoric, and the moral-equivalence reasoning behind it, that makes it especially appropriate to remember Whittaker Chambers's Cold War doubts about the West's capacity to defend itself. Mr. Podhoretz believes that the West may face an even more formidable foe today. This time, it lurks in shadowy networks of oil-enabled jihadists, mullahs and despots who are at war with modernity and can count on the support of millions of militant Islamists. If such people succeed in getting their hands on weapons of mass destruction, they will surely use them.
Pre-emption may thus turn out to be a compelling option for whoever wins the presidency in 2008. If so, the Bush Doctrine -- like Harry Truman's earlier doctrine of containment -- will have a longer life than its critics imagine. And, yes, Mr. Podhoretz reminds us, Harry Truman had some pretty lousy poll numbers when he left office, too.
------------------------------
Finally, I need some help from grammarians among the readers. Hillary Clinton is no favorite of mine, but I am puzzled by the reaction to her phrase commenting on Gen. Petraeus testimony. I think she said his report required her ..."willing suspension of disbelief."
When I take this phrase apart, I come up with what Hillary said (whether it is what she intended to say, I cannot imagine)... These are my interpretations: Willing--voluntarily; Suspension--withholding; Disbelief--failure to believe.
So she was saying, in a convoluted double negative, that listening to his report required her to "willingly suspend her disbelief" ...in other words... to believe him (even though she didn't want to?). HELP? Am I interpreting this right (and did all the GOP pundits interpret it wrong?) Or vice versa?
These are certainly interesting times, aren't they?
Best, John
Comments