We're fucked

[Xavier_Onassis]

The refrigerators with ice makers typically have activated charcoal filters which removes the chlorine (and other chemicals that change the taste).


==================================
Even so, just freezing a tray of ice cubes results in ice that has no chlorine taste.

Most people that I know who insist on bottled water do so because they think it is cleaner or healthier for them, which is generally untrue. Most tap water in the US is as mineral-free and germ-free as bottled water.

The biggest drawbacks to bottled water are the price (exorbitant when compared to the cost of water from the faucet) and the fact that every bottle produces another bottle, made from petrochemicals, to a landfill somewhere. Even if they are recycled, they are not recycled as another bottle. Nestle suing a public water company for advertising that their water is as good as bottled is absurd. I really hope they lose a lot of money, because it is based entirely on greed.

[Amianthus]

Most people that I know who insist on bottled water do so because they think it is cleaner or healthier for them, which is generally untrue. Most tap water in the US is as mineral-free and germ-free as bottled water.

Bottled water is tap water from another city. Check out the label sometime - they all say something like "originates from public water sources" and then they usually filter it. But you can do the filtering yourself...

[Xavier_Onassis]

Bottled water is tap water from another city. Check out the label sometime - they all say something like "originates from public water sources" and then they usually filter it. But you can do the filtering yourself...


I know all of that. Zephyrhills has ads which suggest that their water comes from springs, deep in the Earth, but in reality, it is from a public water company that pumps it out of wells. Just like the wells most cities use.

 But people who insist on bottled water do not see how their filtering could remove GERMS. Still, they do not worry about germs in ice. The main reasons for buying bottled water are irrational.

[Amianthus]

But people who insist on bottled water do not see how their filtering could remove GERMS. Still, they do not worry about germs in ice. The main reasons for buying bottled water are irrational.

A reverse osmosis system installed in their home would work for removing germs.

[Xavier_Onassis]

A reverse osmosis system installed in their home would work for removing germs.
==================================================================
I am sure that this is true, but I am also sure that whatever germs dwell in North Miami tap water are harmless, because I have been drinking it with them in it (if the chlorine did not turn them into small invisible germ corpses) for the past 30 years with no ill effect. Some germs are actually required for digestion, anyway.

We avoid kissing the dog, because we see where he puts his tongue. However, a dog can cure a wound by licking it with his tongue as well, and that is not taken into consideration, at least by modern people.


Besides, there are germs, and there are imaginary germs. Both are invisible. After the chlorine has killed maybe all the germs in the city tap water, there are still invisible imaginary germs in it. We all know that "you pay for what you get", so a bottle of Dasani water for 35¢ or so ($1.00 if cold and sold on the street) is clearly better than the same 10 oz. of water from the tap, because it cost so much more.

There used to be these swindlers who would run about offering to "test your water". They would add one solution, then another and lo and behold, it turned a nasty color and got all cloudy: UGH!

They never actually tested water run through their amazing $200+ filters, because they were not installed. The installer of course, knew nothing of the test.

Then there are the clowns who peddle "natural" vitamins at about twelve times what drugstore brands cost, but they are better because they are not "made of chemicals".

[Plane]

XO is right , this is a good post ,....
But I am compelled to quibble.

<<The relitive number caught could easily be misleading , there are many thousands more Bussinessmen than congressmen . . . >>

But it's not fair to count only congressmen and include all businessmen and women.  There are plenty of politicians who are crooks and thieves who haven't yet made it into Congress.  If Big Government is as big as you claim it is, surely there are lots more potential wrongdoers than are gathered in Congress.

Yes and we have special prisons for white collar crime where thetwo types mingle.

<< . . .  and the rate at which they get caught relitive to one another doesn't tell you how relitively well they hide malfeasance.>>

Well, in the absence of any hard evidence either way, I would have to assume that neither businessmen and women or politicians are any more skilled than the other at concealing their defalcations.  Besides, a lot of people in Congress were in business beforehand, which makes them qualified in either category.

True that,  also a lot of congressmen become businessmen and/ or lobbyists after their congressional career , we are really talking about the same guys both ways. The Congress is a collections of Former Class presidents and valdictorians , so are our Corporate boardrooms

   <<Also the rules for Congressional obedience to the law are more lax , Congress isn't really passing the same test that Enron failed.>>

That can't be.  When businessmen steal big-time, they wind up with huge accourtrements of wealth, private jets and yachts, private islands in the Caribean, wild, lavish parties costing hundreds of thousands of dollars, $60,000 bottles of vintage wine, the whole nine yards.  Poor old political crooks like Duke Cunningham don't get to live that large, never seem to hit that Nirvana level of larceny, their efforts are so paltry compared to business crooks.

Oh no Enron made up money from nothing , which isn't allowed for business , it kept multiple books  which business is also not supposed to do. ,....Hmmm.. Hey Enron spent employees and investors money that should have been preserved and increased for their retirement . ... but of course Congress does that too.

And also the standard wasn't who steals more, but who wastes more.  Theft is only a part of the waste.  In the non-criminal area of waste, the businessmen win hands down over the polticians.  There, your issue of laxness is stood on its head - - there are NO RULES on how much money a businessman can take out from his business.  Every extravagance, every strip-club expense account, every limo ride is the "cost of doing business" or a personal life-style decision which at any level of government would be critically scrutinized and mercilessly exposed.  Corporate jets are the norm, mansions and bigger mansions are to be expected - - a politician living that life, unless he marries into it like McCain or Kerry, is going to have his ass nailed to the wall.

Any idea how many Congressmen are millionaires?  Did Bill Clinton make a million or three while he was a politician? In Business a leaner compeditor might take over your market or the FBI might audit your books , in Congress the competition is more limited and the FBI depends on you to sign their paychecks.

I think, particularly in North America (except Mexico) and Western Europe, the amount of thievery and waste from government programs is pretty well kept under control, while no such controls exist in business.  The fact that thousands of employees can be let go in hard times to "cut costs" indicates that in good times a lot of unnecessary "fat" is being carried on business payrolls.  The existence of corporate raiders such as Carl Icahn was premised on the existence of waste in corporate targets, waste that could easily and quickly be trimmed by the raiders until the corporate assets could be sold off.

"fat" being employees?

If you look at the food industry, for example, and factor in the cost of competition - - each breakfast cereal comes with its own multimillion dollar package of advertising and packaging and marketing which vastly exceeds the cost of the cereal in the box, you will begin to get some tiny glimpse of the wasteful ways of the capitalist system, which YOU pay for with every box of cornflakes that you eat, every gallon of gasoline that you burn, every drug that you or your insurer purchases.

Your MSM is corporate-owned, therefore it's no mystery why they zoom in gleefully on government waste and corruption, but leave almost totally unexamined the stupendous amount of waste that is programmed into the capitalist system.  In fact, by sensationalizing only the overtly criminal side of capitalist waste, they isolate it effectively from the much larger waste and inefficiency of capitalism that is found, for example, in the price of every box of Cornflakes.  You become aware, for example, of the lifestyle of Dennis Koslowski, but not of the owners of the General Foods empire, the media empires, the oil industry, the pharmaceutical industry, etc.  People are making 400 times what you are making, but the only time you hear of it is when they step over the line into overtly criminal actions.  But most of them are smart enough to stay within the bounds of the law where it's LEGAL to make 400 times more than you do.

Now I could easily envisage someone who is twice or even three times as smart or as hard-working as you or I, but I can't imagine someone ten times smarter or ten times more hard-working, yet there are routinely found in business and commerce men and women making ten times, twenty times or more what the average guy is earning.  Why are they being over-compensated at this rate?  The answer is, because they can get away with it.  The PROFITS, generated by the business they are in, permit it.  There is the reason for the waste and inefficiency right there, the profit system.  The governments are not run for profit, the waste and inefficiency you find there are accidents or corruptions of the system, but, and especially in Western Europe, Canada and the U.S.A., they are the exceptions and not the rule.  The profit system however is built into every purchase and sale that takes place under capitalism.  THAT is why the wastage is much greater in business than it is in government.

This explans Wayne Gretsky being on the Wheaties box , but I can't imagine makeing half or a tenth or a hundredth as many goals against pro Hocky players myself , If you are a tenth the player Gretsky is you are a pretty good player. 

As an Aircraft maintainer I feel usefull but my replacement is waiting at the gate with very nearly equal skill , my value as a worker is determined by the absolute availibility of my skill and its utility to the payer. The President is going to get more than eight times my pay even though we are both civil servants and I might could handle his job.

[Xavier_Onassis]

The President is going to get more than eight times my pay even though we are both civil servants and I might could handle his job.

Eight times, not 400 times.

[Plane]

The President is going to get more than eight times my pay even though we are both civil servants and I might could handle his job.

Eight times, not 400 times.

So we are really talking big league at $25000000.00 per anum.


Reminds me of Babe Ruth being asked by the press how he felt about makeing more than the President  , he said
 " I had a better year then the President ." 

When you sell a used car it is actually worth esxactly no more than a buyer is willing to pay , but if you had a buyer who was willing to pay a whole lot would you refuse him?

I remember President Carter going to Poland with a poorly qualified translator  , on that occasion it would have been worthwile to have paid a bit more for the sake of quality, If you were asked to perform translation on such an important occasion , what should that be worth?

[Xavier_Onassis]

When you sell a used car it is actually worth esxactly no more than a buyer is willing to pay , but if you had a buyer who was willing to pay a whole lot would you refuse him?

I would demand payment in cash, and I would examine the cash very carefully.
Accepting overpayment is not the problem. It is offering it that causes the problem.
-------------
Reminds me of Babe Ruth being asked by the press how he felt about makeing more than the President  , he said
 " I had a better year then the President ."

I do not consider Babe Ruth to be an expert on economics. Nearly everyone THINKS they are worth as much or more than you pay them.

=============================

I remember President Carter going to Poland with a poorly qualified translator  , on that occasion it would have been worthwile to have paid a bit more for the sake of quality, If you were asked to perform translation on such an important occasion , what should that be worth?

I do not think that this person was chosen because they agreed to work for less. I think it was someone who was educated in the US, ad had a good knowledge of Poland, but whose Polish was learned from parents and grandparents who were essentially hicks who left Poland in the 1930's

Paying this person more would not have improved their performance. Once this problem was reported, Carter got another translator. No harm was done. The Republicans had it in for Carter and exaggerated everything about him that could be shown as a negative. They did the same to Clinton. It is what they do: they would rather shackle our presidents and denigrate them than allow the country to progress.

Juniorbush certainly needed better advice when he decided to invade Iraq. Of course, it is pretty clear that he ordered advice that could be used to justify the invasion. But paying the Neocons more would not have improved the quality of their advice.

[Cynthia]

"Juniorbush certainly needed better advice when he decided to invade Iraq. Of course, it is pretty clear that he ordered advice that could be used to justify the invasion. But paying the Neocons more would not have improved the quality of their advice."


.....

Bush has yet to admit that he made a mistake, yet I've heard so many confess to "bad advice".

That makes one wonder why the hell we even vote the way we do.....and by that I mean the constant fight Americans engage in over the personality, intelligence and reference points of one candidate or another.

Let's just vote for the King/Queen of the court to sit pretty, then demand that the decision making  "court" be held to the highest standards.  WEllll, we already have that capability as citizens, right?


Ooops,

WE ALREADY have THAT demanding voice.

Then why are we in this mess?

Perhaps it was all about the almighty $$ in the end.

[sirs]

OR....perhaps it was how best to provide security & defense to this country, including all the mistakes along the way, to that end

[BT]

The Republicans had it in for Carter and exaggerated everything about him that could be shown as a negative. They did the same to Clinton. It is what they do: they would rather shackle our presidents and denigrate them than allow the country to progress.

I'm not so sure that is a strictly Republican trait.

[Cynthia]

OR....perhaps it was how best to provide security & defense to this country, including all the mistakes along the way, to that end

Well, Sirs, I really do want that to be the truth, down deep. I hate conspiracy theories even if they are about greed.

But, the advice to invade and the speed in which Bush invaded was just not well planned out.

He could have invaded the terrorist sacs instead of an entire nation....Sure, eventually, Iraq would have been invaded for the purpose of hunting down more terrorists.  But to go to war the way we did was a "rush to judgement". Those mistakes, I am afraid are major blunders.
 
Bush's decision to invade and claim a victory so early in the game only opened the door to criticism. Not only the criticims  that we read on the board and hear on the street, but now that decision has impacted a presidential election.

Who wants  A FULL BLOWN war?

We are in a war for years to come and it's not all going to be about finding and killing terrorists. We are in an economics hell hole because of this war. That's scary.

There was nothing wrong with taking down Saddam, but to this day those mistakes along the way have yet to capture Bin Laden.

The source of the cancer was not Saddam. Now the fear of a relapse of the cancer of terrorism is on the minds of many, especially after a new president is elected. Just listen to Biden's statement ; "Obama will be TESTED"? We all know what he means. The inference is there. Will there be another attack on this country's soil?

So, those mistakes have set the world back--- not just the nation.

I don't see anything positive coming out on the nightly news about how the war has helped Iraqis' as Bush once claimed. I really don't believe that lack of "insight" to be the fault of the liberal media.

Face it, we just don't have enough proof that the war was a good idea, or that it has helped the nation of Iraq overall, or that the terrorists under Bin Laden have met their justice by the American war. Obama will be the next one to fall if he wins this election/or McCain for that matter---- if we are terrorized on our soil. So the cyclical effect continues all because of one stupid mistake.

Blunder and major flaw is more like it.

[richpo64]

>>But, the advice to invade and the speed in which Bush invaded was just not well planned out.<<

13 months to quick for ya?

[BT]

We are in a war for years to come and it's not all going to be about finding and killing terrorists. We are in an economics hell hole because of this war. That's scary.

I'm not sure the two factors are related.

Please expand your thoughts on this.