I Know Sarah Palin

by: JimC

Thu Sep 04, 2008 at 13:36:52 PM EDT

Of course I don't know her personally, but I know her. And please note I am not talking about her gender per se, but in the interest of being honest and describing my own experience, I can't avoid that.

I watched all of her speech and I'm glad I did. I know this woman. I am almost her exact contemporary (she is one year older than me).

I went to school with women just like her -- the whole deal, the Republicanism, the beauty pageant (one woman I'm thinking of actually went to the Barbizon School of Modeling), the almost militant pro-life stance steeped in Catholicism (Palin was baptized a Catholic, but her parents converted to the local church).

She has a chip on her shoulder, perhaps no bigger than mine, but essentially, she sets herself against the world and is constantly reminded that she's right. She believes, with some justification, that she is surrounded by liberals on campus. As a non-baby boomer (a GenX-er), the media, with its almost exclusively baby boomer view of the world, have been her enemy since she started reading the paper.

She finds you quickly, this type, because you're willing to talk (in other words, argue) politics with her when her friends (and yours) run away (and, in my case at least, I wasn't exactly fighting off other girls), so you basically come to a truce of sorts. But it's an uneasy truce, because you don't agree on ANYTHING. She tends to declare victory if you cede a single aspect of a single issue. "Sure, I wish there were fewer abortions, but I think more birth control--" "See! You agree with me!" The issue is not a matter of respect, as it's being portrayed -- I respect her as much as I respect any young politician. But I don't agree with her on anything.

Is she smart? Of course she's smart, but that's not news. It's college, everybody's smart (though your friends think she's an idiot, and they think you're an idiot or worse for putting up with her).

At 44, with her resume, is she ready to be vice president? Well, how has she conducted herself in office? I don't like what I've read. As a chief executive, is she an innovator, or one of Newt's 1994 revolutionaries, contemptuous of the very machinery of government and ready to turn on those who brought her there? (Newt told Jon Stewart he pushed for her, so it's his fault I thought of that, and one thing I noticed last night was how frequently Ted Stevens was thrown under the bus.) Wasn't that Bush's problem? Outsource everything, respect the military but nothing else? Throw aside your own legacy?

She didn't even touch the issues in her speech. She didn't have to -- everybody recognized her.

I know I'm generalizing, but this is politics. There are only so many paths people can take. Sarah Heath found her path, and look where it led her. Politically, she's a wedge, a throwback to 1990s politics, a Clarence Thomas if you will. We can make all sorts of cynical assumptions about the choice, and we're right, on that level.

But socially, she is different. This is a major change for the GOP -- and it is a step forward, of sorts. If she becomes vice president, and then president, well, the torch has been passed to a new generation of Americans.

And what does one learn about their earliest political opponents? Never underestimate them, but try not to take them too seriously.

Unless, of course, they actually become vice president.

Here We Go, Again

by: JimC

Thu Aug 21, 2008 at 10:35:47 AM EDT

Obama Team Seeks Changes in Primaries
Plan Reduces Role of Superdelegates

By Dan Balz
Washington Post Staff Writer
Thursday, August 21, 2008; Page A03

Sen. Barack Obama's presidential campaign will call next week for the creation of a commission to revise the rules for selecting a presidential nominee in 2012, with a goal of reducing the power of superdelegates, whose role became a major point of contention during the long battle for the Democratic nomination between Obama and Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton.

The commission also will be urged to redraw the nominating calendar for 2012 to avoid starting the primaries and caucuses so early, and also to look specifically at ensuring more uniform rules and standards for those caucuses.

I actually think this is a great idea, but I'm old enough to know we've rewritten the rules before. 35 members is a big committee, I hope the DNC chooses well.

The other significant change is the call to redraw the primary and caucus calendar. The 2008 calendar received significant criticism both for the early starting dates for the Iowa caucuses and New Hampshire primary and also because so many states were crowded into the first month of what turned out to be a five-month battle.

Under the system envisioned by the Obama and Clinton campaigns, most contests could not be held before March, except for those in a handful of states authorized to go earlier -- presumably in February rather than January.

No comment on that by me, yet. Perhaps you have one.

Should we elect the VP nominee?

by: JimC

Mon Aug 18, 2008 at 23:40:15 PM EDT

Would electing the VP be more fair?  We elect the lieutenant governor down here, and the results are decidedly mixed. Recent tradition calls for chosen running mates, but Deval Patrick (very wisely, in my view) chose to ignore that and return to the independently elected running mate.

No axe to grind, really -- I'm not worried about Obama's pick. But this seemed like a timely time to ask.

I'd add a poll, but I'd rather hear the reasoning than the numbers.

Wag the Watchdog

by: JimC

Sun Aug 17, 2008 at 09:35:37 AM EDT

I've had a diary like this in my back pocket for about a month. It's necessary to retrace my thinking on it a little bit.

I was thinking about Barack's Germany trip, and I read how Andrea Mitchell, presumably among others, was complaining about lack of access to the candidate.  Some of that is the logical shift from candidate to presumptive nominee, but the implication was, the press was being managed more. The staginess had kicked up a notch.  So I had this thought that the campaign, which had in some ways campaigned beyond the primary toward the general, was now campaigning beyond the general to the administration. That struck me as a dangerous strategy.

At about the same time, I read a piece by the estimable Eric Alterman, the premise of which was this: some of the best minds in America are trying to solve the problem of declining newspaper readership, because newspapers are the primary information source in our democracy, and hence one of the primary engines of our democracy.  But, among the greatest enemies of the industry are the new crop of owners. One newly minted executive at a LARGE paper had to have it explained to him that a dateline of Lebanon, say, meant the paper had a reporter in Lebanon.

So flash forward a few months, and Barack wins, but the press hates him.  I don't want that. Suppose all the press bashing the grassroots activists do filters up. And years go by, and the Democratic Party reaches a state where the GOP stands now: one of our leaders can literally deny something in a major news organ -- say, the Murdoch-owned Wall Street Journal -- and the base doesn't care. Then the republic has a problem.  Everything is "just partisanship," there is no objective source of truth.

I was trying to reconcile all this, and trying to compose some coherent sentences on it without sounding like a ninny, and then I had a completely different thought:

To hell with the press.

The rightful role of the press is a watchdog. The press SHOULD hate and fear the government - even if the government is us, which I certainly hope is the case in a few months. So, if the Democratic Party is better, let us prove it, because the default setting of a reporter should be to mistrust us, to be suspicious of anyone who would presume to lead us.

Anyway, that was last month. Now the convention is closer, and I'm looking forward to the big show and pretty much back to being a ninny.   What do you think?

Convention Watch

by: JimC

Wed Aug 13, 2008 at 16:51:48 PM EDT

I see that Mark Warner is the keynote. I think that means Tim Kaine is out as VP, unless the convention theme is "Yes, Virginia!"

I also saw an item about a veterans' theme, which I am sure at least one, maybe two hampsters know more about than I do.

As to a convention watching gathering, if there is a BH one, I won't make it there. But I have a really good excuse -- thanks to my local town committee, I am hosting one. (I'd offer to live blog it, but it won't be terribly exciting, and besides the TV is not near the computer.)

So I guess the question is, where will you be when history is made?

Best Political Music

by: JimC

Fri Aug 08, 2008 at 12:40:18 PM EDT

My criterion (yours may differ): The band's identity (or individual's identity) is political. That doesn't mean every song, but it also excludes bands that may do one or two political songs. I reserve the right, as should you, to add honorable mentions of songs as the thread grows.

Of course, the usual rap against political music is that when politics comes to the fore, the music suffers. I say: bollocks.

Rock on.

Supreme Court Strikes Down DC Gun Ban

by: JimC

Thu Jun 26, 2008 at 15:24:43 PM EDT

"The Second Amendment protects an individual right to protect a firearm unconnected with service in a militia and to use that arm for traditionally lawful proposes, such as self-defense within the home," Justice Antonin Scalia wrote for the majority.

Is there a scarier phrase than "Justice Antonin Scalia wrote for the majority?" (Though, to be fair, I think he might have written the 9-0 flag burning is OK opinion.)

Chief Justice John G. Roberts and Justices Anthony Kennedy, Clarence Thomas and Samuel Alito joined the majority. Justice John Paul Stevens dissented, joined by Justices David Souter, Ruth Bader Ginsburg and Stephen Breyer.

That sentence needs an edit (is there a code for fake blockquote?):

Chief Justice and Bush 43 appointee John G. Roberts and Justices Anthony Reagan appointee Kennedy, Bush 41 appointee Clarence Thomas and Bush 43 appointee Samuel Alito joined the majority. Justice John Paul Stevens dissented, joined by Justices Bush 41 appointee David Souter, Clinton appointee Ruth Bader Ginsburg and Clinton appointee Stephen Breyer.

More from the news story:

The court's majority ruling repudiates the long-held notion that the right to bear arms is strictly linked to militia service. The court concluded that it's an individual right untethered to military or government necessity. This will make it easier for gun rights advocates to resist new regulations and overturn existing laws.

By the way, they also overturned the "millionaire's amendment," one of John McCain's legislative accomplishments.

Illegal Hiring at Justice Department

by: JimC

Tue Jun 24, 2008 at 15:21:36 PM EDT

Yes, it's old news in its way, but worth remembering. From the New York Times: http://www.nytimes.com/2008/06...

"Many qualified candidates" were rejected for the department's honors program because of what was perceived as a liberal bias, the report found.

I love this -- "social justice" is left-wing bias:

Applications that contained what were seen as "leftist commentary" or "buzz words" like environmental and social justice were often grounds for rejecting applicants, according to e-mails reviewed by the inspector general's office. Membership in liberal organizations like the American Constitution Society, Greenpeace, or the Poverty and Race Research Action Council were also seen as negative marks.

Affiliation with the Federalist Society, a prominent conservative group, was viewed positively.

There is more to come. This is the first in an unspecified number of investigations.

Here's the kicker:

The blocking of applicants with liberal credentials appeared to be a particular problem in the Justice Department's civil rights division, which has seen an exodus of career employees in recent years as the department has pursued a more conservative agenda in deciding what types of cases to bring.

The pacing of these things can be maddening. The Justice Department scandal seems long ago and far away. And for those of us who never put any faith in the Bush administration, it's easy to shrug it off. But ILLEGAL hiring at the JUSTICE Department is as clear a sign of corruption as any I can think of.

Update: As Doug reminds me, the scandal was over firings. Hiring is a new angle.

The Good New Days

by: JimC

Thu Mar 27, 2008 at 00:31:21 AM EDT

I share a lot of the frustration expressed in this diary:
http://www.bluehampshire.com/s...

But forget it.  Remember three things:

1. Hillary can still win, under Democratic Party rules.

2. Therefore she has the right to campaign, and her odds of winning are much higher than the 5% David Brooks put it at. I'd put them at an approximate and more or less arbitrary 25%. (Would you have your candidate withdraw, under those odds?)

3. She does not have to "break his back" to win. She has to win a majority of the delegates -- you know the drill. This is an election.

The campaign doesn't just test the candidate, it tests the candidate's message. In my view, Barack faced his greatest challenge last week, and he beat it back with a stirring speech that, if he wins, will be taught in history classes someday.

But the message is, well, off-message lately. Instead of change, and hope, I hear fatigue. I hear, dare I say it, entitlement.

Look at the positive part of the example Hillary Clinton is setting -- not everything she's doing, I have my objections too, but the tenacity.  As she's said, repeatedly, she's prepared to go all the way. OK, that's her right.

Though it's been awkwardly expressed at times, her campaign reflects her message: I will do what it takes to win, and I will never give up until it's over. Do you think that message is lost on superdelegates? It is not.

His campaign needs to reflect his message: optimism, the possibility of change, a different kind of candidate who wants to elevate the discourse. The speech last week was all that.

So throw away your blogger hat, your Mike Caulfield This-is-all-the-same-old-game fedora, and, for gawd's sake, your Draft Gore T-shirt. Tell me why your candidate is different. Tell me how he'll rise to this challenge in a new way. And please tell me soon, I need to know he can face the next challenge, and the really important one after that that lasts four years.

Romney out

by: JimC

Thu Feb 07, 2008 at 12:44:10 PM EST

What a short expensive trip it was.

Update (Dean): This picture

finally makes sense!

If I fight on in my campaign, all the way to the convention, I would forestall the launch of a national campaign and make it more likely that Senator Clinton or Obama would win. And in this time of war, I simply cannot let my campaign, be a part of aiding a surrender to terror.

The War Bet Is Placed

by: JimC

Wed Jan 16, 2008 at 23:52:51 PM EST

Tweety went overboard in describing Hillary's "power play," but he was essentially correct about the significance of the moment. The three leading candidates have the same position on the war: withdrawal within a year of taking office, with some sort of contingency force either in Iraq or nearby (Kuwait).

Hillary initiated it, but it was Barack who said got Edwards to agree it was a "distinction without a difference." In short, you're coming too, you will not run to my left on the war.

This discussion could evolve, but this is the equilibrium we've reached. I'm more or less prepared to accept it, because, despite what I said in September ("cut funding"), to be nakedly political about it, these candidates have talked to voters for months. This is apparently what they've heard: End the war, but maintain stability.

This, or McCain's 100 years. A big diference. A big enough distinction for the independent voter, after all the qualifications, contingencies, and unforeseen circumstances are considered and discussed? I sure as hell hope so.

Wishful Thinking: Democrats, Foreign Policy, and the War on Terror

by: JimC

Fri Aug 31, 2007 at 00:20:05 AM EDT

I was wrong.

The recent dustup between Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama convinced me. That fight hurt both of them and the party, and she only made it worse with her so-called gaffe last week.

Here's what I want to see: a statement of Democratic unity on ending the war, including all the candidates. Then, the following should happen:

1. Begin withdrawal hearings as soon as Congress returns. "What do you need, general? How soon can we bring troops home while ensuring their safety as much as possible?" Clear the calendar of all other business, including the US attorney investigation. That can wait. Even if has to be dropped altogether, the war is the highest priority.

2. Once the date is set, pass the withdrawal bill. If it is vetoed, pass it again. Repeat as necessary.

3. Anticipate the GOP response, and say it first. "We know the president and his party will say we are cutting and running. But rather than listen to their insults, we are acting for the good of the country. Furthermore, we take the president at his word that Iraq is one battle in the larger war on terror, and we are withdrawing from Iraq before it's too late for us to win the war on terror."

4. Destroy the CIA to save it. Get CIA Director Michael Hayden up on the Hill. Acknowledge the importance of foreign intelligence in the broader war. Make him commit to a full accounting of the practice of extraordinary rendition, including who in the Bush administration (or Clinton's if we have to go there) authorized it. Make him publicly commit to ending the practice. If he refuses, schedule a no confidence vote. If he leaves, find the new director from within the demoralized rank and file of the CIA. Do not allow the new director to be confirmed without a commitment to at least relative transparency. We know "sources and methods" cannot be discussed, but like Ford's ban on assassinations, some restrictions can be imposed on the CIA.

5. Issue a statement confirming the Democratic Party's support of the global war on terror. (Bear with me here.) Something like this: "Our policy is that we will pay any price and bear any burden to keep Americans safe. We recognize that abuses have been committed. We pledge to end those abuses, and we pledge to work with our allies to capture and disable terror networks who threaten civil society. Furthermore, we welcome help in this effort. It's time for the 'coalition of the willing' to live up to its name."

This last part is the trickiest. I don't think we can credibly say "OK, war over, we're going home." I leave it to better minds to think of exactly what we say, but I see three basic legs of this triangle:

- We were elected to end the war, and we haven't done it.

- The hawkishness of the American people, when it comes to catching terrorists, cannot be overestimated. Remember, the Abu Ghraib story broke in 2003, BEFORE Bush was reelected. Therefore, we can't end the war without pledging to protect them - but we can do it in accordance with American ideals.

- "The terrorism card," however phony and hypocritical, has worked every time. We need to drive the agenda, not enable Bush's agenda.

Any thoughts?

Instant Runoff Voting

by: JimC

Tue Aug 28, 2007 at 14:49:17 PM EDT

Could we have instant runoff voting? Should we?

From a website called Fair Vote -- http://www.fairvote....

Paragraph breaks added for readability.

How Instant Runoff Voting Works: IRV allows voters to rank candidates in order of preference (i.e. first, second, third, fourth and so on). Voters have the option to rank as many or as few candidates as they wish, but can vote without fear that ranking less favored candidates will harm the chances of their most preferred candidates. First choices are then tabulated, and if a candidate receives a majority of first choices, he or she is elected.

If nobody has a clear majority of votes on the first count, a series of runoffs are simulated, using each voter's preferences indicated on the ballot. The candidate who received the fewest first place choices is eliminated. All ballots are then retabulated, with each ballot counting as one vote for each voter's highest ranked candidate who has not been eliminated.

Specifically, voters who chose the now-eliminated candidate will now have their ballots counted for their second ranked candidate -- just as if they were voting in a traditional two-round runoff election -- but all other voters get to continue supporting their top candidate.

The weakest candidates are successively eliminated and their voters' ballots are redistributed to next choices until a candidate crosses a majority of votes.

Instant runoff voting allows for better voter choice and wider voter participation by accommodating multiple candidates in single seat races and assuring that a "spoiler effect" will not result in undemocratic outcomes. IRV allows all voters to vote for their favorite candidate without fear of helping elect their least favorite candidate, and it ensures that the winner enjoys true support from a majority of the voters.

Plurality voting, as used in most American elections, does not meet these basic requirements for a fair election system that promotes cost-saving elections with wider participation.

Please note this discussion began here: http://www.bluehamps...

Bush's astounding speech

by: JimC

Wed Aug 22, 2007 at 15:51:47 PM EDT

Mr. Bush accused the Congress of planning to "pull the rug out from under" American troops. He said the American pullout from Vietnam more than 32 years ago was to blame for millions of deaths in Cambodia and Vietnam, and for putting a dent in American credibility that lasts to this day.

"Then as now, people argued that the real problem was America's presence, and that if we would just withdraw, the killing would end," Mr. Bush told an audience at the Veterans of Foreign Wars convention here today. "The world would learn just how costly these misimpressions would be."

Just incredible! Thanks to Bob from BMG for pointing me to this. Here's what I said in his diary:

They say the worst part of a knife wound is when the knife is removed. However, to call attention to the knife's withdrawal while ignoring the stabbing defies all logic.

The Ten Rules of Political Blogging

by: JimC

Tue Aug 14, 2007 at 14:26:24 PM EDT

Cross-posted at Blue Mass Group. All examples are fictional.

1. No mention can be made of the mainstream media without a negative aside. Wolf Blitzer of CNN, aka the Challenged News Network, had this to say -

2. Candidates above a certain level must be criticized for playing the game too well. Obama's advance people are "advanced" alright, with their Gap-like headsets. Candidates below a certain level must be criticized for not playing it well enough. The "Browniebacks" tasted great, but where was the milk?

3. A campaign's receptiveness to bloggers is the surest sign of its virtue. Kucinich blew me off to talk to the lead political columnist from the Cleveland Plain Dealer. Well I checked, and only 25 people e-mailed his last column, whereas I've been averaging 92 hits a day. Time to reassess, Denny.

4. No matter how momentous and/or serious the event is, inject yourself into it. As Tancredo struggled through his withdrawal announcement, his wife and children wept openly. And I wondered what might have been. For one thing, I might have returned those Blockbuster DVDs on time.

5. Acronyms are the bomb (AATB). To hear the MSM tell it, HRC is a lock. But, IIRC, they've been wrong before, and IMHO, they're wrong again.

6. Each campaign represents not a person and his/her staff, but some sort of grand metaphor, aka a frame.

7. Gut feel outweighs all rational considerations when forming your opinion. Sure, Richardson has experience, but he's told me too many times, and I'm "experienced" out.

8. Nothing can be taken at face value. McCain's support of the war reflects either a complete disconnect with reality, or, more likely, a grand old pander to the Republican Party, a sort of blaring orchestral version of "Flight of the Valkyries."

9. Quotation marks are your friend. Senator "Clinton" announced a "policy" that I "didn't" "like."

10. Try not to present your entire argument; make the reader click your friend's blog too. As Toby observes and Julia comments, my "good friend" Sam will be eating crow a la mode.

Ford vs. Kos

by: JimC

Mon Aug 13, 2007 at 17:02:11 PM EDT

I have to say both did well. Ford's message was clearly "We want the same thing," which I think is true (at least on his part), and Markos was having none of that but did make a point of saying that, if he had his way, he'd be sitting next to Senator Ford.

I'm surprised not to see comments on it, so I'm just wondering what other people think. I may cross-post this to Blue Mass Group.

Tangentially, the Meet the Press theme is very dramatic, especially over headphones with no graphics to distract you. I thought Orcs would attack.

Live to FISA Another Day

by: JimC

Fri Aug 10, 2007 at 11:23:08 AM EDT

E.J. Dionne is a must-read today.

http://www.washingto...

Politically, Republicans won this round in two ways. They got the president the bill he wanted and, as a result, they created absolute fury in the Democratic base. Pelosi has received more than 200,000 e-mails of protest, according to an aide, for letting the bill go forward.

Democrats concede they made an enormous tactical blunder by not dealing with the issue earlier, forcing the question to the fore in the days before the recess. One anxiety hovered over the debate: If a terrorist attack happened and Congress had not given Bush what he wanted, the Democrats would get blamed for a lack of vigilance.

"Could something happen over August?" Rep. Rush D. Holt (D-N.J.) asked in an interview. "Sure it could. What bothered me is that too many Democrats allowed that fear to turn into a demand for some atrocious legislation."

The saga also underscored how constrained congressional Democrats feel because of their tenuous majority in the Senate. Had the Senate sent the House an alternative bill, sponsored by Sens. Carl M. Levin (D-Mich.) and John D. Rockefeller (D-W.Va.), the two houses could have put a more limited proposal on the president's desk and challenged him to veto it. But the Levin-Rockefeller proposal failed.

Absolute fury indeed. We need a unified Democratic bill, the other side can't be trusted on this.

What was that, Senator McCain?

by: JimC

Wed Aug 08, 2007 at 16:24:50 PM EDT

From John McCain:

Have you seen the headlines about how much money the Democrats are raising? In just six months, the Democrats running for president against me have raised more than a jaw-dropping $100 million combined! These well-funded Democrats are so far out of the mainstream that electing any one of them as President would lead to a less secure homeland, surrender in Iraq, socialized health care, new taxes, and even more wasteful spending. For every issue facing our nation, their solution is more government.

I'm still the Republican presidential candidate who is in the best position to stop the Democrats from taking the White House in 2008. And with the stakes so high, we cannot afford to give up...or even back down one inch. I'm the only candidate in this race prepared to be Commander-in-Chief from day one and dedicated to continuing the fight against Islamic fundamentalists. I will veto every bill that wastes taxpayers' dollars, and I will stand up to the special interests and Washington lobbyists to find real reform to fix our nation's most pressing problems, like health care. With so much on the line, we cannot afford to elect a Democrat to the White House in 2008.

Our nation's most pressing problems, like health care. Now here's what McCain's website says about health care:

That's right, nothin' ... but he'll solve it, if you help, now.

With a tip of the mouse to Dean for the blank blockquote technique, copyright 2007 All Rights Reserved.

Calling All Flatlanders

by: JimC

Thu Aug 02, 2007 at 10:58:41 AM EDT

I know it's more fun to hang out here with the people who actually pick the president, but we have to mind the store! They're putting casinos in day care centers here in the People's Repubic.

Blue Mass Group is also ugly compared to Blue Hampshire, but I can't complain alone, you have to back me up.

So come home every once in a while. Thanks to this big truck called the Internet, you can be in both places at once -- and still be nowhere at all.

Water

by: JimC

Fri Jul 27, 2007 at 10:52:09 AM EDT

Check out this item from Man Group, the world's largest hedge fund.

Special Research Report on Water, From Man Investments

Man Investments Quarterly Review has found that the development of investment markets to trade water supplies can do much to alleviate the growing global scarcity of clean water. The report notes that water is a vital resource, but until recently it has received little attention from the investment community. As a result, investment funds dealing exclusively in water are few and hedge funds even fewer.

As with other commodities, there is a growing supply/demand mismatch in water. While in aggregate there is sufficient fresh water to meet global demand, distribution is becoming more problematic. Some regions are experiencing rapid depletion of fresh water supplies due to dwindling groundwater levels and increasing pollution of lakes and rivers. Parts of China, Africa, India, Australia and the Middle East are already short of water and the situation will only worsen as population increases and income rises. It is estimated that a third of the world?s population currently lives in water-stressed or water scarce countries.

The report calls for greater privatisation of water assets. While acknowledging that such a move is controversial, it says privatisation will generate capital, urgently needed to improve infrastructure. Furthermore, notes the reports, as water becomes increasingly scarce in numerous regions, opportunities will play out for investment managers.

That's one aspect of the issue, perhaps the more scary one. One thing that's gaining momentum is criticism of bottled water, as a number of municipalities are actually steps to encourage people to use plain old tap water.

As Americans, of course, we are lucky, but water is going to be a global issue, and as Tom Friedman might say, it's time for some good old ingenuity, American or otherwise, to address the issue.

Any thoughts?