Forgotten Heros of the Empire

When Star Wars fans speak of the Empire, they invariably think of the big name bad guys: Darth Vader, General Tagge, the Emperor, and for those of you who like the new trilogy (weirdo-freaks), the Darth Mauls, Chancellor Palpatine, Jar-Jar.

But to think of the Empire in purely evil terms does a disservice to lesser known heros of the Empire; those brave men who risked death for standing up for what was right. (side note - why was everyone in the Empire a man? Was it chauvinism, or something else.... For that matter, why were they all British, too? Alas, I digress....)

Today, we celebrate one of these lesser known heros of the Empire: Chief Bast

The Chief, played by Leslie Schofeld, had apparently only one line, but it was a critical. Much like Rosencrantz and Guilderstern, his screen time was limited, but his role proved critical. For it was Chief Bast who analyzed the Rebel's plan of attack and realized that yes, there is a danger.

Was he rewarded for his initiative? No. Was his warning headed? No. Was his tact in bringing up such a delicate matter appreciated? Hell no. For his troubles, he recieved nothing but scorn a verbal lashing from General Tagge for overestimating the Rebel's chances.

We think it is time for Chief Bast to be praised for displaying the initiative, intelligence and discretion that all good officers should demonstrate. Had you only been successful in warning others of the danger, we might not ever have to have seen an Ewok.

Chief Bast: We salute you!

an impossible uphill battle

Do you know a company is saying when you call in and you have to navigate through their phone system just to get your question answered? It says, our time is more valuable than yours.

They might as well say, sorry customer, but we don't have time to waste talking to you; we would rather you navigate a complicated phone tree, which is set up to serve our purposes and not yours, and if you are lucky, we might only subject you to 15 minutes of listening to lame marketing promotions you are going to ignore but we are hoping that if you are subjected to enough you will crack and buy some add on service that you do not want, and eventually, after making you wait, we may get to your call and eventually give you the honor of spending money with us. This is the message I am hearing, and I am sick of it.

The latest one that put me over the edge was my run in with BlueMountain.com. I wanted to send one of their e-cards. I was happy to pay for it but that was not possible. You have to set up a subscription to get their cards (another pet peeve, but one rant at a time). They were willing to give a one week free membership, which I signed up for, and which I planned on promptly dropping as soon as the card was received and opened. A few days after it was received, I went back on their website to cancel out. Problem #1, you can't cancel your subscription via the website; you must call in. So I call. Problem #2, you have to call during business hours in order to cancel. So, I call in during the work day (something I loath....don't waste my work time; that is something only I have the privilege of doing). I navigate their damn phone tree entering all the information and confirming (several times) that yes, I want to end this "relationship".

It took about 15 minutes, but the part that drives me craziest is that I never actually spoke to a person. For some reason I had to call during work hours, navigate an overly complex system, just to end something I never wanted to begin with, all for the privilege of dealing with an automated system. Humm...it is almost like they want to make it so complicated that I will give up and let them charge my account every month....

In the end, nobody won. They got no money and I had to waste my time. I will not go back to them again; there are plenty of other options for e-cards which have yet to annoy me. Maybe their lame strategy works and it keeps people paying for a subscription that they don't invest the time to end, but I doubt it.

In any event, I am encouraging a boycott of all companies whose customer service phone line puts them through an unnecessarily long process, and especially those that make you listen to marketing campaigns instead of letting you talk to someone who can resolve the issue for which you called. I know this is an impossible uphill battle, but I'm going to try.

Happy shopping.

Lemmy

I like movies. To me, a good night can be as simple as seeing a really good movie. I am a huge fan of almost any genre, except one: movies about musicians. I find most movies about musicians (or concerts), to be at best, self-serving praise, or more likely, boring as hell.

That all changed for me this past week. I saw "Lemmy".

"Lemmy" is a biography of Lemmy Kilmister, of Motorhead fame. The tagline for the movie sums it up well, "49% Motherf**ker. 51% son of a bitch." I admit, before seeing the movie, I didn't know much about him, or Motorhead, outside of their song "Ace of Spades". If it wasn't for the folks on 89.3 The Current here in the Twin Cities, I would not have known this movie existed, much less would I have seen it. Of all the movies that came out in 2010, this one could be my favorite.

Lemmy is about as normal as you can get for a rock star. He has no entourage; fans can walk up to him in bars and get their photo taken with him for free. He lives in rent controlled apartment in LA. He has no pretensions about his greatness. When asked if he really thought he would still be playing now that he is in his 60's, he replied, "I'm not qualified to do anything else."

But at the same time, this is a guy who lived his life the way he wanted to, and he didn't care what anyone thinks. If he thinks you are an SOB, he tells you it to your face. Nothing is held back, and no apologies are made. Musicians and fans love him for it. Ozzy, Alice Cooper, David Grohl, along with a cast of others, all praise him as the Godfather of metal, but also because he did it the way he wanted to, and f-off if you don't like it.

I give it a big thumbs up. Jim Bob says check it out.

So what....

Today I am beat up and physically sore.

I have been trying to get into good shape, particularly the cardiovascular, which for me is, well, lacking. About a year and a half ago I changed my workout routine to CrossFit St. Paul, and it has been an improvement. The workouts have been brutal, and I still have a ways to go, but I have been happy with the progress. That was, until Wednesday's workout: the 1/4 mile walking lunges of death workout. It was a good workout, but my legs are shot. To borrow a quote from Lili von Shtupp, "everything below the waist is kaput".

Today as I hobble around, aching every time I sit (or stand, or walk), I had to ask myself, so what if tomorrow really is the rapture?

First off, I don't believe the faithful will leave our world at 6pm Saturday May 21, 2011. But if it does happen, what would I have done differently? Top of my list, I would not have done that d@mn walking lunges workout which has made it difficult to get around. Second, I think I would have stopped working out altogether, and probably ate a lot more junk food (tonight's nights dinner: bacon flavored spray cheese and wine!). That is the beauty of knowing when things will end. It removes a lot of personal responsibility and accountability for your actions. Had I know absolutely and without question that tomorrow would be the day, I would have engaged in a lot more reckless activities. I would have picked up smoking, or hard core drugs. It wouldn't matter - it was all going to end soon. Also, I wouldn't have bothered with saving for retirement or any sort of other financial planning. I would have spent like a drunken sailor.

After that, I am not sure. There are things I would like to change about myself, or that I would have liked to try, too. The good news is there is still time. There is nothing stopping me from making any of these changes, except myself. So while I think the rapture believers are a bit nutty, at least they have provided a good reminder to reevaluate your life, even if it is for the wackiest of reasons. A little introspection is good now and then.

Also, I will be traveling most of next week, so chances I won't see many of you. Do not take this as a sign I have left you behind.

"...must be willing to wear a harness."

A few years back, I was in Las Vegas for fun with a group of friends from Minnesota. It was February, and we had a few hours till our flight, so we were sitting outside, soaking up the 50-degree sun. I started flipping thought the newspaper, and in the want ads, there was a listing for the following job:

"Borg needed: Male, 5' 10" to 6' in height, 160-180 lbs, must be willing to wear a harness"

It was a listing for a Star Trek themed show, or casino (I'm not really sure). They needed some "actors" to play a Borg; based on the description, I fit the bill. The harness might prove to be tricky, depending on how high off the ground I might be (fear of heights), but as for the rest of the requirements, I fit them perfectly. Plus, I'm a bit of a Star Trek geek.

For those of you unfamiliar with the Borg, they first appeared in "Star Trek: the Next Generation". The Borg are humanoid but with cybernetic implants. They are both man and machine. They are all part of a "collective", which shares the experience and knowledge of all members throughout the hive. They are devoid of emotion, and they seek to enslave other races to join the collective ("Resistance is futile"), and some of them apparently wear a harness. So besides fitting the basic physical parameters for membership, this was a philosophy which I think I could really get behind.

So why I am bringing this up?

No reason, really. I just remember this story whenever I think about career decisions I have made, and the other career paths I could have taken. I am not unhappy with the choice I made and I don't want to be an Actor for a career, much less a Borg. But still, it might have been fun to play one for a little while, just for the experience.

It is a shame that most people can not take off from their jobs for say, a six-week sabbatical, to try new, random jobs that strike their fancy. I think it might be a good way to stop folks from daydreaming about what they might have done if they had the chance to try it out some of these other career paths. They could try them out, and if it is not as enjoyable or rewarding as they thought, they could back to their real job without any repercussions, and my guess is with more focus and enjoyment then they had before. I think this is a policy everyone would enjoy. In today's economy and job market, it is unlikely to happen, but maybe, someday, it would be possible.

And yes, if I could take off time to try something new, it would be a monorail conductor.

So Osama bid Laden is dead...so why am I worried?

So the news is being relayed around the world. Apparently Osama bid Laden is dead. So why I am so worried and why do I think this doesn't make one bit of difference?

Yes, he is (was) a horrible person. Yes, he declared war on the US and yes, I am glad he is gone. But so what? He was one man in charge or an organization that was (and still is) hellbent on destroying the USA. Their figurehead leader is gone, but the threat still remains.

Sorry CNN, I do not see what this does to improve USA's "prestige" in the world. It took the USA, the lone superpower (for now) - both economically and militarily - almost a decade to kill one man. How this improves our stature, much less secures the world, I do not know. His control over the al Qaida organization was questionable. Post 9/11, how many terrorist attacks can be attributed to him? Did he personally orchestrate and plan all these attacks, or was he a figurehead, a symbol of anti-Americanism? The USA has in effect martyred this madman. His death will be a recruiting tool to would be terrorist around the world. Al Qaida's war against the USA is not over. It will be fragmented among many potential leaders, many of who we do not know.

Today, I am happy for the families of folks who died on 9/11 (RIP Dan McNeal). I am very proud of the troops who have fought and died overseas for the last 10 years in search of this madman. Yes, the world is a better place that he is no longer here, but now I am worried. We don't know what to expect next.

On Sept 11, 2001, there was the sense of surprise and fear: we were attacked without reason or cause and from an unknown enemy. Today, I fear the same will happen again.

Greek Easter Pick up Lines

If you are Greek, this is comedy gold! If you have friends who are Greek, share this with them. It will give them a much needed laugh this week. Trust me - its gold.

GREEK EASTER PICK-UP LINES:

#1 Hi there. Can I buy you a candle?

#2 So, do you come here often? Yeah, me neither.

#3 You know, the scent of your perfume really compliments the smell of your burned hair

#4 Would you like a flower?... I got it from the Kouvouklion...

#5 The light of that candle really hides the fasting-induced black circles around your eyes.

#6 Do you like this version of Hristos Anesti?

#7 Would you like to go for a walk around the block with me...my mother, sister, yiayia, Thia Sofia and my 3 cousins?

#8 Don't know the words either huh?

#9 That shade of lipstick looks great on you and the ikona.

#10 Nice eggs

April is the cruelest month

"April is the cruelest month" - T.S. Eliot, "The Waste Land". Or as I like to abbreviate the sentiment, April sucks.

Very little good happens in April. The NCAA basketball tourney ends, but in my head, that is still part of March. Opening day for baseball is cool, but that is about all that comes to mind. On the other side of the ledger we have unpredictable weather (sun one day, snow the next) and taxes are due. I hate taxes.

"Taxes are the price we pay for civilization" - Oliver Wendell Homes, Jr.

I understand the concept of taxes and yes, they are necessary. What I hate is the randomness and morality which is in effect legislated by tax policy. I'll use myself as an example: In the last year, like most people, I did not get a raise; I feel fortunate my wages did not go down. I never bought a home, so I did not contribute to the property bubble. I kept my finances in order and I did not run up excessive debt. I have no children or other dependents, so I do not burden the school system or social programs. I spend money in the local downtown economy, paying the higher city taxes, and I walk there so as not to pollute or add to the congestion. Despite all this, I not only do I owe taxes, but the amount went up, and for the life of me, I have no idea why.

This irony of this is I should have bought of an overpriced house, to get the tax break. I should have overextended myself, then declared bankruptcy. I should have had a mess of kids and get the tax break for that. The irresponsible actions would have saved me money. All of this gets at the root problem for me: the implied moral legislation behind taxes.

Someone postulated a theory that home ownership promotes stability in the community, resulting in a reduction in crime. It is for this reason that interest on home mortgages are tax deductible - to promote home ownership and stable communities. Great theory, aside from one problem: It is not true. Germany has a lower percentage of people who own their homes (under 40% vs. 67% for the US), yet, Germany has a lower crime rate. Married filers have advantages, too, but for reasons unknown to me. Like a discount for having children, both of these appear to be credits/bribes for engaging in socially approved behavior. Meanwhile, those of us who are single and childless must pay extra for the benefit of your spouses and offspring.

I am not asking for any special treatment; all I ask for is equity and fairness. I am willing to pay my share, and have others pay their share, too. Yes, I am a big fan of flat tax rates not only because of the fairness it brings, but also because it would suddenly eliminate the needs for tens of thousands of accountants and IRS agents. Unfortunately for this year, it will end like other years: me paying extra taxes, asking why our tax system is set up to discriminate against my morally unacceptable lifestyle, and never getting an answer why. Instead, I am told I owe more.

That is why April is the cruelest month.

I hate these pants.

Today, I was wearing tweener pants. I hate these pants. They cause me nothing but pain.

Tweener pants are ones you can't tell what color they really are; they seem to straddle two color pallets. In this case, black and navy blue. When I bought these pants, I thought they were black. Or maybe I thought they were navy blue? I can't remember now. All I know is that most times when I am getting dressed, I can't tell if they are black or if they are dark blue. In the end, it really doesn't matter. I hate these pants.

I am not the most alert person in the morning; I know and accept this. So to identify the color, I have had to rely on different methods and tricks. I have several pairs of pants by this manufacturer, so I can't distinguish them by the label. When I bought them, I remember marking the inside tag with a laundry pen in blue (or maybe black?), so I could easily identify the color. That worked, till the mark faded. Now it looks blue, and kinda black.

Now I have to resort to holding them up to other pants - ones that I know are black or blue. By comparing them, you should be able to tell the difference. It worked - softa. They definitely looked different than the ones that were black, which was good, until I realized they also look different from the ones that I knew were blue. Natural sunlight is the best way to tell the color. Since mornings in winter are dark in Minnesota, these pants don't get worn much in the cold months. But now that Spring is here (don't jinx it!), they are getting into the rotation more. The last two times I have worn them, I noticed something that makes the whole point moot.

Last time I wore them, I was sure they were black, so I wore a black belt and shoes with them. Turns out they weren't black, but in fact blue. I looked like a fashion dork all day. I set the pants aside, pinned a note to them that said "BLUE", and I decided to wear them again today, but this time with a cordovan color belt and shoes. That didn't work. Today they looked like black pants, and I look like a dork for wearing the wrong color belt and shoes.

These pants have it in for me; I have decided to take this as a personal affront. Fortunately, I work at a place with many fashion challenged individuals, so I still look a cut above the rest. Right now, I have no idea what to do with these pants. I can't treat them like they are black or blue, and I don't have the fashion chutzpah to pull of something avant garde. The worst part for me is they feel good and they look good on me. I don't want to lose them, but I am out of ideas on what to do about them. Any and all suggestions are welcome.

I hate these pants.

Pickle "upgrades"

When did it change, that when you order a sandwiches or a burger, that the default become a "yes" for pickles?

I know it wasn't always this way. I remember growing up that it was an option - some liked pickles, others of us wanted no part of those diseased, vile interlopers oozing their putrid juices on the rest of our food.

Somehow, somewhere along the line, it changed. Now you get a pickle automatically. To get things the way they were, you now have to exert effort. You have to take steps to get things back to the base state, and even then, there is the risk that your food will get contaminated. A changed that is supposedly for our good is forced upon us, whether we want it or not.

I feel the same way about technology and software upgrades.

I don't know why there are so many upgrades and changes to devices that I use and like. Changes in appearance, changes in functionality, changes in what information is captured (and shared) occur on a weekly basis it seems. Security upgrades and fixing software bugs I can see, but that should not affect the user interface; those changes should all be behind the scenes. It doesn't explain or justify the changes in functionality upon items we have gotten used to and liked.

The answer for the change probably all comes down to one of two reasons: Money and Whiners. Either someone figured out a new way to make money on a device that we already liked. So a change was made - sorry - an "upgrade". Or, there was a group of very vocal proponents who wanted things different. I would like to think that this group represents the majority, but I doubt it. They are just the loudest, so they got their way. Just like the pickle lobby. Now we all have to suffer. The "improvement" makes people who were happy and loyal, annoyed, and the whiners wanted the change get rewarded for being a pain.

You can call me a luddite, but it should be taken it as a complement to the manufacturer that I liked the old, non-upgraded stuff. I am not looking to change. You made a program that was good the first time and I have no need or desire to change. Don't piss me off by trying to "upgrade" it.

Enjoy upgrading your new apps and software for all your devices this weekend. I'll be watching movies on my VCR and playing Atari 2600.

TV Dramas

Why would anyone want to watch a tv drama?

I was thinking about this Monday night, when I was bemoaning the fact "Big Bang Theory" was moved to Thursday, the NCAA Basketball game sucked (and not just because UNC wasn't in it), and the only thing good on TV was "Gone with the Wind." Watching all that disease and dying in the hospital reminded me how popular shows like "ER" and "St. Elsewhere" were in their days, and for the life of me I can't figure out why - why would anyone would ever watch those shows?

Doesn't everyone life have enough drama in it? (except mine - as of last week, I am problem free). Why would anyone want to become emotionally involved with the problems of others, who are (a) fictional and (b) don't give a crap about you?

Yeah, so, maybe it is good TV and well acted, but so are a lot of other things on TV. Why watch something which will ultimately be depressing? Comedy, sports, Mysteries, reality competitions, News (i suppose) seem like a better use of free time and escapism. Drama - we got that covered already. Why would anyone want more? Are there people going through their day going - yes, I need more emotional stress in my day, so I will assume the problems of fictional characters?

Weird.

Maybe I need to be a chick to understand this. Maybe people watch this in the hope that all their problems can be solved in one hour if they watch enough of these shows. If anyone has insight on the topic, I would love to hear it. In the meantime, I'll be watching SpongeBob reruns and laughing my @ss off while you cry into your remote.

Happy watching!

Oscar Justice

So last weekend I spent part of the snowy Sunday watching "The Last Emperor". It has been out for over 20 years, and I was amazed at how good it still is to this day. It was a well told story, with an epic quality in its scope, well deserving of its status as "Best Picture" plus the eight other Oscars it won. Sometimes, I had to admit, the Oscars get it right.

Sometimes.

More often they eff it up.

So it starts like it always does, with lunch with SeaBass. I know it will happen, I just don't know when, but sometime in the month of February the Oscar bashing will occur. This year, the topic focused on mistakes.

I have almost given up trying to improve the Oscars. My attempts to improve the Oscars with new categories has failed miserably (check past rants in 2008, 2009 and 2010). So instead of trying to offer positive solutions for improvement, for 2011, I am out to punish past injustices (no more carrot, it is ALL stick). There are certain movies and actors which won, which should not have taken home Oscar glory, while some languished, bravely applauding, while wondering "what?!". So for 2011, I think it is time to right the wrongs, and retroactively awarding the major awards to the movies that should have won, but didn't.

Best Picture:

"Saving Private Ryan" over "Shakespeare in Love", the winner in 1999. "Shakespeare in Love" winning the Oscar was the result of a very clever and effective marketing blitz, that took a very good movie, and convinced everyone it was great. With the benefit of hindsight, "Ryan" is the picture that has stood the test of time, and still has that epic quality you look for in a Best Picture; unlike "Shakespeare" which is just a very clever romantic film. However, the decision to right this wrong was not an easy selection. Also under consideration was "Shawshank Redemption" losing to "Forrest Gump", "Dances with Wolves" beating "Goodfellas", "Gladiator" inexplicably beating a host of other films, and "Titanic" winning in 1997 (Actually, even though it is a completely overrated movie, I don't hate "Titanic" that much. What I really hate most is that "Titanic" is spawned a generation of imitator films, set during a major historical event, which is told through a love story which seeks to impose itself of said event, e.g. "Pearl Harbor". The parent should suffer for the crimes of the child).

Best Director:

Easy. Rob Marshall for "Chicago" over Roman "the Rapist" Polanski for "The Pianist". "Chicago" was nominated for 13 Oscars and won six. It won two parts of the triple crown, that every best picture should win: Best Picture, Best Editing... but no best director. That honor went to Polanski. To put it simply, best pictures don't direct themselves. Did the Academy really think that a movie could win so many awards and receive so many nominations by, what, luck? It takes a skilled director to do it all, and Marshall got the shaft.

Now, granted, Roman Polanski winning the award did lead to possibly the most unintentionally funny moment in all of Oscar History when his name was announced as the winner. The audience was looking around for him in the theater, until the PA announcer chimed in and informed everyone that "Mr. Polanski is not in attendance tonight because he will be arrested and incarcerated the moment he steps on US soil for drugging, rapping and sodomizing a minor." Okay - I made part of that up, but he is still a pervert.

Best Actor

Mickey Rorke in "The Wrestler" over Sean Penn for "Milk" in 2008. This one is almost too recent to qualify, but the politics behind this one were too strong to be ignored. The debate on gay marriage obviously had an influence on voters minds; a vote against Penn was a vote against homosexual rights. It is a shame this debate in the political world had an unfortunate and unintentional effect on Rorke's performance, one of the best of his career and possibly the best male acting performance in the 2000s.

This correction narrowly beat out one of the greatest injustices, in 1992 when Jack Lemmon did not even get nominated for "Glengarry Glen Ross." That year the award went to Al Pachino for "Scent of a Woman". Seriously. Also losing out in the retribution awards was Paul Newman getting denied for "The Hustler", "Hud", "Cool Hand Luke", "Absence of Malice", and "The Verdict". Shameful.

Best Actress

Cher for "Moonstruck" in 1988. I don't really care who wins in her place. I just hate Cher. Pick anyone in the last 20 years and I'll be happy. Give it to Meryl Streep for one of the 12 times she deserved to win, but didn't, and that's fine with me.

Best Supporting Actor:

Supporting actors and actresses are tough calls; a small part can have a huge impact, even if the acting wasn't that great. Actors sometime win just because it was a fun role. The one injustice that has bothered me is in 1991: Jack Palance winning for "City Slickers" over Gary Oldman who was not nominated for his performance as Lee Harvey Oswald in "JFK". To put it simply, Oldman did a better job of playing Oswald than Oswald ever did playing himself. Its hard to take away an award from an old guy who does one armed push ups in his acceptance speech, but look back at JFK, and Oldman is what made that movie great (so long as you don't believe everything in the movie is true).

Best Supporting Actress:

Judi Dench in "Shakespeare in Love". One of Oscar's many problems is there is no guidelines for how big a part you need to qualify for Best Actor/Actress or for Best Supporting Actor/Actress. Daniel Day-Lewis suffered this misfortune in 2002 when his brilliant performance, but in a secondary role in "Gangs of New York". His part was too small to compete with Best Actors, which he lost; had he been nominated for Best Supporting Actor, he probably would have won. Judi Dench though had no such problem. Apparently, she packed enough in her eight minutes of "Shakespeare in Love" to win the award. Bullocks, I say, bullocks. Her winning for "Shakespeare in Love" was an insult to the other deserving actresses, but an even bigger insult to Ms. Dench's impressive body of work. A more deserving winner: Lynn Redgrave for "Gods and Monsters".

We these small corrections, the Academy Awards could take a big step to writing past wrongs. I only hope they don't make new ones this weekend.

Happy watching!

Quest for water pressure

Like everyone, I have some vices. At the top on my list is taking a really good shower with strong water pressure. Really, really strong water pressure. I don't need some fancy euro-trash designed shower head, just something that will deliver lots of water, fast. It is an obsession of mine, and on the scale of vices, I think it is fairly harmless.

I like feeling clean, and I like the good jolt of water to remove the dirt and grime. Also, I have a powerful mop of hair that is water resistant. It takes a good, strong flow of water to wet down the fro and wash out the shampoo. I need something with a water flow of 4.0 gallons per minute or higher. Yet, those of us who want teeth rattling water pressure have been deemed social parasites, and enemies of mother earth.

Try to find a shower head that deliver more than 2.5 gpm. If you can find one, let me know. I will pay good cash money for one, legality be damned. My old faithful Speakman head, which delivered a good 5.0 gpm once I removed the restrictor plate (yes, I am outlaw), is on its last legs. 15 years of good service, but it is clogged up. I need a replacement, and I can not find one. I could score drugs faster than I could an non-restricted shower head.

I realize that my offer to pay good cash for an "illegal" shower head makes me the enemy of the green movement. Why they have target just showers is a mystery to me. I am unaware of any other household restrictions on water flow; there are none for tubs, pools, washing machines, kitchen sinks, garden hoses or sprinkler systems. Only showers have been targeted. I had always felt that the whole savings via a low flow shower head was a crock. Green resources claim that a low flow shower head can result in water savings. By reducing the flow to 2.5 gpm (or 1.6 as some would want), an individual saves 28.2 gallons per month. That translates $6 a month, or $72 a year. Beyond being a pittance of an amount, this assumption is based on one faulty premise:

People spend the same amount of time in the shower with an unrestricted shower head as they will with a low flow shower head.

Bullocks, I say, bullocks. In hotels and other places with restricted flow, I spend twice as long in the shower trying to get clean (and never succeeding). My time, and the water used, increases. Add in the extra cost of running a fan and lights longer, and I waste more time and electricity in the shower just because some tree hugger who hasn't showered in the last year has dictated how much water is acceptable to use.

Interesting point on water: my job this last year has focused on the water industry, specifically leaky pipes. Water loss through transportation is a big problem. The average country losses between 25-40% of its water supply in transportation. So before it even gets to your home, basically one-third of your water supply is lost through leaks that you never see. If someone wants to reduce the amount of water wasted, start with fixing the leaks. If that idea is too practical, here are two others that would better address the problem of water conservation:

1. Become a vegetarian: Residential use of water is about 20% of the total used. Commercial is about 12%. The rest - approximately 67% of all water - is used in agriculture. Most water is used to grow food, and not all foods consume the same amount. It takes 2,500 gallons of water to produce one pound of beef. Low flow showers save (what was it?) 28.2 gallons a month, or 338.4 per year. Tell you what, I promise that I will reduce my burger consumption by one burger per year, so I can have my water pressure back, and we'll call it even. The green movement will still come out ahead in water conservation.

2. Price water to the Market: water in the US is highly subsidized. In Europe, it is 5-10 times higher than in the US. Let the true cost of water be born by the consumers, and let those who value it pay for the amount they use. I will gladly pay for my water consumption; its my vice and I don't expect anyone else to carry the cost.

The part of unrestricted flow shower heads I can't get over is the irony of making them illegal. Consider this: Guns are legal, cigarettes are legal, both of which can kill you, or someone dear to you. Taking a shower is socially acceptable and hygienic, yet it is restricted.

Happy showering