And now for something completely Different:

Spokane residents smuggle suds over green brands

By NICHOLAS K. GERANIOS, Associated Press Writer Nicholas K. Geranios, Associated Press Writer – Sat Mar 28, 1:49 am ET

SPOKANE, Wash. – The quest for squeaky-clean dishes has turned some law-abiding people in Spokane into dishwater-detergent smugglers. They are bringing Cascade or Electrasol in from out of state because the eco-friendly varieties required under Washington state law don't work as well. Spokane County became the launch pad last July for the nation's strictest ban on dishwasher detergent made with phosphates, a measure aimed at reducing water pollution. The ban will be expanded statewide in July 2010, the same time similar laws take effect in several other states. [Now this is a black market I could get into!]

But it's not easy to get sparkling dishes when you go green. [When you go green, everything becomes harder...]

Many people were shocked to find that products like Seventh Generation, Ecover and Trader Joe's left their dishes encrusted with food, smeared with grease and too gross to use without rewashing them by hand. The culprit was hard water, which is mineral-rich and resistant to soap.

As a result, there has been a quiet rush of Spokane-area shoppers heading east on Interstate 90 into Idaho in search of old-school suds. [Shady looking ladies line the sides of the streets attempting to make money on the black market.]

Real estate agent Patti Marcotte of Spokane stocks up on detergent at a Costco in Coeur d'Alene, Idaho, and doesn't care who knows it.

"Yes, I am a smuggler," she said. "I'm taking my chances because dirty dishes I cannot live with."

(In truth, the ban applies to the sale of phosphate detergent — not its use or possession — so Marcotte is not in any legal trouble.) [This is more or less how everything is. It's not illegal if you buy it, it's illegal for someone to sell it.]

Marcotte said she tried every green brand in her dishwasher and found none would remove grease and pieces of food. Everybody she knows buys dishwasher detergent in Idaho, she said.

Supporters of the ban acknowledge it is not very popular.

"I'm not hearing a lot of positive feedback," conceded Shannon Brattebo of the Washington Lake Protection Association, a prime mover of the ban. "I think people are driving to Idaho." [Awww, I think we hurt her feelings... Someone should give her a hug.]

Steve Marcy, manager of the Costco in Coeur d'Alene, about 10 miles east of the Washington state line, estimated that sales of dishwasher detergent in his store have increased 10 percent. He knows where the customers are coming from.

"I'll joke with them and ask if they are from Spokane," Marcy said. "They say, `Oh yeah.'"

Shoppers can still buy phosphate detergents in Washington state by venturing outside Spokane County, but Idaho is more convenient to many Spokane residents. [There is something weird going on with the sentence: "but idaho is more convenient to many Spokane residents." I think they should find a word to replace convenient. There is nothing convenient about Idaho.]

Phosphates — the main cleaning agent in many detergents and household cleaners — break down grease and remove stains. However, the chemicals are difficult to remove in wastewater treatment plants and often wind up in rivers and lakes, where they promote the growth of algae. And algae gobble up oxygen in the water that fish need to survive. [Wait, there are lakes in Spokane?]

While traditional detergents are up to 9 percent phosphate, those sold in Spokane County can contain no more than 0.5 percent. [And those sold in Spokane City can contain no more than 0.0031 percent.]

The Washington Lake Protection Association has launched a campaign to encourage people to give the environmentally friendly brands a fair chance. The group suggests consumers experiment with different brands or install water softeners to help the green detergents work better. [Just give them a chance... Fairness for the Dishsoap! Leave no soap behind! Equal Rights for Non-Phosphate detergent! "Just because some detergents don't have as many phosphates doesn't make them any worse, honey, it just makes them different."]

"Clean lakes and clean dishes do not have to be mutually exclusive," said association president-elect Jacob McCann. [Pretty sure there is a song: I want it all.]

Phosphates have been banned in laundry detergent nationally since 1993. Washington was the first state where the Legislature passed a similar ban against dishwasher detergents, in 2006. The ban is being phased in, starting with Spokane County.

"It's nice to be on the cutting edge," Spokane resident Ken Beck, an opponent of the ban, said sarcastically.

Among other states that have banned or are banning phosphates in dishwasher detergent are Maryland, Pennsylvania, Virginia, Michigan, Vermont, Minnesota, Illinois, Massachusetts and New York. A bill on Capitol Hill would impose a nationwide ban. [Darn, my states in that list. Guess I'll be on the blackmarket in 2010 in search of phosphates.]

The Soap and Detergent Association, which represents manufacturers, initially fought the bans. But as the movement gained strength across the country, the association asked legislatures to delay bans until July 2010 to allow for a uniform rollout of products.[Wait, there's a Soap and Detergent Association? Man, I should start the Wooden Pencil Association then get government grants to give number 3 pencils a fair chance at fame.]

The industry has been working to develop better low-phosphate detergents, said Dennis Griesing, vice president of the manufacturers group.

"This is an irrevocable, nationwide commitment on the industry's part," he said.

For his part, Beck has taken to washing his dishes on his machine's pots-and-pans cycle, which takes longer and uses five gallons more water. Beck wonders if that isn't as tough on the environment as phosphates.

"How much is this really costing us?" Beck said. "Aren't we transferring the environmental consequences to something else?"[This Beck, he seems a decent fellow, I'd hate to kill him.]

You ask: "But where is the Pope in all of this? The Pope has better things to do: Bring Indulgences back!

That Sneaky Basterd...

From the BBC (hence all the funny spelling.)

US 'not winning in Afghanistan'

President Obama is reviewing US strategy on Afghanistan

US President Barack Obama has said the US is not winning in Afghanistan, saying it is more complex than Iraq.

In an interview with the New York Times, he said reaching out to the Taleban could be an option, in the same way outreach had worked in Iraq.

However, the "fierce independence among tribes" in Afghanistan presented different challenges, he said.

A month into his presidency, Mr Obama authorised the deployment of up to 17,000 extra US troops to Afghanistan. [It would appear this is a giant scheme to get attention off of Iraq. This way he doesn't have to carry through with all his promises on what would happen in Iraq.]

Asked if the US was winning in Afghanistan, Mr Obama replied: "No." [When the Pope was asked, he said "No." as well.]

Mr Obama and his advisors are reviewing the US strategy on Afghanistan, and have looked at what has worked in Iraq.

Those tribes are multiple and sometimes operate at cross purposes, and so figuring all that out is going to be much more of a challenge -President Obama

"There may be some comparable opportunities in Afghanistan and in the Pakistani region," he said on board Air Force One.

Mr Obama, referring to the US policy in Iraq, said: "If you talk to General [David] Petraeus, I think he would argue that part of the success in Iraq involved reaching out to people that we would consider to be Islamic fundamentalists, but who were willing to work with us because they had been completely alienated by the tactics of al-Qaeda in Iraq." [The whole "reaching out" buisness just make me smile concidering how that word is used in the modern Church. Perhaps the Catholics would be our best bet in Afghanistan.]

However, Afghanistan could be a different situation.

"The situation in Afghanistan is, if anything, more complex," he told the newspaper.

"You have a less governed region, a history of fierce independence among tribes.

"Those tribes are multiple and sometimes operate at cross purposes, and so figuring all that out is going to be much more of a challenge."

Terror suspects

He also discussed what the US would do if a terror suspect appeared in a country without an extradition arrangement with the US. [This is what president Obama would do if he was in the same room as a terror suspect (or so I hope):

Terror Suspect: First things first, to the death.
President Obama: No. To the pain.
Terror Suspect: I don't think I'm quite familiar with that phrase.
President Obama: I'll explain and I'll use small words so that you'll be sure to understand, you warthog faced buffoon.
Terror Suspect: That may be the first time in my life a man has dared insult me.
Obama: It won't be the last. To the pain means the first thing you will lose will be your feet below the ankles. Then your hands at the wrists. Next your nose.
Terror Suspect: And then my tongue I suppose, I killed you too quickly the last time. A mistake I don't mean to duplicate tonight.
The One: I wasn't finished. The next thing you will lose will be your left eye followed by your right.
Terror Suspect: And then my ears, I understand let's get on with it.
Neo: WRONG. Your ears you keep and I'll tell you why. So that every shriek of every child at seeing your hideousness will be yours to cherish. Every babe that weeps at your approach, every woman who cries out, "Dear God! What is that thing," will echo in your perfect ears. That is what to the pain means. It means I leave you in anguish, wallowing in freakish misery forever.
Terror Suspect: I think your bluffing.
Superman: It's possible, Pig, I might be bluffing. It's conceivable, you miserable, vomitous mass, that I'm only lying here because I lack the strength to stand. But, then again... perhaps I have the strength after all.
[slowly rises and points sword directly at the prince]
The one who was born in a manger who defied the Matrix and came from another planet: DROP... YOUR... SWORD!

"There could be situations - and I emphasise 'could be' because we haven't made a determination yet - where, let's say that we have a well-known al-Qaeda operative that doesn't surface very often, appears in a third country with whom we don't have an extradition relationship or would not be willing to prosecute, but we think is a very dangerous person," he said. ["Hypothetically speaking, lets say I have this friend and he has finals next week and he hasn't studied yet, would he be in trouble--hypothetically speaking..." Could he be anymore vague?]

"I think we still have to think about how do we deal with that kind of scenario," he added. [I highly advice people to use this quote in almost any given situation. If you place it on a test, you may get a few points for "deep thought".]