Why am I reminded so strongly of John Cleese's sex education teacher in Monty Python's "Meaning of Life"?

You know the scene. His line, when asked by a schoolboy to clarify a rule, is immortal:

"It's perfectly simple," he says, and then launches into a spectacular oration that is singularly informative, and totally nonsensical at the same time.

So, of course, both hand-towels and dryers are, depending on where you are and what kind you use and what time of year it is and whether it's humid or dry and how long you use it and where it's mounted and if it's a new or old one and if the towels are blah blah blah environmentally friendly.

It's an answer -- but so is "Out!" to the parental question "Where are you going?"

Seriously, it's exactly this kind of complex "one study said" followed by "but in another experiment" that pushes people not to investigate more, but simply to give up and abnegate the decision entirely.

If the study didn't include recycled paper, then why did you publish it because it's frankly incomplete to the point of being completely useless and misleading.

We must get away from guilt-tripping people into environmental behavior (hello! backlash!) and start empowering people with correct, complete information that allows us all to participate in environmental success rather than simply more of this environmental dithering. How much carbon was emitted in chasing down this complete non-answer?!

The truth is for hand-towels versus dryers, the solution is utterly simple. Lobby a couple of state governments to regulate that any "hand drying method" must produce less than half of the current best case carbon emission per hand-drying cycle.

And let the market do the rest...

Andrew writes:

The American promise of a blend of democracy and capitalism ... is hardly taken seriously by anyone anymore

Indeed. Those promises are viewed with a good deal of suspicion. Which strikes some people as odd, because they seem like such good promises! Why the suspicion? Here's why:

Democracy The 2000 election finally euthanized the morbidly sickly notion American has anything at all to offer the world under the heading "democracy". America's "democracy" is, firstly a gerrymandered republic, and secondly a joke -- why would any sane citizen of anywhere want some of that? There are other democratic models that are far more successful, and far more transparent.

Capitalism America talks a good capitalism talk, but doesn't walk the capitalism walk. From farm subsidies to corporate governance to anti-monopoly laws, no thinking person now wants anything to do with the "American brand" of capitalism. Other brands have far more credibility.

To steal a great Gandhi quote: "What do you think of American democracy and capitalism?" --- "I think they would be very good ideas."

Simply copy Hong Kong.

Every single potential chokepoint at Hong Kong's brilliant airport is handled with a "snake" -- a single line with lots of scanners/checkers/stampers at the "head" -- making those potentially frustrating places fast, fair, and fuss-free. If someone has a "problem" the system just flows around that person and their issue.

The "phalanx" -- multiple lines each leading to a different scanner/checker/stamper beloved of 3rd World airports and airports in the USA -- has got to go. If someone is a little slow on removing their shoes / presenting their paperwork / etc., then everyone in "their" line has both their blood pressure go up, and their time wasted.

But that's just crowd control. Traveling the world 25 years ago, nowhere did crowd control better than the US of A. These days, just about everywhere is better. Thanks TSA!

The big new-ish thing at Hong Kong is -- brace for it -- no announcements! That's right, none at all, except for unusual things like gate number changes. No calls to late passengers. No "security reminders". No pointless "final boarding calls".

The airport is quieter and far more sane as a result. And because they know they're not going to be reminded, people actually check the big board, and the get to their gate before time.

Treat people like adults, and they behave like adults. Treat them like children...

The author says it all, encapsulating both sides of the "debate" with singular clarity:

If faith is so fragile that it can be shaken by the introduction of challenging ideas, what good is it?

Unfortunately her faith disagrees with her, as the Catholic Church has been fighting against this notion in a quixotically paternalistic battle, in desperate rearguard, ever since the Reformation.

Books that question religion? On to The List they go. Having a direct relationship with God? Heresy! Can I glean my own truth from the Bible? No, you must listen to the infallible pope, no matter that he's been wrong a thousand thousand times before.

If an idea even appears to be something that might "challenge" faith, the Catholic church bans, boycotts, condemns, excommunicates.

What are they afraid of?

In the marketplace of ideas, yours have got to stand up and be able to defend themselves. In the bazaar of world views, yours has got to demonstrate that it offers more than comfort by-and-by.

Would that there were more people of faith who saw, as this author sees, that coddling and "protecting" faith only makes it weaker, and ever more easily thrown off. Sure, don't ever let your kids see anything that questions faith -- the result will be that they won't be in the church beyond their majority, as they'll fall at the first hurdle.

But then again, the Catholic Church did try and ban logic. Look it up.