|
|
|
April 23, 2007
Crow for conspicuous virgin virtue!
If there's one thing I hate, it's when something I consider satire becomes someone else's serious political goal. In a previous post about saving virgin trees I saw this one coming: ...every time I blow my nose or wipe my ass, I destroy virgins and doom many more!I don't know whether the arboreal evangelicals read my blog, but via Pajamas Media, I see that leading environmentalist Sheryl Crow is demanding an end to asswiping as we know it: I propose a limitation be put on how many squares of toilet paper can be used in any one sitting. Now, I don't want to rob any law-abiding American of his or her God-given rights, but I think we are an industrious enough people that we can make it work with only one square per restroom visit, except, of course, on those pesky occasions where 2 to 3 could be required.Why? Because "conspicuous virtue" is no fun if you have to practice it alone in the privacy of a toilet stall where no one can watch you. This new virtue must be enforced -- because of course we have to save "virgin wood": Crow (4/19): I also like the idea of not using paper napkins, which happen to be made from virgin wood and represent the height of wastefulness. I have designed a clothing line that has what's called a "dining sleeve." The sleeve is detachable and can be replaced with another "dining sleeve," after usage. The design will offer the "diner" the convenience of wiping his mouth on his sleeve rather than throwing out yet another barely used paper product. I think this idea could also translate quite well to those suffering with an annoying head cold.First toilet paper? Then napkins? Can diapers be far behind? That there's an established anti-diaper movement is old news: The latest Greenie fad is "Diaperless babies". Yes. They actually see virtue in having babies shit all over the place!But that was in 2004. The anthropogenic global warming mania is now breathing new life into ridiculous ideas -- even old and shitty ones -- and I think we can expect a dramatic increase in such virtuous squalor. Any idea why Crow failed to mention tampons? (I'd almost be tempted to be snarky and ask, "which comes first; the diaper or the tampon?" but that might be too dirty a question to pose at a clean, values-based blog.) AFTERTHOUGHT: I'm wondering whether there's any connection between Sheryl Crow's opposition to asswiping and the recent kerfluffle between her and Karl Rove: As he headed toward his table, "Sheryl reached out to touch his arm," David writes on TheHuffingtonPost.com. "Karl swung around and spat, 'Don't touch me.' How hardened and removed from reality must a person be to refuse to be touched by Sheryl Crow?Far be it from me to read Karl Rove's mind. But what if he interpreted "one square per restroom visit" literally? UPDATE: Via NewsBusters, Rosie O'Donnell reacts -- in this case quite negatively: Has she seen my a**?That's a rhetorical question, right? MORE: In this now-vintage public service message, 1960s underground comix artist R. Crumb warned us about the messy consequences of not using toilet paper.
Read the colloquy in the lower left. Sheryl Crow's plan for America is more than just inconvenient. It just plain stinks! MORE: Have to say, I'm with Don Surber on this one: You will take my TP when you pry it from my cold brown fingers.Let's unroll! MORE: Glenn Reynolds weighs in: SHERYL CROW AND HER TOILET PAPER: I think this is an example of "negative branding." As I drove home, I heard a local DJ saying that no one will ever be able to listen to her music without thinking of butt-wiping, and then speculating that maybe Lance Armstrong had left her because "she wasn't diligent enough with the paperwork." That was the first of many similar jokes.Not to butt in, but judging by the comments it's pretty clear that a lot of people want her to be the butt of her own joke... Following which a little change (in underwear, natch) will do her good. MORE: Earlier, Glenn Reynolds made this solemn pledge: I promise I won't be asking anyone to go without toilet paper.While Glenn was saying this in order to promote the One Billion Bulbs Club (which I've joined, btw), it's not bad as a bad campaign slogan. Who knows, if they keep this up, the race might actually get amusing. posted by Eric on 04.23.07 at 11:04 AM
Comments
I would like her to demonstrate the effective use of "one square" or "two or three" in pesky situations. They better be very big squares. tim maguire · April 23, 2007 01:20 PM Sorry to double post, but I would also like to see the congressional debate that determines the definition of "pesky situation." tim maguire · April 23, 2007 01:22 PM All excellent points! Perhaps businesses should be required to hire federal lavatory attendants to enforce the limits on squares. Eric Scheie · April 23, 2007 02:21 PM The edges of square are wasteful … they should be circles. OK, I’ll shut up! Crowe might run with the idea. Jason Pappas · April 23, 2007 02:39 PM You're shitting me. She can't be serious. However, the Mexican way is not so bad. Newspapers. It is a little rough and the low flush toilets will have a hard time. However, as every one knows, sacrifices must be made. Don't flush that used paper. Recycle it. M. Simon · April 23, 2007 04:36 PM How can the same people who gave us "keep your laws off my body" and "keep the government out of our bedrooms" give us a one sqaure limit? Does their hypocrisy and self-cluelessness know no bounds? (Talk about silly questions.) Watchman · April 23, 2007 05:12 PM I use three squares to blow my nose. I mean my God. What about us poor saps with IBS? S Wisnieski · April 23, 2007 05:22 PM As to whether Sheryl Crow is kidding, the BBC certainly appears to be taking her seriously: Eric Scheie · April 23, 2007 05:23 PM I'm pretty sure she was really just referring to the post-pee wiping that girls do. Anyway, she's obviously unaware of the farms of hybrid cottonwood I see all over the Northwest, planted specifically for paper. They don't cut down old-growth for paper - it's worth far, far more as lumber. Paper is what they make from the waste; would she rather it just be thrown away or burned as cogeneration fuel? Sigivald · April 23, 2007 05:44 PM ....I don't want to rob any law-abiding American of his or her God-given rights, but I think we are an industrious enough people that we can make it work with only one square per restroom visit.... The use of "his or her" and "we" does not evince an intent to limit this to women. Eric Scheie · April 23, 2007 06:01 PM "Paper is what they make from the waste; would she rather it just be thrown away or burned as cogeneration fuel?" I'm fairly certain she would rather people stop using lumber for things like homes and instead use canvas tents. Well, probably prefer everyone ELSE use canvas tents... Kent · April 23, 2007 06:13 PM I hope she was being tongue in cheek, because I have a hard time believing that anyone could be this stupid. JaimeRoberto · April 23, 2007 06:17 PM I hope she was being tongue in cheek Disturbing mental image. Bob K · April 23, 2007 10:16 PM Ah, I can see the lobbying now... "A bidet in every bathroom" and calls for a Federal subsidy to get bidets to low income earners.... Darleen · April 23, 2007 10:48 PM oh...btw? I'll put in compact fluorescent bulbs when they stop giving off such crappy light AND I can use 'em with a dimmer switch. In fact, I'm in the process of getting rid of all the #@5!#3 f-bulbs in our new home. The drop lights in the kitchen ceiling are doomed. Darleen · April 23, 2007 10:52 PM Reliapundit has left a great hippy joke on the "problem" in the comments at: Power and Control. M. Simon · April 23, 2007 11:58 PM Regarding tampons: environmentally concerned girls already have the option of re-usable sea sponge tampons. I've never tried them, so cannot give a recommendation. Celeste · April 24, 2007 07:25 AM ... However, the Mexican way is not so bad. Newspapers. It is a little rough and the low flush toilets will have a hard time. Hmm, I wonder how an annual subscription to the NYT compares to a year's supply of Charmin at Sam's Club... Patrick · April 24, 2007 04:47 PM Perhaps this should be updated. Jason Pappas · April 24, 2007 04:58 PM Darleen, thanks for coming. If it's any help, there are dimmer switches for CFLs, and some CFLs are dimmer capabable. On your other point, I happen to think bidets are wonderful -- almost as efficient as taking a shower to get rid of smells -- except that the environmentalists would never promote them, nor would they even want them permitted. Why? Bidets use water! And we can't have that, can we?
Eric Scheie · April 25, 2007 08:22 AM Post a comment
You may use basic HTML for formatting.
|
|
April 2007
WORLD-WIDE CALENDAR
Search the Site
E-mail
Classics To Go
Archives
April 2007
March 2007 February 2007 January 2007 December 2006 November 2006 October 2006 September 2006 August 2006 July 2006 June 2006 May 2006 April 2006 March 2006 February 2006 January 2006 December 2005 November 2005 October 2005 September 2005 August 2005 July 2005 June 2005 May 2005 April 2005 March 2005 February 2005 January 2005 December 2004 November 2004 October 2004 September 2004 August 2004 July 2004 June 2004 May 2004 April 2004 March 2004 February 2004 January 2004 December 2003 November 2003 October 2003 September 2003 August 2003 July 2003 June 2003 May 2003 May 2002 See more archives here Old (Blogspot) archives
Recent Entries
• Bureaucratic pain as rational basis for unconstitutional laws?
• Moran On Iraq • The Pain In The Brain • Car Sticker for Bush haters with dyslexia? • Never Again • Voiding my useless and irrelevant warranty (While worrying about my ongoing slide into crime) • I Support Democracy In Iraq - The Animation • bumbling the bee scare? • What about the right to keep and bear eggs? • A Political Deadline For Defeat.
Links
Site Credits
|
|
Many middle-eastern cultures teach to wipe with their left hand. They don't often have paper available. Hence, they don't shake hands with their left hand. And thieves punished for stealing often lose their right hand, making them unfit for public discourse.
Another point regarding the "virgin forests". Due to the US paper industry, there are more forests / trees in the US now than there were in 1920.
If one were to take her concept and apply it to other grown items, like potatoes, she would be saying we should limit the consumption of potatoes because we have to plant and grow replacements. Trees just have a longer gestation cycle.
BTW, "third world" nations that haven't developed re-planting cycles (e.g. South America), just slash and burn their forests. It is the more advanced nations that practice recycling and restoration. Mostly because we can afford to because of our higher incomes and better lifestyles.