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 "conspicuousvirtue" 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.
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.
I don't think it was part of a well-thought-out PR strategy. . . .
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.
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
TrackBack
TrackBack URL for this entry: http://classicalvalues.com/cgi-bin/pings.cgi/4929
Comments
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.
_Jon · April 23, 2007 11:50 AM
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.
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.)
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.
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...
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?
The Anti-Idiotarian Rottweiler
Don?t bang your head!
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.