Culture Wars
Not a Square to Spare
by Clay Staggs
Well, this is a far cry from the gravity of the discussions about the movie (which I’ve thoroughly enjoyed by the way). But, it was so ludicrous, I just had to post it and offer a brief comment.
Sheryl Crow has now proposed a limit on how many squares of toilet paper can be used in any one sitting - only one - in order to combat global warming. Read the whole thing here.
Now, there are so many things that are just blazingly stupid about this, that it’s not even worth the pixels to detail them. I just ask this question. How completely and utterly divorced from reality do you have to be to even offer such a suggestion in the first place? I mean, this is just downright gross. Is there anything too extreme for these Hollywood enviro-types to suggest? Consider the insular, sycophantic world a person would have to be living in to even suggest such a thing in public.
If anything saves the world from the designs of these radical environmentalists, it will be their own extremism. I’m pretty sure that toilet paper rationing is a big political loser.
Posted by Clay Staggs at April 23, 2007 10:00 AM
Clay, I need further clarification. What kind of TP is permissable? Is it single ply, two-ply, gas station rice paper, or the sweet cushiony goodness of Angel Soft? Also, is there organically grown cotton that is used in the production of TP? Other questions to ponder: Is a ten-minute shower too luxurious? Should I just use cold water?
REALLY stupid…in the intelligence sense of the word. And the “dining sleeve” that one replaces after wiping his mouth on it at dinner? Good grief, Charlie Brown! This one deserves some sort of reward for…well…for…. words fail me.
To make a public pronouncement like that one is certifiably insane. However, I do have a theory (surprise!) on these types of “commitments” by these types of people. I think that they make obscene amounts of money but generally live like alley cats and these things (public concerts for charities, adopting foreign orphans, environmental causes, supporting political candidates for liberal causes, etc.) is an attempt to assuage guilt that can’t really be taken away because it is true guilt before a God they don’t recognize. Others (Cruise, Gere, et al) try outlandish efforts at “spirituality” to try to seek meaning and significance.
Ms. Crowe recently succeeded in breaking up Lance Armstrong’s long time marriage to a woman who was the mother of his children and who stuck with him through the cancer battle (no credit to him, by the way as it was his responsibility), so she needs to do something so she can feel good about herself.
Just my theory and probably excessively judgemental (which I constantly try to work against) but I have really seen this type thing over and over and over.