Whatever happened to progress?

In my blog wanderings, I came across this post: Cloth Toilet Paper: How and Why...and I am thinking, mostly, WHY????

This earnest, frugal person, whom I will say must be a "better man than I", uses cloth for, uh, you know what...And then she has to keep a container next to the toilet in which to collect the, uh, used cloths for later washing.  Apparently, the container is sealed, because, well, you know why...

I'm not gonna add this to my to-do list, people...And I'll bet there aren't many old-timers-- who once thought that the Sears catalog was an upgrade -- that will want to bring it back either.

Progress means you can send the, uh, foul stuff away with a flush, and without extra, uh, handling...or smell...or collecting it...ewwwww...Using toilet paper used to be considered an UPGRADE...another improvement for the homemaker, and for hygeine...time-saver, and so much better than a corn cob or a catalog...

So many of the improvements in "technology" that our grandparents and parents hailed as new luxurious conveniences, upgrades in hygeine, in food storage & safety, and in reducing their workloads, have fallen out of favor today.

Oh -- I know chlorine is used to make toilet paper white, and that the toilet paper has to be dealt with at the water treatment plant...But so does the water from your washing machine, and you have just shifted the e.coli to another source for the water treatment plant. I'm not saying cloth does not lessen the effect on water treatment, but I am suggesting that it may not be a very large percentage of improvement for the environment. Not to mention the increased risk of having an e.coli source sitting on the floor of your bathroom while it waits for the wash...

In my opinion, some of these radical shifts back to "the way things were" do more for the psyche of the doer, than they do for the environment, or the purposes used to justify the practice.

More power to you, I say! But I'm staying with paper, and the luxury of flushing some of my troubles away.

Peeves in the news...

 SYMBOLISM OVER SUBSTANCE
Disney has joined the fight against the "obesity epidemic" by pledging to offer more healthy food choices at their parks. The First Lady lauded the move as something that is "really big" in the effort.

I'm not sure we can expect that the number of obese citizens will drop dramatically...because Disney is a place that, unless you live in Orlando, or southern California, you will probably visit only once in your life...not exactly enough time to make a life-change. Of course, it is advertised as a "magical" place...maybe there's something I don't know that could effect a magical weight loss.

Regardless, I don't think the phrase "really big" was a good choice of words...for a number of reasons!

 GET YOURSELVES A NEW SPOKESPERSON
King5 news last night covered a protest against additional local regulation of medical marijuana dispensaries. They interviewed one of the protestors, a woman who emphatically described her need for medical marijuana. She said that the doctor had given her pills for her condition, but you don't know what is in them, and there's stuff in them that will kill you. She needed access to marijuana because you know what is in that (just marijuana!) and it's much safer.

Perhaps she had just taken a dose of her preferred prescription before saying this...but I'm pretty sure that the cause that she supports was not too happy with the display of her reasoning -- or lack thereof.
I don't think the cause would have appreciated the guffaws coming from the viewers as they considered the safety of acquiring pure marijuana from a grower/distributor as compared with medicines researched by drug companies, and prescribed by doctors, who are accountable for malpractice. Oh sure, I'd trust the marijuana guy over the doc every time...and that's why every neighborhood should have their own dispensary.

So being a stay at home mom isn't work, huh...

I respond with a quote from G.K. Chesterton:

"To be Queen Elizabeth within a definite area, deciding sales, banquets, labours, and holidays; to be Whitely within a certain area, providing toys, boots, cakes and books; to be Aristotle within a certain area, teaching morals, manners, theology, and hygiene; I can imagine how this can exhaust the mind, but I cannot imagine how it could narrow it. How can it be a large career to tell other people about the Rule of Three, and a small career to tell one's own children about the universe? How can one be broad to be the same thing to everyone and narrow to be everything to someone? No, a woman's function is laborious, but because it is gigantic, not because it is minute."

Hear, hear!

Wisdom for Wednesday...

In honor of the rapidly approaching deadline for filing your income tax, these words:

THE POINT TO REMEMBER IS
THAT WHAT THE GOVERNMENT GIVES
IT MUST FIRST TAKE AWAY.
--John S. Coleman

Thanks to all for your forced contribution.

I'm sure I don't understand...

...because what I thought I heard has such broad application.

What I heard yesterday as one of the arguments to uphold the healthcare law was that those who don't participate in purchasing healthcare make the costs greater for those who do...and that is an undue burden on those participants.

Couldn't I say that is also true for those who don't choose to purchase raspberries? Really -- it causes us a burden when the price goes way down because the market is soft. So, we plant fewer raspberries, and then people want them more, and they become costly because there aren't enough of them to go around...and that causes a burden on everyone.

If everyone was required to buy some raspberries every year, wouldn't that be more fair?

I'm not sure how they're going to handle shipping raspberries to places that don't have them. Neither do I know what they're going to do about the people who don't like raspberries...or think they don't need them...

They'll come up with some regulations to handle that, and after they pass that bill we'll find out what's in it.

And we'll all live happily ever after, because life will finally be fair...well, except for people who don't like raspberries.

But obviously, they don't know what's good for them anyway.

If ever there was evidence...

...of our President and his wife considering themselves as entitled elitists, I think the report that their 13 year old daughter was sent to vacation in Mexico with her friends and Secret Service Agents is it.

First of all , what 13 year old deserves her own spring break vacation. I'm not sure most college kids deserve spring break vacations... AND what 13 year old needs to vacation without her parents?

Secondly, MEXICO??? This is craziness! Our own State Department is warning great caution in traveling to Mexico because of the drug cartel dangers. I have great admiration for, and faith in, our Secret Service, and frankly, I wouldn't go to Mexico unless I could get Secret Service protection... But think what a prize the daughter of the US President could be to the drug cartel thugs...They could have carte blanche if she was kidnapped...Why would you risk that kind of danger for your child, and the others accompanying her?

Perhaps the justification for her trip was that "normal" kids her age would get to go on such a trip...Maybe it is a school trip...details are lacking (which is safer for all the participants)...

My third point is that a member of the President's family must sometimes make sacrifices of what "normal kids" do because they fall into the category of "not normal kids". Most normal kids don't cost the tax-payers tens of thousands of dollars when they take a trip to Mexico. Most normal kids escapades in a foreign country don't have the potential to cause an international incident.

And, actually, if you want to be a "normal kid", there are likely many more of those whose parents would say: "You're not going." I can't think of another President who would have asked the taxpayers to foot the bill for a 13 year old's vacation. 

This, to me is unarguable evidence that the Obama's think of themselves as royalty more so than public servants.

Disgusting...

Trial by media...

Large organization takes action according to previously established guidelines.

Said action creates negative impact on a media/ liberal favorite.

Politically motivated media accuses organization of being A) politically motivated, B)racist, C)homophobic, D)chauvinistic, E)the 1%, F)a warmonger, G) anti-environmental, H)just plain mean, or I)any or all of the above.

There is an outcry from the people…according to the media.

Money is taken away from large organization, according to the media.

Large organization reverses now-controversial action and says they didn’t mean to be mean.

Large organization fires someone.

Everything is All Better. 

I fear we are becoming “America, the land of Perpetual Junior High”…