Rambling Rhodes

All I Wanna Do, Is Write About Poo

In case you didn’t hear about it, or read about it, or aliens neglected to broadcast it into your brain, singer Sheryl Crow recently put her thinkerator (a.k.a. Her Brain) into high gear to address the world threatening apocalypse of global climate change (a.k.a. Global Warming). Her conclusion?

“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.”

At this point I feel I should point out, for me, “pesky occasions” can occur two or even three times a day, and let me tell you, two to three squares simply won’t, CAN’T, get the job done.

There’s some debate raging on the Internet—where raging debate tends to go on all the time, no matter how trivial the topic—about whether Crow was joking or not. And for a woman who once crooned “if it makes you happy, it can’t be that baa-aaa-aad,” I think there’s probably a good case to be made she was joking about limiting toilet paper usage, because if there’s one thing that makes me happy, it’s an adequately swabbed backside.

Nevertheless, an idea is an idea is an idea. And, because I eagerly embrace any excuse to dedicate this ThunderJournal to potty talk, I decided to take Ms. Crow’s idea, joking or not, and expand upon it, at least as it applies to the bathroom.

For starters, as long as we’re talking about conservation here, I’ve always been a strong advocate of the philosophy, “if it’s yellow, let it mellow; if it’s brown, send it down.” Or, as Ms. Crow might say, “if there’s no paper, let it taper; if there be squares, flush with prayers.” Just holding off from flushing three or four times a day could save all sorts of water, according to a prestigious study conducted just now inside my head. And, as we all know, conserving water saves polar bears.

Continuing on the water conservation theme, I think it’s well past time to address the wasteful practice of hand washing. I mean, COME ON! Be honest; if you’re the only one in a bathroom, you don’t wash your hands anyway. You only wash your hands if there are other people in the bathroom so you don’t look like “that person.” You can admit it. I can’t be the only one. Can I? Never mind. Hand washing should be done away with, regardless, except in particularly “pesky” multi-square instances. According to another prestigious study conducted by my brain, doing away with most hand washing could save, roughly, 48 polar bears.

All of which of course brings me to showering. Is the full body immersion showering practice really necessary? Shouldn’t we just be showering those parts of the body that really need it? For instance, why is there so much emphasis on washing the shoulders in all those body wash and soap commercials? Are the shoulders really that filthy? During a typical day, my shoulders are called into action maybe four or five times. They’re not sweat factories. Mostly, my shoulders function as a staging area for shirt sleeves, which isn’t all that labor-intensive; heck clothes hangers perform the task effortlessly.

Showering, in my opinion, should be limited to the feet, the armpits, the groin and—particularly in view of Ms. Crow’s toilet paper square limit—the behind. We need to scale back our showering considerably, in our quest for water conservation. By way of example, according to yet another prestigious study conducted by my brain, nearly 68 polar bears have been saved so far thanks to France’s self-imposed moratorium on showering. Think about it.

Yes, together, we can save the entire polar bear population, but only with our unspeakably filthy hands raised in unity!

Posted by Ryan at April 24, 2007 12:57 PM | TrackBack