Apparently she doesn’t go to the bathroom. Why, you ask, does Sheryl Crow want there to be less toilet paper? Why to help the environment of course,
Singer Sheryl Crow has said a ban on using too much toilet paper should be introduced to help the environment.
Crow has suggested using “only one square per restroom visit, except, of course, on those pesky occasions where two to three could be required”.
Frankly I want to know how we can make all of humanity better by eliminating the need to..well errr eliminate like Sheryl Crow.
Another question that I have is exactly how would this be monitored and enforced? Will there be special toilet paper dispensers that measure one’s output and thus distributing the requisite square (or two or three)? Would there be a camera if people bring their own roll? Will there be a bathroom enforcement officer who will write tickets?
Of course, lets forget about the tractor trailers and buses that Sheryl Crow use while touring. Yes, little Ms. Green, who doesn’t take a dump, travels with three tractor trailers, four buses and six cars. Ahh the hypocrisy of the celebrity class.
Comments
21 responses to “Sheryl Crow Wants Limits on Toilet Paper”
Plus, she wants me to use my sleeve as a napkin. I would not want this chick touching me with her green cooties.
This lady is just a liberal. She had been anti-Bush since Day one.
My god. It’s like this blog has been transported to a freshman dorm room.
Pass the bong and call for another pizza, man. Them nanny staters aren’t gonna slap us down again.
I for one think that Ms. Crow is on to something.
The great TP wasters are women, who use tissue for both [No. 1] and [No. 2].
The male “shake” has saved COUNTLESS old-growth forests from obliteration. Men of the world, give each other a hand! –Just wash first.
Well thank God that Anderson can get into the spirit of the post. Sheesh Hal, grow a sense of humor.
I for one welcome the expansion of law enforcement into the realm of scatological monitoring. The revenue that these potty police could generate by serving up TP usage citations would surely pay for the administrative costs of this new program with enough left over to investigate other innovative ways to eliminate the need for any privacy in our society.
Um, slow news day Steve? : )
The un-funny part of this is, “If a celebrity hypocrite opens his or her yap to say this sort of stuff, and the MSM does not report on it, does the public at large even find out about it?”
No offense, Anderson, but I do not want to get that close to you, or any other guy…
Note to self: Never shake hands with Sheryl Crow. We may have a reason why have found the reason why Wes Clark got sick after shaking the hands of all those liberals.
No wonder Rove didn’t want to talk to that woman!
Steve, she is just a typical liberal, right up your alley.
M. Murcek’s point should be noted. As much as we complain about celebs grandstanding on global and national policy issues we should understand it is the press who amplifies that message to us. The supposed profession of journalism turns out to be less than professional by failing the people it is meant to serve.
Yes I frequently find myself thinking, “if only the MSM could spend a little more time telling me what various celebrities think.”
Oh wait…
Somewhere in this story there’s a line about “out of my cold, dead, …”.
Thanks, Anderson, I almost fried my computer after nearly spewing my coffee while reading your post.
That was brilliant (and so very true)!
And that’s also why he yelled at her “Don’t touch me!”
Excuse the pun, but does anyone give a crap what she says?
No doubt we can all cut back on use of paper products, but I don’t need a mediocre singer to tell me how to go about it.
Although I agree that Ms. Crow is wrong to promote this particular brand of coerced environmentalism, I would like to raise an objection to this sort of silly (and unfortunately, all too common) Republican talking point.
The idea that Ms. Crow should be required to give up her career before she can be allowed to say a word in favor of conservation is just wrong. She tours, therefore she necessarily will use plenty of fuel for transportation. It’s her job. Neither should John Edwards be asked to give up all of his earthly belongings or his expensive haircuts before he can advocate for the poor. He made his money. He can spend it however he likes.
I can’t help but feel that the folks who are so fond of bringing up these weak, ad-hominen hypocrisy charges are simply not willing or not able to make an effective argument to the issues.
The idea’s so crazy that Sheryl even got flack from Rosie O’Donnell over it. Altogether now, children, can we say, “Lunatic fringe?”
I can only imagine the arraignment hearing:
Judge: On the single count of using more squares than alloted, how do you plead?
Criminal: Innocent, Your Honor. It was the burrito I just ate…
Judge: That’s what they all say. Bail is set at $200,000. Next!
Who said anything about giving up her career? Oh yeah, not me.
She can use less. Six cars? Three buses? Please.
Of course, but this doesn’t change the fact that he, and Ms. Crow, are sanctimonious pricks. Edwards wants to do something for the poor? Sell his house, buy something much more modest and then donate the proceeds to various charities. Before he comes with the coercive power of the state, assuming he gets elected, demanding my money on the pain of punishment perhaps he should look to his own ginormous house.
It isn’t an ad-hominem. Crow and David feel that AGW is a serious issue, but instead of changing their lifestyles they want to force everybody else to change so that they can maintain their own. In short, pointing out hypocrisy is not an ad hominem.