Is It Time To Ban Thanksgiving?

With family on the way out to visit and the hectic nature of the holiday week, I decided that rather than attempt to come up with something especially fitting, amusing, and /or really original (well, as original as I'm able to anyway); I would instead attempt to blatantly plagiarize, repair, and update one  of my previous efforts on the subject to see if I could get away with it.  Since it's three years old, hopefully most of you will have forgotten about it (or never seen it) and find that it still resonates.  Be aware, before you go on, that considerable irony and sarcasm is awaits you in this effort! 

Thanksgiving will be celebrated again this week, as it is on the fourth Thursday in November every year. In theory, we will commemorate three days of feasting (which seems a bit over the top. by the way) by early colonists who arrived in to this country after voyaging nine weeks from Plymouth, England found themselves ending up in Plymouth, Massachusetts (many choose to call this a simply coincidence, but I'm still skeptical). Many died on the voyage over from disease and hunger, and more still in the winter that followed from much the same causes.  When spring of 1621 came however, with the help of the local indigenous population they planted what they could, and with the following fall's harvest chose to celebrate their good fortune.  Though we now repeat their celebration each year, it was a tradition they themselves never repeated. 

After almost 400 years and in this politically correct society however, the idea of maintaining holiday based on the one-time celebration by a bunch of white people seems doomed on the face of it (you know, like the 4th of July).  It only becomes slightly more palatable (pun intended) if we give them some credit for at least inviting some of the Native Americans who came to their aid and helped keep them alive in those early days to their party. (Of course, they probably made them bring most of the food.)  Consider if you will as well, that while neighboring Native Americans (the Waupanoag tribe) were largely the architects of this colony's survival and were invited to that original celebration; these same Native Americans were, like most others in this country, later chased from their homes and the greater part of their lands by the greed of the very colonists that they saved ... hardly something to commemorate with pride.  Only adding to the historic difficulty is finding reasons to celebrate the culture and traditions of the same people who would some 70 years later be giving us the sham trials and witch burnings in Salem, MA. 

Speaking of arcane rituals, Thanksgiving has always been considered a semi-religious holiday, since its original purpose for coming into being was to allow these colonists to thank their GOD for bringing them through the illness and privation from the previous year; and we know how popular religious holidays are in this country.  Adding insult to injury (much like the holiday that follows), the religious nature of this celebration involved thanking only a Christian God; specifically ignoring the practices of their Native-American guests, among others.  Quite frankly, it's amazing that there are not atheist groups across the fruited plain demanding that Pilgrim and Turkey displays on government property be taken down as violations of the separation of Church and State.  (I have more to say on this subject, but not here or today.)   How anyone can therefore consider continuing a national holiday with religious overtones that ignores the cultural and religious diversity that has become so dear to the progressive ruling elite of this country is simply beyond me. 

But if this typical, well-documented, and disgraceful treatment of an indigenous population by a white and European invading population were not enough to see this practice ended once and for all (that of bringing disease to the natives while stealing their land), consider instead the treatment of the main course of this so-called holiday ... the Turkey. Now Turkeys, for those of you who don't know your history, came very close to being the symbol of these United States. They were supported in this effort by no less Founding Father Benjamin Franklin, who considered the eagle as being little more than a dandified vulture. The turkey is not the brightest of birds (perhaps adding to its suitability as a national symbol according to today's standards), but it does have a couple of rather interesting traits.  Not only does it seek females for mating by showing them a their butt, but this bird is also know for being too fearless (or too stupid) for its own good to run away properly when being shot at (both seeming counter-intuitive to species survival by human standards).  

If this symbolic destruction were not enough, the Turkey menu of this national holiday exposes the public to a naturally narcotic substance (tryptophan), which often induces the need to sleep in humans. (Much like the speeches in the election season which immediately precedes it.)  This begs the question of how a caring government can allow the exposure of its citizens to such toxins (turkeys I mean, not politicians).  Of course alternatives have been offered over the years, but the slaughter of geese, ducks, or pigs (ham) can hardly be seen as much better and must be viewed as yet another example of the predilection for violence on the part of the American people (probably caused by video games).  And though one bird is pardoned each year by the President himself (two this year, but probably after the poor birds were water-boarded), it passes understanding that even PETA stands all but idly by as thousands of our animal friends are disposed of (probably inhumanely and after 'aggressive interrogation') in the name of a holiday supposedly devoted to supposedly "thanking" the very God that put these gentle creatures by killing them? 

I suppose that one might expect little more of something that was created as an official national holiday in 1863 by a man now considered a national political hero (and current movie star) President Abraham Lincoln (without recognizing that Lincoln was, after all, an evil Republican). The rampant gluttony and consumerism it exemplifies clearly shows it to be something typical of the party of capitalism's so-called champions.  Sure, the celebration of this holiday might stimulate a still mostly depressed airline industry by being the largest travel holiday of the year, but all of the travel involved makes it simultaneously the least green holiday in the nation through all the fossil fuels used for this purpose.  Sure it helps the bottom line of grocery stores and food preparation companies across the country, but this too is counter-balanced by the health-threatening calorie counts of the edibles put on the table.

In fact, one could demand the end of the Thanksgiving holiday for no other reason than the life-threatening caloric temptations that its meal offers.  Any minor compensation to the consumption of turkey over more deadly alternative of red meat is far outweighed (literally and figuratively) by the chemically induced somnolence that follows a morning dedicated to the idleness of endless parade watching followed by an epoch length period of pro football game broadcast observation.  Adding further insult to this injury to national health is that this awful excuse for a holiday has now been turned into the even more egregious  tradition of "Black Friday"; the opening day of greed and capitalism which begins the even more disgusting period of Christmas consumerism. 

We must therefore ask ourselves; what in the end is the Thanksgiving holiday in this country about.  The facts seem to indicate that like so much of what goes on in this country, it's nothing more than a celebration of racism, gluttony (not to mention obesity), the ingestion of potentially dangerous drugs, and the unwarranted murder of our fellow creatures. As such, it has no place in the caring, politically correct, and progressive society that we apparently long to become in this the 21st Century. And so I say to those of you choosing to celebrate this week with family and friends, gathering around a table to once more give thanks in 2012 (a year that may have less reasons than many for doing so):

"Save me one of those drumsticks, will ya?"
 

Happy Thanksgiving

Politcal Energy Policy

Both the Republican and Democratic National Conventions are over now. (Can I get a Hallelujah from the congregation?)  There were a number of things about them that I will undoubtedly talk about as time goes on, but one that stuck in my mind almost immediately had to do with the concept of Energy.  And not the kind that comes from fossils fuels, nuclear power plants, solar arrays, and wind turbines; though they'll be touched on in a roundabout way.

That after all, is what political conventions are really all about, isn't it?  The primary process in most cases picks the candidates before the conventions begin, and gathering the party faithful is designed to generate a little attention and excitement around those chosen party representatives. While the number of delegates for each state is predetermined by each party (Democrats choose more of their own than Republicans), the methods of choosing those delegates is largely left up to the states.  Without getting too far inside baseball here, I don't think that I'd get much argument by stating that those who make the final cut are those who've shown the most energy in working for the party in general and the candidates nominated in particular. (The Ron Paul campaign, almost managed to change a part of that, but its subversion was itself subverted after all arrived in Tampa.)  

The job of those delegates is to take the energy they possess down to the Convention, exhibit it in what is sometimes seen as an almost religious frenzy, and create even more by doing so.  They're then to bring that energy back to their respective states, share it with others of the faithful who were not permitted to attend, and use it to propel their candidate to final victory in the November elections.  While it's a process that's been used successfully for many years in this country, its very reason for being (Energy), may now be its downfall.

We live in a different world these days after all.  One in which we are all striving to be more conscious of our responsibilities to each other and to the planet we live on, more accepting of the diversity inherent in the human condition, and less concerned with the often competitive nature of everyday existence ....  (Sorry, a bit of an earlier meal attempted to come back on me after writing that last bit.)  One therefore has to wonder about the energy expended in a process that is about little more than a competitive spirit that we seem to have long since foresworn.

Cities compete (rather than simply participate) to host these political conventions.  Political parties compete to have bigger, flashier, and grander events than their counterparts.  Speakers compete for greater numbers of applause pauses, soundbites, and good reviews; while simultaneously competing to see who can generate the most energy in the faithful.  (I've heard that there's a side bet going on as to the volume of natural fertilize being generated, but no one will confess to it.)  If an actual floor fight is involved to get to a nomination, even more in the way of energy is expended in choosing between candidates who must be largely the same anyway in order to have reached this stage of the process.  Parties themselves compete for the bigger polling bump that their candidate can get from the convention process.  All of this energy generated and expended however, is nothing compared to the energy that these events consumed.

While both parties eventually get around to talking about their respective energy production policies in these club meetings, neither seems to get around to talking about the energy consumed by holding them in the first place.  We never hear about the carbon footprint of delegates flying into the host cities (let alone that of the corporate jets used by politicians, corporate sponsors, and lobbyists also attending).  We don't hear about what's consumed in convention halls, hotels, restaurants, and bars as party faithful, parasitic pundits and policy influencers (lobbyists), and power seekers burn the midnight oil and both ends of the candle during these events.  Neither does either party castigate the hundreds of mainstream media outlets, each of whom insists on bringing their own power-sucking cameras, generator requiring control trailers, and ponderous staffs to the event instead of following a more efficient policy of sharing and cooperation that often try to force down our throats where everything else in life is concerned.

No one talks about reducing the carbon dioxide expended (even though the EPA would like to limit it everywhere else) nor the hot air contributing to Global Warming that's generated each day on the convention floor. As each party's party closes in the traditional manner, do they stop to consider that in the thousands non bio-degradable balloons that they drop? Will any stop to ponder the environmental impact on landfills that so many rubber-chicken dinners will have, especially after they're piled on the Mt Everest size mound of discarded Starbucks coffee cups and plastic cocktail stirring sticks.  

Neither does any of this touch on the energy expended in vitriol by each major party for the other.  In spite of being largely and surprisingly in agreement on a wide variety of issues, they choose instead to focus 'negative' energy on those subjects on which they in some minor way disagree.  Using veiled threats, horrible misrepresentations, complete mischaracterizations, and shameful character assassinations they castigate each other in ways that would be considered rude and boorish under any other circumstances; while simultaneously extolling the desire for a future spirit of cooperation and compromise.

I cannot help but conclude therefore that while both may have some form of national energy policy, neither of the two major political parties appears to have a 'Political Energy Policy'.  Either that, or neither has one that's logically consistent with publicly stated goals and behavior of their members.  Not only do they appear to be extravagant and wasteful in the use of energy for their own selfish purposes (One which, by the way, is funded in some part by money earned through the expending of energy on the part of taxpayers.), but they seem hypocritical and deceitful in doing so in what should be considered an indecorous effort and an ill-mannered fashion. One could go further to say that such events are indecorous for promoting a spirit of competition that they are trying to stifle in every other aspect of our lives.  One could go so far as to call them politically incorrect for expending so much of what they constantly tell us are precious energy resources that must be carefully conserved in such partisan political events. 

In the spirit of full disclosure, I am obligated to point out that both parties do deserve some conservation credit for recycling candidates from past elections.

        

Kick The Can

It occurred to me this morning while reading the weekend edition of the Wall Street Journal that mine will probably be the last generation in this country to have actually played "Kick the Can".  (It also occurs to me now that giving the WSJ a plug will probably in no way encourage them to give me a discount on that subscription.  Oh well ...)  What does one have to do with the other? I'll bet some of you have already guessed.

Congress, it appears, is the only group now allowed to play this game; denying such opportunities to our youth.  Don't get me wrong.  Getting kids to play the game seems an unlikely prospect at best.  It's hard enough these days to get kids to go outside in the first place, let alone for the purpose of physical exercise; unless of course there's a chance that it will ultimately lead to a professional contract and big buck corporate sponsorships.  And let's face it, in spite of its similarity to game of soccer (football for those of you I know are reading outside the US); its likelihood of becoming the Olympic or professional sport of its higher visibility and equally low-scoring counterpart is about as likely as raising the Titanic this year on the anniversary of its sinking.

It's not that I mind that yet another vague memory of my past has disappeared.  Saturday morning cartoons (and not the androgynous PC crap that was on this morning), the large family gatherings that were possible when clans weren't scattered across the country, and the days when a million dollars was a lot and a trillion dollars was unthinkable are in fact memories that I treasure far more.  (I thought about adding 25 cent per gallon gas, but that memory is simply too painful to contemplate right now.)  What I actually object to is that like so many of the fond memories of my past, this is yet another that has been ruined by the tag team of government and the mainstream media.

The Senate fails to pass a budget in over 1000 days, in spite of the Constitutional mandate to do so, and it's just 'kicking the can' down the road a way.  Congress attempts to fix a Social Security System quickly going bankrupt by reducing the premiums that we pay into the program and are simply giving the foot to the real problem at hand.  The national debt goes up more in the last 3 years than it has in the previous 233 and our national legislature passes budget extensions (again kicking the can) that will only make it worse.  

Kicking the can has become a favorite sport in DC, and one that they are becoming increasingly good at; so good in fact that few even bother to complain when they are playing it instead of doing their jobs.  I wish however, that someone would just once stop punting this tiny receptacle down the road to the next generation (or until they're out of office) long enough to deal with its consequences ... before those consequences begin to deal with us (undoubtedly with a vengeance).

Yes I know that this is election year and that politicians are more concerned than ever about raising campaign money and greasing the palms of donors with a bit of drippings of pork barrel spending; but just once I'd like to see some of them work as hard at doing their job as they seem to be willing to do to keep it. Hell, I'd probably be content if a few of them took a night off from kissing babies and rubber chicken dinners to read the Constitution that they're supposed to protect and defend, or enough of the dictionary to discover that there's a difference between 'finding common ground' and 'compromise'.

While they're busy doing nothing but kicking the can down the road, they might see if they cold keep their grubby shoes off of some of the other cherished memories of my youth.  They need to call off the health cops and leave the peanut butter and jelly sandwiches, the cheese sandwiches, and the Fritos and Twinkies in my school lunch alone.  They can stop telling kids that they need to exercise, then tell them that they can't play tag, hide and seek, or any other game that might hurt the little crumb-crunchers self-esteem (more than likely as a belated revenge on the part of these narrow-shouldered, pencil neck geeks for not being chosen as kids to play in the first place).  They could stop making every companionable hug you give a friend in the schoolyard a case of sexual harassment; and speaking of sexual, they might want to consider leaving the subject of the sex of little Johnny's parents alone for a while at kindergarten (they probably think sex is kind of 'icky' at age 5 anyway). 


As a matter of fact, government might want to take a giant step back from children and games period.  While I'm not ready to call the federal government a pedophile, they do seem to be spending far too much time peeking over the fences of schools and into the windows of homes lately.  Such abhorrent and aberrant behavior in anyone else would call for investigation by the proper authorities.  (Which would leave the government investigating itself, something that it finds itself doing far too often these days.)  

Quite frankly, the whole thing has me to a point where I'd like to kick a little can myself in DC, if I wasn't so sure that such action would be quickly followed by a visit from the FBI, Secret Service, or Department of Homeland Security that required them to take me to a quiet room (perhaps in Gitmo) to discuss my interest in these games of my youth.  (I would be willing to settle for a brisk game of Dodgeball instead, but my sense is that the listed federal agencies would find this an equally unsuitable substitute.)   I'm tired of politicians being the only ones able to play kid's games in this country, and all but dooming my offspring (and my offspring's offspring) by doing so, when they're supposed to be doing the job we elected them for.  I'm sick and tired of paying them an exorbitant salary for sitting with their thumbs up their rectums and telling everyone that will listen that their little bottom hurts from the hard work that they're doing, while the world goes to hell in large part because of their games.

You know, in spite of my dire predictions, the future may ultimately prove me to be wrong.  (I know, you're shocked that I could admit such a thing.)  Perhaps Wii or X-box will develop an electronic kinect version of "Kick the Can" one of these days.  Of course in order to get the attention of today's youthful audience, it will probably involve kicking a can of toxic nuclear waste through a minefield while Middle East terrorists shoot at you with assault rifles and grenade launchers, all while a group of zombies rises up out of the killing field and tries to prevent you from completing your mission by eating you; but it will at least still be Kick the Can. 

This Constitution Has Been Sanitized For Your Protection

When I wrote Saturday about the attempts of New South Books to sanitize the "The Adventures of Huckleberry Finn", I'm sure that the implication was that I was making an attempt to take a swipe at another left-wing effort to sanitize society and ruin a classic piece of literature (and perhaps I was). While focusing a laser-like attention on this particular bit of odious behavior however, I missed it when both sides of the political aisle were showing similar spinal degeneration in Washington DC. 


How else can one explain that I managed to overlook the lack of intestinal fortitude of the 'New Right' in Congress when reading the document that they swore to "support and defend" when taking their oath of office. Demonstrating that even the most noble of efforts can be blemished by the desire not to offend, Congress chose to 'Huckleberry' (a term I'm sure will become part of the popular lexicon in the coming days) the Constitution, and read only the 'Constitution-as-amended' in order to prevent such a potential affront. For those who missed it, the following text from Article 1, Section 2 (among others) was glaringly omitted:  


"Representatives and direct Taxes shall be apportioned among the several States which may be included within this Union, according to their respective Numbers, which shall be determined by adding to the whole Number of free Persons, including those bound to Service for a Term of Years, and excluding Indians not taxed, three-fifths of all other Persons." 


In other words, as in New South Book's interpretation of Twain's novel, Native Americans and African Americans were pointedly slighted in the original writing by not being fully counted when deciding on the number of Representatives in Congress or the dispersion of taxes to the respective States in this founding document. 


We could debate endlessly on the injustice of slavery (indentured and otherwise), and the unjust treatment of Native Americans in this country's early days; and why neither was dealt with in either the Articles of Confederation or the Constitution. The intent of the Framers as to the language in this Article was pretty clear however. There was a great deal of concern at the time that by fully counting slaves for the purposes of apportioning representation, a disproportionate number of representatives in the national legislature would be held by southern States. This would not only give these States undue influence in the national government, but would effectively stifle any future efforts to end the slavery most were against. 


Instead of using this as a teaching moment, Congress chose to miss an opportunity to point out through reading the unadulterated version of the Constitution, one of the great strengths that this document possesses. Doing so would have shown that the Founders understood their own potential fallibility. That being men of their time, they understood that they could not foresee every wrong to be righted or injustice committed (intentionally or unintentionally); and must therefore put in place a method to change or Amend this document. In the case of problems presented by Article 1, Section 2, this was accomplished in Section 2 of the 14th Amendment (passed in 1868). 


I know that if the Constitution had been read in its entirety, that the focus of some of the media 'talking heads' would invariably have been only on the offensive nature of some of these original sections and on the history of injustice in this country. I likewise know that we seem to have little else else to discuss when it comes to the Founders. I would rather that such discussions took place however, than that we attempt to hide not only from our past imperfection, but from the willingness and ability to change. 


For many years in my days of travel across the country, I was confronted nightly by a porcelain fixture and a band of paper. Apparently I was supposed to be reassured that regardless of whether the rest of the room had been properly cleaned or not, I should be comforted by the fact that the toilet had been sanitized. While this notification procedure has long since disappeared, it seemed a harmless enough conceit where a hotel room is concerned. I am far less comforted however, when we attempt to perform the same function to the document defining the limits of government in this country by those who supposedly serve it. We may in fact choose to sanitize the Constitution for public use, but I for one, feel far from protected as a consequence.

Not Your Huckleberry

New South Books (a name apparently designed to send us a message as to its intentions) has decided as an example that the use of the 'N-word' in "The Adventures of Huckleberry Finn" is offensive; and has decided to edit this Mark Twain classic, substituting the word 'slave' instead. The fact that the 'N-word' is in fact considered offensive because it implies a concept more in keeping with slavery has to make one wonder why the word Twain used is more offensive than the actual word that NSB will use. In the spirit of multiculturalism, NSB also found the term 'injun' offensive. 


Such is the nature of political correctness in the modern age. Perhaps instead, we should all find the concept of editing historic literature to the politically correct standards of today something even more offensive. If not, we must otherwise ask ourselves what other novels of that historic period (or others) we should go back and rewrite in order to bring them up to a more considerate and compassionate standard? Shakespeare talks about spousal abuse in "The Taming of the Shrew". Should the plot be modified to describe the relationship instead as one of two people quietly discussing their differences before finding common ground? "The Handmaid's Tale" from 1986 by Margaret Atwood describes every form of abasement that a woman can be subjected to. Should we sanitize it (leaving little left), or better still, ban it in an effort to fit today's code? 


But what the heck, if we're going to take the trip down the crazy road, let's not stop with changing pieces of literature ... The Old Testament of the Bible tells us how to sell one's daughter into the slavery that seems to be objectionable in Twain's novel, "And if a man sell his daughter to be a maidservant, she shall not go out as the menservants do." Leviticus 21:9 goes further perhaps, giving us guidelines for capital punishment (or perhaps even murder) for those committing adultery, "If a man commits adultery with another man's wife ... with the wife of his neighbor ... both the adulterer and adulteress must be put to death."

Certainly these are not the only potentially objectionable passages from this holy book, and most assuredly not the only questionable excerpts that could be taken from the combined religious texts of the world today. What should the standard be for which terms or concepts are offensive and which books should be changed to fit a more modern sensibility? 


You know, this discussion came up some years back on a much smaller scale when many wide screen movies were adapted to viewing on television. Since movies filmed in processes like VistaVision, Panavision, and Cinemascope did not fit the 'small screen', people were hired to crop the frame in order to make them do so. As many movie directors have since pointed out, this allowed these editors to substitute their vision for the director's point of view. Often in fact, the visual scope or message that the director of these films was trying to convey (or both) was lost through this editing processes. 


Recent years have seen calmer head prevail and these misguided efforts rightfully retracted; and though wide screen movies often now more closely fit the aspect ratios of current flat panel televisions, channels that show movies filmed in wide screen formats choose to show them in their original form whether they fit or not. 


The same standard should be applied to the printed page, and for the same reasons. There is no way that current editors can make changes to these works without changing both the authors art and intent. Poor and politically incorrect language was used because it was common parlance of the time. It speaks to the sensibilities of the era as much as it does to the nature of the story. It sometimes speaks to the biases of the writer, an element critical to understanding the intent of the story. Without the proper historical perspective, it's impossible to understand what the author was conveying to his audience (and if history is to be any judge, pretty successfully). 


The writing of Mark Twain is well worth the effort of young people to read regardless of its purported faults; both from the standpoint of well-written literature and from its ability to describe a historical perspective on the life of the times. 


There are likewise many other good pieces of literature of a fictional or religious nature that contain questionable terms and concepts, and yet remain worthy of the effort of reading. It may mean that the teachers who direct their students to them may need to do a bit of explanation as to some of the questionable material contained therein; but that after all, is a large part of the job of teaching. In fact, helping students to gain an understanding of the complexity of such material may be the most gratifying part of such a career. As for those who seek to redefine Twain or any other classic literature, let me mix the metaphor and paraphrase something said in a more recent cinematic effort, "Tombstone". As far as this Doc Holliday is concerned, its time to tell the New South Books version of Johnny Ringo:

"This isn't your Huckleberry."

Update: I appear to not be alone in choosing this as a subject this weekend, and there is an excellent piece at Mad Jack's Shack Rant on it.

Quote of the Day

I received this as a forwarded email message, and thought that it was definitely worth sharing with you. As the story goes, this was a contest winner from Texas A and M University at coming up with the most appropriate definition of a contemporary term.  

"Political Correctness is a doctrine, fostered by delusional, illogical minority, and rabidly promoted by an unscrupulous mainstream media, which holds forth the proposition that it is entirely possible to pick up a turd by the clean end." 

Not My Bag Man

I decided to turn my thoughts this weekend to the containers with which we bring goods home from the store this weekend. There seems to be a growing furor over these containers, and I thought that it might be interesting to take a look back before looking forward.

Growing up as a kid in the far south suburbs of Chicago, we used to get our groceries bagged up in brown paper bags. It was all an interesting ballet performed by professional "baggers", who gracefully and magically always seemed to pick the right item from the belt to fit into this humble shipping container. With the square base of these paper shopping bags, it even often became possible to stack layers of cans or boxes inside them almost to the brim, and if the items were potentially too heavy for the strength of the paper, "double bagging" (nesting one paper bag inside of the other) quickly solved the problem. Once emptied, these containers remained useful as everything from temporary storage containers to tinder for the charcoal grill or fireplace.

The burgeoning environmental movement of the time reared its ugly head however, and insisted that we move away from containers made from paper. Paper after all, was made from trees and it was environmentally unsound for us to cut down trees simply to make paper bags. The fact that trees are both a biodegradable and a renewable resource did not seem to occur to these so-called planetary guardians, but that seemed beside the point. Paper bags must go!

Enter the plastic bag. Made of a recyclable plastic, this new container was to provide the ecologically friendly answer to grocery transport. Of course they didn't hold as much as the old paper standby, had greater weight restrictions, and were nearly impossible to sensibly place items in; but according to the experts they were more environmentally friendly, so we simply adjusted. Those of us with some level of social consciousness even faithfully stored the empty bags and took them back to the grocery store so that they could in fact be recycled. This was easy, since unlike their paper predecessors they were useless beyond their originally intended purpose, so parting with them was not a problem.

Never content with the sacrifice made by their fellow man in service of Mother Nature, the environmental movement reared its ugly head again however. This time they demanded that we do away with the plastic bags. It seems that not every human being was as environmentally conscious as is necessary, and many of the recyclable bags were in fact not being recycled. In addition, plastic bags were made from plastic! Plastic of course is a petroleum product (oil), and everything made of oil is evil in the environmental movement. Plastic bags must go!

The demand then came for us to switch from the free plastic bags that the store provided to cotton, canvas, or hemp bags that we would have to purchase and carry to the store with us when we shopped. We were told that the materials that these new Eco-friendly bags were made were bio-degradable and the bags themselves could be used over and over again, and for multiple purposes (you know, like paper).

News soon reached us however that these bags, though eco-friendly could be a health hazard. Carrying groceries like fresh fruits, vegetables, or even meats whose juices were leaking, would permit these new containers to become contaminated. Once contaminated, they could then transfer unhealthy bacteria either to any new foods placed into them, or directly to people using them through physical contact. Canvas bags must therefore go!

Jump to the Present...

The environmental movement is now saying that plastic bag manufacture should be banned because of the contamination of landfills, of life in the wild in general, and of the oceans as well as they break down and are consumed by sea life. So we can't use the plastic Eco-friendly bags, since in spite of their original designation, they are destroying the environment. We likewise can't use the canvas Eco-friendly bags unless we sterilize them like medical instruments or throw them away after every use (rather impractical after spending so much money for them). We further still can't use paper bags as they are the original bad guys in this whole process, with the guilt of millions of dead trees attached to them. Well, I guess we will just have to carry our groceries home by the armload or buy them by the handful.

Au contraire mon ami (that's French). It's time to ignore the eco-friendly, politically correct bullshit and do what we know is right. I don't know about you, but as for me, I'm going back to the paper bags. Not only were they always the best way to carry groceries, but I have a certain secondary use in mind as well. 

I plan to cut a couple of eye holes in one and wear it over my head in embarrassment for believing the eco-crap that the environmental movement has been handing out for all of those years. Never again!

TFP Column: DDT or PC, Which Kills More?

This week's effort for the Toledo Free Press has to do with the law of unintended consequences where Government regulation is concerned.  It's hard enough for scientist to understand the effects of using or not using the technology available to them.  Add government, with its lobbyists, special interest groups, and lack of thinking beyond the next election and you have a recipe for disaster.

It is in this light that I look back at DDT and Political Correctness, and the impact that the latter had on the former in "DDT or PC, Which Kills More?"  I hope that if nothing else, it stirs some discussion.

Of course there's much more going on in Toledo that will do that, and you'll only know about it if you take some time to read the Toledo Free Press.

Politically Correct

Having described myself in the past as politically incorrect, I realized that such a claim would be unsubstantiated unless I could properly define Political correctness. Fortunately, I recently received some information that can do just that, and I decided to share it with you. Political correctness can be defined as anyone who believes the following:

• Kentuckians, Tennesseans, and West Virginians will no longer be referred to as Hillbillies, but as "Appalachian-Americans" instead.
• Bad male dancers will no longer be called so, but will instead be called "Overly Caucasian".
• Men will no longer be referred to as "Getting Lost while driving", but instead be said to be "exploring alternate destinations".
• Women will no longer be called "of easy virtue", but will instead be referred to as "Horizontally Accessible".
• The term "Dumb Blonde" will no longer be acceptable. "Light-haired detour on the information Super Highway" will be used instead.
• Overweight men will no longer be said to have a "Beer Gut". This condition will instead be referred to as a "Liquid Grain Storage Facility Condition".
• You can no longer refer to someone as a "Two Bit Hooker", but must instead refer to them as a "Low Cost Service Provider".
• A man's receding hairline can no longer be referred "Balding", but should instead be referred to as suffering from "Follicle Regression".
• A person no longer has "Their Head Up Their Ass", but instead is suffering from "Cranial / Rectal Inversion".

Go ahead and admit it, you were laughing, weren't you. Are these tasteless? Probably. Are they ridiculous? Perhaps not as much as you think. Is it sad that this is the world we have created with this nonsense? Definitely.