Sheryl Crow: Use One Square of Toilet Paper
Tuesday, April 24, 2007 at 09:30AM 
Sheryl Crow - on her way to the loo?The batty diva Sheryl Crow is at it again in her Stop Global Warming Tour - as she gives a whole new slant to the term: Hollywood roll call. Here's Gary Bauer's take on Crow's latest 'think-tank' effort to prevent GW:
Pop singer Sheryl Crow had a busy weekend. Saturday night, Crow and Laurie David, a producer of Al Gore’s eco-fiction “An Inconvenient Truth,” decided to mix it up with Karl Rove over global warming at the annual White House Correspondents’ dinner. According to numerous press reports, Mr. Rove didn’t take too kindly to their interruption and heated words were exchanged. I’m willing to give Rove the benefit of the doubt, especially if Ms. Crow was attempting to explain her latest theory.
In an effort to save the planet, the environmentalist Left has devised a “brilliant” plan – ban toilet paper. No, I’m not making this up. Ms. Crow has been traveling the country on her “Stop Global Warming College Tour,” visiting our institutions of higher learning and preaching from the “Gospel according to Gore.” She has maintained a blog on her web site, and here is part of her entry from April 19th:
“I have spent the better part of this tour trying to come up with easy ways for us all to become a part of the solution to global warming. Although my ideas are in the earliest stages of development, they are, in my mind, worth investigating. …I propose a limitation be put on how many squares of toilet paper can be used in any one sitting. …I think 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.”
Given the source, it would be easy to dismiss such bizarre statements. (You may recall Crow once informed us that her foreign policy solution to terrorism and war was “not to have enemies.”) But, these folks are serious. Last month the New York Times ran a 2,200 word report entitled, “The Year Without Toilet Paper,” about a Manhattan couple that well, you get the point. Granted, Ms. Crow admits she’s only in the “earliest stages” of developing her thoughts, but I have wonder how she plans on enforcing this. Does she propose we start rationing toilet paper so you can buy only one roll a week? Should the government require metered dispensers in every bathroom assessing taxes on excessive square usage?
The fact that Sheryl Crow can indulge herself by pondering how much toilet paper we consume is a testament to the greatness of our country, and our extraordinary liberty and opportunity. At the same time, it demonstrates yet again just how out of touch Hollywood liberals are with Main Street, U.S.A., where most folks are more concerned about paying their bills, protecting their kids, and preserving our prosperity.
Surely Gary meant 'posterity'? In any event the suggestion is getting a deal of media attention including this "Have you seen my ass?" TV segment from Rosie O'Donnell on Barbara Walters' 'In View'. (Normally, I wouldn't waste any space on much that Rosie had to say on any issue, however, this time...she has a 'scientific' point to make!).
For the record Sheryl, I am already doing my bit to help clean up the environment - I religiously use only the The Guardian or the New York Times. (The downside is that I often want to use far more of them is absolutely necessary. Forgive me Al.)
With grateful thanks to Michael Claydon in Oz for the Gary Bauer take on this story.
View Printer Friendly Version
Email Article to Friend
Reader Comments (1)
This is a golden opportunity for an entrepreneur. Since Hollywood parasites and other high-life liberals will never decrease their usage, someone could make a fortune selling toilet paper credits. Liberals pay money to buy credits, which will then be used to pay third-world people to use less (or continue using no) toilet paper. Liberals both assuage their guilt at using wasteful toilet paper, and help increase the standard of living in other countries. Because all the money will go straight to the third world, just as it does with "carbon credits". Right?