December 22nd, 2004
So I received a complimentary email, a lengthy guestbook entry by my sister, and an email response about my sister's comments. All three more-or-less sparked by my most recent rant. I admit, it was a good one.
But, to quote Arlo Guthrie: "I'm not proud ... "
" ... or tired ..."
* * *
While we're chewing the fat, here, let me ask you four questions.
* * *
OK, so not everything that falls out of my mouth is going to be fit to be framed, but here is something that I feel strangely compelled to rant about. It may seem minor to you, but it has been like the water torture over the years: I get more and more agitated by it.
I am talking about the direction that toilet paper rolls are inserted into their dispensers. Let me explain with diagrams.
(A) CORRECT ALIGNMENT:
(B) INCORRECT ALIGNMENT:
So, can you see the difference in toilet paper alignment between (A) and (B)? If not, let me clarify:
-
In (A), the loose end of the toilet paper is on the side of the user. This means that the person can easily reach out and grab the loose end, no matter how the roll has been turned by the previous user.
-
But in (B), the end is against the wall and away from the user. This means that it is possible that the end could get "lost" behind the back of the roll if there is not enough lead played out. Furthermore, it is more difficult to tear off sheets this way.
And you'll never guess from which source I first heard about this: Ed Asner.
You see, back in the mid 1980s sometime, National Lampoon magazine had an entire issue devoted to asking various famous and semi-famous people the question, "What bugs you?" Some responses were funny, some were very intelligent and thoughtful. Inevitably, some were completely self-absorbed and stupid (the category of "famous people" includes those mental-midget moth-to-the-flame morons known as "Hollywood actors" --and they are frequently as shallow as veneer and as dumb as doorknobs).
Ed Asner said a couple of things, one was about the toilet paper alignment issue I mention above.
The other thing that really bugged him was when television news cameras were shoved into the faces of grieving family members and asked pointless meaningless questions such as, "How do you feel about your son being crushed by the truck?" or "What would you say to the murderer if he was standing here right now?"
But, you know, people are a lot more camera-savvy now than in the 1980s, have you noticed? They no longer sit in front of cameras and awkwardly try to spontaneously compose some sensible heart-felt reply to such questions. Now they just reply with words and phrases they've heard on television or in Hollywood movies: "Uh, Timmy was the greatest little boy in the world, uh, everyone loved him, uh, I can't believe such a horrible thing has happened to us! Uh, and him," or (and I really heard this on the news by a woman about the man who murdered her daughter), "I want him ... I want him bad."
Good grief! The only people who say things like that are characters in Hollywood movies (written by not-very-mature 20-something writers, chosen for their age because such youth is easy to bully around by 40-, 50-, and 60-something directors).
And such things are also spoken by people who don't know what else to say when they are asked such embarrassing, awkward, uncomfortable, soul-sucking questions by news reporters who haven't got a clue what other kinds of questions to ask.
(They must have a little book somewhere that contains a list of such phrases: "What are you going to do now? ... How did you feel when [something horrible happened]? ... What do you want to say to [him/her/it]?") I can certainly identify with Ed Asner's complaint; I detest hearing reporters ask such questions as well. I wish they would just leave the people alone and let them grieve or worry or whatever in privacy where the cameras (and the rest of the world) cannot see them.
Another place where I've seen evidence of peoples' growing camera-ready lifestyles is on the television show, The Price is Right. I watched that show when I was a child whenever I was sick and stayed home from school, and then stopped watching it altogether when I hit my teen years. But then I was home sick from work a couple of years ago, and turned on TPIR out of boredom and curiosity.
Well, there was Bob in all his grey-haired glory still walking people through brightly-coloured, shiny loud TV-friendly games to win prizes. Hmm ... new models (though that's not surprising), but everything else seemed exactly the same ... except the people. Whereas they were awkward and somewhat giggly and shy in front of the cameras in the 1970s, they were loud, composed, gregarious, comfortable ... in short, the people were much more themselves in the aughts. (I call them the aughts, though I don't think too many people would know what I'm talking about, so: "The 2000s"--of course, I tend to lead popular culture in things like that by about 6 or 12 months, so it is quite possible [yes, this is a prediction] that people will be calling them "the aughts" by the end of 2005 ... we'll see ...)
Oops, I've gone off on a tangent again (what are the odds?)
Anyhow, I adjure you to remember, when placing toilet paper onto the roller and into the dispensers, to leave the loose end on the outside, towards the toilet, not against the wall where it is difficult to grab and tear.
Thank you for your continued support.
... and Merry Christmas, etc. ...